Hello gamers, I have come across some interesting news regarding the PS3. Late last night I fired up my PS3 to use the browser, and right away this screen caught my attention.
So I clicked on it and it asked me to fill out a survey in regards to how often I use the web browser on the PS3 (which I do use regularly). The survey itself wasn't really long, about 5 or 6 questions later I was staring at what appears to be a new portal for the PS3.
Visit PlayStation Stars on PlayStation App for the latest campaigns.
The program has been incredibly popular, some of the collectables are pretty cool too. I like the ones for classic PlayStation hardware that you owned like the exact PS3 models you had VITA PSP PS4 models, as well as characters from games that you often get from the "Hard Game Challenge" are pretty fun too.
Hopefully they add it to the PS5 dashboard, apparently it's in the works.
Hey there, PlayStation Stars members! As we enter the month of August, get ready for a fresh wave of campaigns. We’ll have challenges lined up to test your skills, reward your efforts, and add unique digital collectibles to your collection. Be sure to stay connected through PlayStation App for the latest updates and surprises. Without further ado, let’s jump right into the campaign lineup awaiting you this August.
Sony and Microsoft have responded to the CMA's revised findings with Sony citing Redfall's Harvey Smith about the cancelled PS5 version.
Sony: "If PlayStation received a degraded version of Call of Duty, it would "seriously damage our reputation. Our gamers would desert our platform in droves and network effects would exacerbate the problem. Our business would never recover."
Wow Sony just admitted that their 1st party titles are meaningless to the success of the platform, so much for exclusives matter lol.
MS will literally have the existence of the Playstation brand in the palm of their hand if Sony is being truthful.
CoD is 10% of their annual revenue and similarly so for Xbox. If gamers move elsewhere for CoD, the biggest game out there, then they will also buy other third parties elsewhere.
Zero platforms survive on exclusives and rely primarily on third party titles (even Nintendo).
Losing a huge portion of your revenue stream means you can't compete as well and your competition gains what you lose.
This isn't rocket science. Why are you acting like you've figured out some sort of gotcha moment when saying exclusives matter isn't the same as saying they determine the profitability of your company.
The problem is that CoD is too big of a game and people are acting like it isn't. It is the juggernaut in the industry. It is the Usain Bolt of video games, no one is catching up to it and it keeps running.
I am just quoting Sony if you think they are lying that's up to you to believe that.
You're miscontextualizing their quote, not quoting them. You're essentially saying that someone that says they prefer hamburgers will never eat pizza. They never said what you said, which is that exclusives are all that matter.
"Zero platforms survive on exclusives and rely primarily on third party titles (even Nintendo)."
Not true. Nintendo´s Switch TOP 20 best selling games is literally made of Nintendo´s first party games ONLY. Check your facts.
So yes, unlike Sony and Microsoft, Nintendo relies on their first party first and foremost to survive.
Jim Ryan´s statements is just stupid and irresponsible. Playstation ain´t going nowhere with or without COD, all he´s doing is downplaying Playstation first party games and developers every time he opens his mouth by calling COD the holy grail of games.
***Why would they move if the game is still on PS5?***
Did you miss the first part of sparky77's quote? "If PlayStation received a degraded version of Call of Duty, it would "seriously damage our reputation."
I'm replying to sparky, not the title of the submission.
***Not true. Nintendo´s Switch TOP 20 best selling games is literally made of Nintendo´s first party games ONLY. Check your facts.***
Guarantee fortnite and Minecraft make more money than any of those best selling games. Being best selling doesn't mean saving the entirety of the platform. Those are also the titles that cost Nintendo the most to put out. Third parties are literally w/o any production/manufacturing costs. Just a percentage of sales, including MTX/DLC.
Obscure, Jim's not downplaying anything. He's stating that if Microsoft takes away 10 percent of their revenue that comes from cod, that extra money they make to use on creating first party games, getting exclusives from third parties, investing in indie developers, releasing innovative hardware like PS VR 2 would be lost because of Microsoft's monopolization of publishers and franchises.
You can't just quickly recover from a big portion of your money being taken away. Microsoft could easily recover because Daddy Warbucks is footing the bill of a loss leading platform. Sony's PlayStation platform makes money on its own.
But you guys want to make it seem he's saying that internal games are worthless. Which isn't the case. And Sony's teams know that. They know what it means as well to lose money to create games besides from exclusively created game revenue.
Because they don't have arguments. They want to put under the rug the impact of Cod. So they are tryng to say it's just Cod.... For me it's the Cristiano Ronaldo or Messi of videogaming. Every year means billions. No other game does this. Fact
"Guarantee fortnite and Minecraft make more money than any of those best selling games. Being best selling doesn't mean saving the entirety of the platform."
And guarantee that you won´t see Nintendo crying over the possible loss of any of those.
Nintendo always had and will continue to rely on themselves, period! They never needed some third party GaaS games to survive and never will.
@Obscure I'm pretty sure the WiiU pretty much failed because they made it difficult for third parties to put games on the console
***And guarantee that you won´t see Nintendo crying over the possible loss of any of those.***
I think you'd be surprised.
***Nintendo absolutely doesn't not primarily rely on third party titles.***
I guarantee the majority of Nintendo's profits from gaming comes from third-parties. People forget how much it costs to make your own content and how that eats into profits compared to the 30% off of other people's work.
So a lot of people have commented on Sony receiving an inferior version of the game. It seems that most people on here haven’t read or heard of the remedies/concessions MS bound itself to.
The biggest of which is an independent oversight committee that is paid for by MS and its members chosen by the government agencies. Their job will involve ensuring parity on quality and content. They will have the power to stop the game releasing on all platforms if the standards are not met.
So all the fuss over an inferior version is mute.
Well said.
To add on, obviously Sony is going to push this sentiment just as MS pushed the fact that Sony is dominant and they can not compete with them. Each company will play to the legislative powers and appear more weak and vulnerable than they are in an attempt to sway the results. For ppl to use either as a "gotcha" moment is ignorant.
While both are technically true, Sony's reliance on CoD and Xbox being less successful than PlayStation, each company is embellishing their particular ssentiment.
Obscure_Observer
"PlayStation ain't going nowhere with or without CoD"
I'm sorry but this guy depicts the worst of fanboy culture. I'm bias to a degree. I have preferences and i pull for a particular platform more than others bc i enjoy that product more. However, the inability to give any credit or at least be realistic about the opposition is weak.
Are you insinuating that PlayStation isn't or won't be successful in the future? They are dominating. PS5 projections are outlandish. They are breaking revenue records. Demand is insane. They are pushing more hardware, software, and studios than ever. Your agenda is so bluntly obvious and weak. Yeah, PlayStation is clearly struggling and has no future. Ppl who live by the "wait til next year" mentality do so bc they are failing in current day.
@zekk
"I'm pretty sure the WiiU pretty much failed because they made it difficult for third parties to put games on the console"
All the way wrong, couldn't be anymore wrong if you tried. See Wii U had Watch Dogs, NFS and even Batman: Arkham Asylum (or some other Arkham game) and at least one or two CoD games, but it sold less units than PS Vita (which had some version of CoD that was poorly received)...
Nintendo really might be fine without third parties until we consider Pokémon. Without Pokémon Nintendo might really be hurting, as far as I'm aware it actually is a third party game, Game Freak and The Pokémon Company can pull their support for Nintendo and Pokémon revenue disappears... even so Nintendo games are some of the best selling out there and more often than not these days they include MTX and/or subs to unlock things or to play at all like Splatoon does.
We’ll yeah call of duty is a very important game in the industry probably the most important one right now. So not surprising they think that it’s the truth. It moved consoles and gives them a lot of money so they obviously don’t want Microsoft in control of that.
But on topic I guess it’s good Microsoft never promised anyone that they wouldn’t make Bethesda games exclusives so they are doing nothing wrong. If that was a stipulation for buying Bethesda then okay I get it but it wasn’t.
Supposedly it was said by ms that whatever was in development for ps would still be put out. Therefore shutting down development of said game by ms was a bs move. Pretty sure that's it
@Sonic
Great suggestion! Only problem is they would need to think. So.... seems unlikely.
You also forget that all Cod players buy Playstation Plus.
That is also a huge financial hit if those players switch platform.
Finally... In some way you finally get it. Yes their monopolistic to tendencies are fatal for other companies...hence why the deal shouldn't go through...and as Christopher said....you're also misrepresenting their quote.
Sparky, i truly trying to figure out why you care so much act like Sony is the bad guy here for trying make this multiplatform publisher stay independent and making games for every one
I hope you have this strength when Sony is doing the same and i hope to see you defend the decision when buy big publishers like Capcom and Square Enix or From Software etc etc
Sony: "If PlayStation received a degraded version of Call of Duty, it would "seriously damage our reputation. Our gamers would desert our platform in droves and network effects would exacerbate the problem. Our business would never recover."
But we have no issue with giving a degraded PC version of our game or paying to ensure that the PS4 version of COD has exclusives features
As we said in the past PLaystation is the home of Call of Duty
Hey lets just take everything out of context and present it as fact, truly emulating Phil and MS!
I actually fear the damage Microsoft would moreso do to the gaming sector than Sony would, Microsoft is just throwing money around to buy themselves a monopoly, truely cancerous behavior.
And I'm had much more quality experiences with Sony than I ever have with Xbox.
Just like MS admitted they are getting dominated by Sony and have no chance to compete. Read between the lines. Each company will make themselves appear weak or vulnerable in an attempt to influence legislation. Stop with the bs. I seriously wonder if ppl are naive or just pushing their agenda.
COD is too big an IP to be handled by 1 company and COD fans will move to xbox easily.
Highly doubt that unless someone bought a PS solely to play COD otherwise PS fans,loyalist & owners will continue to support the PS platform.
Again...the lack of brain activity is incredible.
Yes! There are many who buy a console based on what other are purchasing and aren't entirely loyal to one brand. They will easily move if one of their biggest games goes to another platform. Heck I already know a few individuals purchasing Xbox over PlayStation because of starfield. They were originally going to purchase PlayStation but when I told them about starfield exclusivity...of which they had no idea...they changed their mind on which to purchase.
@crows Having a lack of brain activity is incredible. It seems you don't know what fans & loyal customers mean. Most loyal customers & fans of PS do not own a PS console solely to play COD though you may have some casuals that buy a PS console to play COD only with their casual friends that only play COD. I play COD but I only play the campaign then I'm done with it. I've bought all generations of PS consoles & it wasn't to play COD & I'm quite sure there are millions of PS owners that have the same mindset. That's a ridiculous notion to think PS fans & loyalists will drop PS if it was exclusive to XB. They would play it on PC, finally buy an XB alongside their PS or they won't bother to play COD at all.
Nintendo doesn't care. Look at the sales of Nintendo without Cod... If they wanted activision would be jumping at their door. Streaming... No words... Pc got lackluster sales. Let's see what will haopend
If the case then why is COD back on Steam instead of just Battle.net?
Or how come EA games are back on Steam too?
Surely it's cheaper and easier to install a FREE launcher compare to buying a 500$ console + subscription.
@Badz
I'm pretty sure that Steam users do own a PC.
So again my question Why did Blizzard Activision or EA decide to come back to Steam when it's free to install Battle.net or EA Origin?
Crows90, PS is still getting Call of duty. The only changes are so are Nintendo and Gamepass.
All Ms gotta say is look at Stellar Blade it was announced for Xbox in the trailer and it not all the suddenly.
Street Fighter 5 your honor the previous Street Fighter 4 was on all consoles and was best played on Xbox for Evo tournament and Sony paid Capcom a huge amount of $$$ to skip Xbox and Nintendo for a whole generation.
@343, don't be ignorant get informed. Capcom was in bad shape back then and would not have made street fighter 5 but for Sony funding the game and publishing it. Capcom since then has recovered financially and therefore sf6 has returned to being multiplatform. Doesn't matter xbox players don't buy games anyways.
How do you know stellar blades still ain't coming to xbox 6 months to a year later.
Street fighter I've read Sony played a part in helping develop that. Maybe it's not true. Eh I ain't looking it up
This lie that “Sony helped” needs to stop.
SF6 is coming to Xbox. Did Sony help with SF6. Did it help with SF4. Read between the lines they paid to keep it exclusive.
It won't. Sony never said it was timed or anything. They funded the rest of the game and took away the already announced and planned Xbox version.
There's no "what ifs" Don't even begin to make excuses. .
@343
Is it also a lie that FF16 was helped developed by Sony? This partnership ives Sony a few months of exclusivity, but the game itself would have taken that many months or more of development without Sony anyways. The first FF game to have no development troubles in who knows how long. Interesting how people can point out supposed "lies" on one side and not apply the same attention to detail or reading between the lines of another to provide criticism for.
343
It's foolish to use SF6 as an example of why Capcom didn't need Sony's help with SF5. Capcom is vastly more successful now as opposed to the inception of SF5. The resurgence of Monster Hunter, Resident Evil, etc gives them the financial freedom they lacked back then. Around a time when RE was floundering, Monster Hunter was on essentially one platform, and Deep Down and Panta Rai were draining money. Look at RE6, MvC Infinite. That era of Capcom was largely a flop. They are much stronger now.
And Tomb Raider was the same thing. Titanfall, Dead Rising 3, The Gunk, Pugb, etc. Both companies have done and continue to do this with 3rd party games. How many timed deals are on Game Pass? Stop clinging to Stellar Blade and FF like MS never did the same thing.
If anything, 3rd party deals are common. However, publisher acquisitions that cancel in development versions of games for a particular platform and banish IP from a particular platform forever are less common to the point of nearly unprecedented. Not saying either is good for fans but to act like timed exclusivity on Stellar Blade is equal to the Bethesda and ABK deals is ignorant.
And the only reason MS doesn't acquire bigger 3rd party exclusivity these days is bc Gamepass limits their ability to do so. But even last generation as the vastly inferior platform they still had major 3rd party exclusives timed or otherwise via Tomb Raider, Titanfall, Pubg, Ryse, Dead Rising, ReCore, Quantum Break, etc. Early 360 they had deals for Mass Effect, Oblivion, Bioshock, Alan Wake etc. You guys cling to Stellar Blade though. Funny.
You still missed the entire point if the argument. 3rd party has been goin on for ages it's fine it's normal. "times deals on gamepass" is something you clearly made up I don't even know what that means.
"And Tomb Raider was the same thing. Titanfall, Dead Rising 3, The Gunk, Pugb, etc. Both companies have done and continue to do this with 3rd party games. How many timed deals are on Game Pass? Stop clinging to Stellar Blade and FF like MS never did the same thing."
But how many times has a game that was announced to the world as a multiplatform game only for MS to take over and rid of said PS game?
Let me say it again. People like you have trouble reading.
Again ANNOUNCED to world as a multplat? How many times has MS done that? You have no excuses for Stellar Blade. If you make excuses then it's only ok for Sony to do it right? Since you love defending terrible buissness practices.
"Not saying either is good for fans but to act like timed exclusivity on Stellar Blade is equal to the Bethesda and ABK deals is ignorant."
Hifi, Redfall and Starfield are own by MS. No contracts or obligations were done by Sony (they almost got Starfield though) those games were never announce just to take away like Sony did with Stellar Blade. A game and studio Sony doesn't even own. Owning with no contracts or obligations vs none owning and canning the announced Xbox version. Which ones worse?
You lost this argument.
The CMA did not care if Bethesda made their games exclusive to Xbox. Also they already knew about Redfall's cancelled version. Doesn't matter what Sony says now.. the CMA doesn't care.
"Doesn't matter what Sony says now.. the CMA doesn't care."
Jim Ryan is desperate, he just called CMA irrational yesterday and now he´s trying to bring them some "sense" by mention Bethesda. What a loser.
@curtain_swoosh
"but you'd know all about losers."
Yeah, I can easily tell that bozo is gonna lose this case and will be begging at MS´s door in no time.
@Ryuk, Jim,Ryan is,right, the CMA did a complete 180 from their own stated position (supported by their own extensive research) just 2 months ago. Was their logic/research completely wrong just 2 months ago? Lol. I doubt it. Any reasonable observer would find such behavior on the part of the cma "irrational " .
Evidently MS and others made a more compelling case then Sony for the merger to be approved.
If Sony wasn't in such a dominant position in so many markets the merger may have been blocked, success can be a double edged sword.
@king, it was never Sony's job to make any case, I'm talking about the cma's own findings a few months ago. Anyone who knows a little about administration law knows that regulatory bodies are very careful when giving findings, the cma was not nuetral at all on their last report about this purchase they said definitively it would reduce competition. A complete reversal on their own findings call into question the validity of all their reasoning on this issue. I don't like conspiracies but I believe Microsoft recent purchase of a sizeable portion of the London stock exchange influenced this decision to change course.
@derek what is this about London stock exchange?
@kingnick MSs case and details of it are completely public and it was not compelling AT ALL. Infact it was deeply flawed as is the CMA's new position. Their new position, makes no sense and by the same logic they are using elder scrolls 6 should still be on PlayStation as should redfall and no titles should go to games pass fay 1 as they are causing MS tonloae out on alot if money. It assumes microsofts gsme isn't to destroy competitors revenue streams vs increase their own. They have plenty of form in such practices.
It's pretty suspicious behavior from the CMA, I can imagine some "greasing of the wheels" may have happened, but I don't have any evidence to suggest this was the case, it's just a weird turn of events anyhow.
yup, when the eyes are already blinded and ears already closed by money from MS, nothing else matters
But they should have. Bethesda alone banishes future iterations of IP like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Starfield, Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake, Redfall, and potential future iterations of Dishonored, Evil Within, or other IP from Arkane/Tango etc. That's so many impactful multiplat IP to strip from a particular fanbase. Pretty egregious. Pretty unprecedented.
Then factor Crash, Diablo, Overwatch etc. Even if CoD remains multi the potential that all of these other IP could eventually be taken from a fanbase is unconscionable.
The article doesn't mention this but I think this beta may only for North America. I'll have to look into that a little more.
I hate the new Youtube App so is there anyway to used the browser version?
What is the PS3 portal for anyway?
I can only access the Japanese portal so ignored it.
Does anyone use web portals in general?
Has the PS3 web browser improved?
Damn since I'm barely use my ps3, this articles title had me thinking of the game portal when I clicked on it!
Looks good. Here's hoping for a EU beta.