Their gamble of... not having a new AAA game for a year?
The thoroughly debunked rumors?
Can you show me where Sony made PlayStation Productions the cornerstone of their PS5 reveal?
It's almost as if you're deliberately removing key context to pretend you have a point.
Yes, because an open market will totally be more expensive than a proprietary solution.
No, actually,. A good number of backers paid for there to be a PlayStation version via crowdfunding. The only legal way that doesn't happen is if MS repays every backer their full amount.
I think people forget this was a crowdfunded game.
Both companies could. lol
I really don't, as I really don't care about E3 anymore. It's a shell of what it used to be, and the ESA is full of clowns.
@chief there are literally Series S consoles still sitting on shelves. Xbox has had more supply over the last month, there's no denying that as a factor.
Pachter is a firm believer in the idea that so long as he keeps repeating something over and over, the law of averages dictates it will eventually be right.
Because Game Pass isn't the only way they're threatening it. They have HEAVY DRM on their games, even the physical ones. PlayStation does not. Nintendo, ironically, does not. Their "backwards compatibility" entirely depends on servers remaining up and connectivity to download and play. Their "Smart Delivery" essentially turned discs into mere licenses for game downloads.
MS has basically taken their 2013 DRM approach and rebranded it, and people ...
@Lightning77
No, MS getting Tomb Raider as a Timed Exclusive wasn't frowned upon. It was the way they handled it. First, they waited til after it was announced as in development. Second, they then went ahead and made this deal VERY shortly before Gamescom, to the point that even the Sony execs had said that as recently as the day before it was still supposed to come to their system. Third, they deliberately tried to play coy and be vague about the exclusivity being time...
Would you believe the word of a group of people who have been very, very vocal about game preservation and even drew attention to the PS4 CMOS issue?
https://twitter.com/DoesItP...
https://twitter.com/JonDoyl...
Every time I see a game announced as leaving Game Pass, I almost never see people say "Oh shoot! I should go buy it so I can keep playing!" I do, however, very often see them say "Oh shoot, I better hurry up and finish it before it leaves!"
But really, that's just what services like that do. A lot of people will easily pass on buying a game knowing they can stream it for a perceived cost of "Free".
I looked at them specs and uh...
...someone fibbin' here.
It's not gonna "threaten" anyone. It'll be its own thing, it'll be more niche than the rest but won't be a flop, everyone needs to chill.
Also can't help but remember when people thought Steam Machines and even the Ouya were supposedly a threat to the PS4 and Xbox One. That sure panned out.
They let a studio known for Platformers tackle Spider-Man and a studio known only for FPS games tackle a massive open-world action game, to say nothing of completely reworking God of War, allowing a dev who had mostly been working on handhelds tackle a massive post-apocalyptic AAA title, funding Kojima's new studio and giving him access to first-party resources, and letting Druckmann take a very controversial, very risky turn with his story in TLOU II.
But you're ri...
Phil was the one who said single-player games weren't relevant anymore, and they're only shifting back to that after market trends have shown that there is still STRONG interest in them.
That's not a risk.
Incorrect. According to Crystal Dynamics, Sony paid for the Spider-Man DLC to even be made.
I remember when a lot of the Nintendo crowd would argue that Sony and Microsoft releasing mid-gen refreshes that offered actual significant performance boosts were anti-consumer.
Yet somehow it's not shocking to see them defend this.
There's literally a dust chamber, fam.