When the PS3 originally launched, consumers and journalists around the world were throwing in the towel and already saying their farewells to Sony’s high priced console. Now, as we reach the last years of the PS3’s time in the limelight, the Daily Reaction crew of Seb and Dan discuss how the market has changed for Sony, and just what this could mean for their future in the next generation of console wars.
Plenty of unforgettable games have completely messed up their players throughout the years, all the way back from the PS1 days to the dark recesses of the modern internet.
With so many games fighting for players' attention and interest losing out over time, time sink games are at risk of eventually losing steam.
It was worrisome to begin with.
It's a niche genre with only a handful of hits that can stand the test of time.
Only a few will catch on. You need a perfect storm to be successful in GaaS and a bit of luck on top of that. But a potential cash cow will keep them trying and some will go out of business because of it.
Helldivers 2 manages just fine…
Keep production costs low… don’t just make custscenes until the mechanics and enemies are perfected first.
Make so much content that you can drip extra content for years, and the game already feels complete without them.
Most importantly: make weapons, enemies, levels, and mechanics that will stand the test of 1000 hours. This might require more devs embracing procedurally generated leveled, which I think separates Helldivers 2 from Destiny’s repetitiveness.
Nameer from eXputer: "Some exceptions aside, I don't think the battle pass is a net positive for gaming with how they're implemented in most live service titles."
I like the way Helldivers 2 does battle passes. It allows you to make purchases on each level of the battle pass and gives you the option of choosing which item to unlock first. The more purchases you make using medals the further you progress. There is no timer and you can earn medals towards purchasing stuff via personal orders and Major orders.
I haven't played much live service games that have battle passes but I remember some games that have battle passes where you progress through it linearly using an exp system. What makes it really bad is that the battle pass will have like 50 or more levels with the cooler stuff being closer to the end. They also have an in-game shop that sells exp boosters so you can reach the end of the pass before it refreshes. Everyone ilse will have to grind their way through.
battle pass in fortnite is perfect; buy one and it buys the rest for every other season as it gives you more money than the first cost. so 8.50 and season ends with you getting 13.00, it pays for the next and you have some pocket change to save up for cash shop. All of which is optional
I have both, and am glad they're both doing well :)
I find it funny that for years the fact that 360 had more total sales was brought up in nearly every conversation concerning the two. Yet as soon as the PS3 gets ahead it doesn't matter :/
I really don't care who is above who anyways, as long as they are doing well enough to keep making great games
This was bound to happen anyway
MS is moving on to the next gen. I don't think they really care how many ps3s sony ships. This gen is pretty much over now. The real winners are the gamers but if you talking contest then it's
Nintendo
Microsoft
Sony
With a $600 launch price tag, being released a year after 360, and for the advertisement comparison, I'd say this is a huge victory for the Sony brand. Everybody always talks about how Sony is in trouble for the next generation, but I'd say they are in just the right place. Sure their games don't sell as much, but that's simply because there is more of them. Unless you're made of money, you can't simply buy every AAA game on the market, you might have to choose between Killzone and Resistance, Uncharted and inFAMOUS, ect...