250°

Sony boss: PS4 games to get 'better and better' looking throughout generation

First-party games are always a fine example of how a development team is able to leverage a console's true ability.

Read Full Story >>
examiner.com
Aloy-Boyfriend3390d ago

I'm counting on it. Every console has passed the torch with a bang

darthv723389d ago

It's only natural that game quality improves during the consoles life cycle. Been that way for decades. Looking at games released at the beginning of the cycle and then at ones in the middle and end there is a clear sense of improvement.

Developers get better understanding at what can / can't be done and figure out ways of making the impossible possible. Case in point... Genesis lacked the hardware to do scaling and rotation (something touted by nintendo and their Mode 7) and yet there were a few games that pulled it off with really clever programming techniques.

Tapping into each consoles "secret sauce" is what developers (especially 1st / 2nd party) do best.

GameNameFame3389d ago

Especially since PS4 has features that hasnt even begun to be used yet.

For example, remember GPGPU and Async COmpute?

PS4 got whopping 8 Async Compute that is only used in very few instances.

DX12 and Vulkan's native support for Async Compute means large improvements are ahead for PS4. Ironic given how DX12 was supposed to be secret sauce for Xbox One.

garrettbobbyferguson3389d ago

Large improvements ahead. Let's hope that manifests in frame rate and resolution. Contrary to popular belief, a game DOES NOT look good when it's below a standard frame rate.

bouzebbal3389d ago

No sh** mister Sony exec?

daynnight3653389d ago

And while I agree it rubs me the wrong way when u take infamous SS when that game came out they said that the game used every last drop of the ps4's hardware. And that was pretty much a launch game

nveenio3389d ago

@daynnight365

It DOES use every drop possible. It just might not be using it in the best way possible. I could build a script right now that counts to 100 and crashes my PC in the process due to processor load. I'd be right in saying it's using all the PC has got. But I'd be wrong to think my code is flawless.

IamTylerDurden13389d ago

Especially since Sony recently unlocked the 7th core for the PS4. Xbone unlocked the 7th core when they dropped Kinect, that's why 3rd party games went from 720p to 900p (on xb1). PS4 games will see a big improvement as well.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3389d ago
Letthewookiewin3389d ago (Edited 3389d ago )

PS4 has the games with the best console graphics no doubt. The Order, Killzone etc, then Rachet & Clank, Uncharted and Horizon beat anything the competition has coming out this year or has had. This is still pretty early too. It will be amazing what comes out next year and the year after.

Picnic3389d ago

True but, art design-wise, I'm a big fan of Remedy too. They do great lighting.

crazychris41243390d ago (Edited 3390d ago )

No shit, it happens in every console generation. They get more familiar with the hardware and learn tricks to push games farther. Just look at the original Gears and Uncharted then look at the last game for that generation, its night and day.

miyamoto3389d ago (Edited 3389d ago )

Like compare first generation PS3 game Uncharted: Drake's Fortune to a third generation PS3 game The Last of Us.

And Uncharted 4: Among Thieves is a first generation PS4 game.
Can you imagine that?

This amazing & wonderful evolution of graphics fidelity is exclusively exclusive to PS4 first, second & third party AAA exclusives.

Unfortunately we can not say the same for multiplatform games.
But who knows?
With PS4's out of the box PC X86 architecture, developers have the vast amount of tools to make third party games on PS4 rival the fidelity of high end PC games simultaneously.

DopeTech3389d ago

No, UC4 is a second gen game, first were KZ SF, Driveclub and Knack, etc...

Uncharted 4 has some of the best graphics ever made in gaming to date, even PC games don't look Uncharted good lol (Don't get me wrong PC gamers, I have a Highend PC).

miyamoto3389d ago

@ Dope

Uncharted 4 is a first gen PS4 game as far as development time is concerned. Development started in 2012 and publication was supposed to be 2015. Don't let the publication delays alter that fact.

Horizon: Zero Dawn. That is a second gen PS4 game using a modified version of the Killzone: SF Engine.

TFJWM3389d ago

Nahh UC4 is 2nd gen. ND already said they used what they learned with making TLoU for PS4 on UC4. No game released 2.5 years after the console release is a 1st gen game...

darthv723389d ago

UC4 may be the 1st UC game on the system but it isn't considered a 1st gen game.

_-EDMIX-_3389d ago

@TFJ- Nope. The Last Of Us PS4, isn't a full fledged PS4 game, Uncharted 4 is.

It is the teams first PS4 game in terms of a native title that isn't a transfer like The Last Of Us was.

Its a first gen game. I have no clue how porting The Last Of Us counts as a teams first gen title LMFAO!

No..that isn't how that works bud.

@Dope- Nope.

Naughty Dog has yet to release a native PS4 title, other teams making Knack, Driveclub etc has NOTHING to do with Naughty Dog...

That is like saying Uncharted 1 wasn't a first gen PS3 title because Resistance Fall of man exist....lets just disregard its not the same team? LMFAO! Lets just ignore that Uncharted 2-3 and Last Of Us looks different?

Ummmmm sure bud.

_-EDMIX-_3389d ago

I consider something a first gen game, by team's first actual fully native current gen title.

TFJWM3389d ago (Edited 3389d ago )

@_-EDMIX-_

ND themselves seem to disagree with you.

"This was a little bit like Christmas, in the sense that you get to spend five months exclusively working on engineering problems," says Gyrling. Shekar readily agrees: "Shipping this game means that Uncharted 4 will not be our first PS4 game. The first game on a new platform is very difficult to do, and now we've already done that."

So they worked out most of the issues from a first gen title thanks to TLoU port..

miyamoto3389d ago

@TFJWM

LOL!

"The Last of Us Remastered is an action-adventure survival horror video game developed by Naughty Dog and published by Sony Computer Entertainment. An enhanced port of 2013's The Last of Us, Remastered was released for the PlayStation 4 on July 29, 2014.[a] Among minor gameplay additions, the game features enhanced graphics and rendering upgrades including increased draw distance, an upgraded combat mechanic and higher frame rate."

An "enhanced port" not a full pledged PS4 game designed from the ground up.

TFJWM3389d ago

You guys are talking like it is so easy to just port it over, Here are some quotes from Drunkman about it,

"“I wish we had a button that was like ‘Turn On PS4 Mode’, but no… We expected it to be hell, and it was hell. Just getting an image onscreen, even an inferior one with the shadows broken, lighting broken and with it crashing every 30 seconds … that took a long time. These engineers are some of the best in the industry and they optimized the game so much for the PS3’s SPUs specifically. It was optimized on a binary level, but after shifting those things over, you have to go back to the high level, make sure the systems are intact, and optimize it again.”

Druckmann explained that the transition to 1080p and 60 frames per second for the cutscenes involved taking a few steps back and rendering them all from scratch.

My point is that they had to do a lot of work to get this up and got to know how things work on the PS4. They aren't going in "blind" like a normal 1st gen title...

miyamoto3389d ago

@TFJ

In 2012, U4:ATE was way into deep development by Amy Hennigg's Team A, while Druckman and Straley's Team B was still on TLOU. TLOU Remaster was handled by Team B while Team A was on U4.

So both TLOU R & U4:ATE are both first gen PS4 games.

don't twist that fact.

iceman063389d ago

@TFJWM...porting was probably only so difficult because of the transition from the cell and PS3 architecture to the new architecture of the PS4. The highly specialized code of the Cell and it's SPU's is totally different and thus had to be re-worked and re-routed. No doubt that aided them in their endeavors with UC4. However, with UC4, they got to write specific code from the ground up (technically from high to low level) to specifically take advantage of the PS4. That, imo, makes it still a 1st gen title.

_-EDMIX-_3389d ago

@TFJWM- sorry bud but you're splitting hairs and everyone knows it.

A first gen game is not the first time a team has worked on the platform in any regard, that is a bit of a stretch and very much an exaggeration.

ND working on the PS4 with The Last Of Us is no more a PS4 game, then FFVII releasing on PS4 last year...

Does that count as Squares first major PS4 FF game? You sure? Do you not get what porting is? I'm sorry, but call it "remaster", the concept is really the same and its merely based on the degree of additional work, but the concept of porting is still the same as to my understanding...they did not REMAKE the game, they simply remastered it ie ported it and added additional work to it.

Its actually no different then what Bluepoint did with Uncharted. I wouldn't even see Bluepoint as some major developer, as once you learn and find out just what porting is, you realize its actually not really development at all.

Some port teams are made up of about 10 team members and can be done in mere weeks. The process is NO WHERE NEAR the same as ground up development.

Bluepoint is transferring Uncharted series to PS4 and polishing it up, they are not making it over again by any means. Sooooo why would ND's first PS4 game be considered something that in technical terms isn't even seen as development?

ND no more made The Last Of Us on PS4, then a restoration company made the Star Wars Films on Bluray, and that isn't a knock to the game or the team, its simply pointing out the difference between transferring a title and actually making a title.

Sorry but Uncharted 4 is Naughty Dog's FIRST FULL NATIVE PS4 game. If you think The Last Of Us is a full PS4 game ,you might as well say that about all ports ever made. It makes no sense, not even slightly.

I'm also glad many are seeing this as I think you're splitting hairs and deliberately disregarding what a port or transferring of is vs an actual ground up game.

Fez3389d ago (Edited 3389d ago )

@miyamoto
"Don't let the publication delays alter that fact"

By that logic Duke Nukem forever is the best looking PS1 game by miles. I kid. But the point still stands that the release of software dictates it's generation, not it's development start date or original release date. It's not like ND have been sitting on their hands for a year. It's clearly a 2nd generation game, one of the first 2nd generation games. Surely the graphics show this.

343_Guilty_Spark3389d ago

Wasn't PS3 harder to develop for which is why it took time to get the most out of it. The PS4 is pretty straightforward.

TFJWM3389d ago (Edited 3389d ago )

@_-EDMIX-_ We can agree to disagree I guess.

There is no set rule which defines or determines whether a game is a first or 2nd generation game on a system. I think it is determined down the line when you can look back and see that games took that leap forward. I feel that UC4 is that step forward.

If you feel that UC4 is in the same generation of games such as Killzone and Infamous:SS that is your opinion. While I do not agree I can not say you are wrong.

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 3389d ago
joab7773390d ago

At this point, games are beautiful. Give me better ideas, an evolution of dynamic gameplay. If CoD is gonna give us another template version of MW, I want another dev to give us a more dynamic online experience. DICE was moving in this direction, but I want more.

Game look amazing, now let's use the tech to push our experience forward.

SoapShoes3390d ago

There are great ideas out there in game form but they just aren't popular and gamers pass them off because of it.

IamTylerDurden13389d ago

The bigger the game, the less risk that's taken.

Flexible memory, shrinking OS footprint, the recently unlocked 7th core, and devs optimizing and becoming more familiar with the tech (writing more efficient code) will all contribute to dramatic visual and technical improvements to PS4 games from here on out.

Imagine TLOU 2 and God of War 4..

Christopher3390d ago

They look fine, beautiful even. Can we focus more on quality and innovation?

Hoffmann3390d ago

This ^^

In the end..gameplay is everything. Graphics matter but not half as much as the gameplay itself.

SoapShoes3390d ago

Did you miss Tearaway Unfolded? Gravity Rush? Miss the announcement of Dreams? They've got plenty of innovation coming. They never said they were focusing on graphics.

NotanotherReboot3390d ago

Tearaway and gravity Rush are games that spawned on the Vita...lol

Christopher3390d ago (Edited 3390d ago )

Did I say we didn't have good gameplay or innovation in some arenas? No, I asked if they can focus more on those items over graphics, which are well shown in way more games than good gameplay and innovation are.

Knack, looks great...
KZSF, looks great...
Driveclub, looks great...
The Order, looks great...

Not to say those games have lackluster gameplay, but they definitely haven't done anything to advance it or innovate it. And, in some cases, they have shown poor quality on both fronts, and the user reviews show it.

DragonDDark3389d ago (Edited 3389d ago )

@Frinker

Vita is the most innovative system these past 2 gen.... Lol

Goldby3389d ago

@Frinker

Rachet and Clank is a game spawned on the PS2. doesn't make the reboot it any less impressive.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3389d ago
Eonjay3390d ago

But quality, innovation and good better graphics (yes I agree they look good already) are not mutually exclusive.

Christopher3390d ago

But we hear a ton more about how games will look, a heck of a lot less about the other two. The industry needs to stop focusing on selling us +1 graphics and instead +10 gameplay and innovation.

Imalwaysright3389d ago

Better graphics on consoles means less fps and by extension worst gameplay. For those that value gameplay above all else, better graphis = less quality.

Eonjay3389d ago

Fair enough. Thats just an artifact of the console war and the PC evangelists. Then you see a game like Undertale get so much praise. So I think gamers are focused on gameplay and bloggers want the bait.

_-EDMIX-_3389d ago

@Chris- maybe its because of how you see marketing.

You can market a game looking amazing in mere seconds.

It takes time to market a game based on its concept alone.

We can't really say we don't have that in gaming as I don't really buy that.

WiLD, No Man Sky, Dreams and many more have been shown at many trade shows explaining their concepts. Even titles like The Division go deep into explaining what they actually are.

You might remember a trailer that looks good, but please don't ignore the insane amount of transparency given about the game's core concepts at trade shows.

I assure you, they out number the amount of fancy trailers you'll see in MOST games. I can honestly say, I know of no major title to release, that spent more times talking about how good it looked, vs what you actually did in the game, we legit have HOURS of some games from trade shows just talking about the concept of the game, so by the time the game releases, you literally can look up hours of information from trade shows.

Because of how subjective gaming is, one must be literal in asking....what is it you're even looking for or expecting?

Yes...we hear folks talk about how a game looks, we have no control over others to tell them to talk about something else, that is out of our hands and people have free will.

At the same time, can we honestly say others are not talking about only gameplay concepts? The industries job is to make money, they very much can sell how great it looks AND sell how amazing it plays.

What you happen to remember from those marketing campaigns is really up to you, but when really looking at how games are marketed, I can't just ignore that we have more transparency with games then any other medium to really, REALLY say they are just focusing on "graphics".

What example do you really have to show any publisher/developer spending more time talking about how it looks vs what the game actually is? We can't even say that about the BIGGEST blockbuster games bud...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3389d ago
_-EDMIX-_3389d ago

How about both? The folks who are making it look better, are not the same ones actually designing the core concepts of the game.

Different jobs and sorta irrelevant as neither have to really do with each other. They for example won't just take an artist and have him start designing some sorta of combat for the game lol

Christopher3389d ago (Edited 3389d ago )

It's easy to say "how about both" but oftentimes only one is delivered to its full potential.

We're pretty much playing the same games we've been playing for over a decade now. Sure, there's some spit and shine on them, but the mass majority of AAA titles don't innovate or improve on gameplay. Heck, Indies are doing the majority of that.

So, sure, both. And I never said nice graphics aren't nice. But, we have good graphics, get your guys working on gameplay to step it up a notch now.

_-EDMIX-_3389d ago

"but the mass majority of AAA titles don't innovate or improve on gameplay"

I can't say all that, that seems to be a huge exaggeration.

"And I never said nice graphics aren't nice. But, we have good graphics, get your guys working on gameplay to step it up a notch now"

...not really how that works but ok

Christopher3389d ago

***I can't say all that, that seems to be a huge exaggeration.
***

It really isn't.

***...not really how that works but ok***

Wait, so you're telling me if we want better gameplay it doesn't require the people who develop and design such things to work on it? I didn't say have graphics guys work on it, but get the people in charge of gameplay to innovate and improve in their field.

C'mon man, you're getting a bit defensive of an industry built around giving us the same thing over and over. That doesn't make them bad games, but they're not taking gameplay to the levels we should be at because so much focus has been put on cramming more graphics into the game and getting things to work with those than going back to the basics and rebuilding that from the ground up (no matter how many times Ubisoft tries to tell us that, we know it's not true).

NotanotherReboot3389d ago

But they are literally the same games, remastered on PS4. Also yes, Ratchet and Clank is impressive, but it isn't innovative. It's using the same gameplay as the past installments. The OP stated: "They look fine, beautiful even. Can we focus more on quality and innovation?" ratchet and Clank is qaulity, but innovative it is not.

Germany73389d ago

LittleBigPlanet 3, Tearaway Unfolded and Gravity Rush.
Soon we will have Dreams, Detroit, What Remains of Edith Finch and The Last Guardian. ^^

iceman063389d ago

@Frinker...the LBP franchise is innovative. LBP3 simply expanded on the tools and allowed you to be individually more innovative with your game designs.

IamTylerDurden13389d ago

LBP 3 also added 4 player co op and new unique characters with unique abilities necessary to traverse the levels. LBP is an innovative franchise and LBP 3 iterated and added.

NotanotherReboot3389d ago

Are you people for real? How is 4 player Co-op considered innovative? How is adding extra characters innovative? They literally took Sackboy's wall jump ability from LBP 2 and turned it into one of the characters. The fanboyism on this site is a joke at times.

Christopher3389d ago (Edited 3388d ago )

You think listing a handful of games means the "industry" is "innovating"? Let alone most of the games you listed provide neither new gameplay or innovate, but are primarily just same old game concepts with nicer graphics.

Here's my list for you: CoD, AC, Batman games, Battlefront, Sniper Elite, Forza, Super Mario, Zelda, Dynasty Warriors, God of War, Gears of War, Second Son, Bloodborne, Uncharted 4, Fallout 4, GTA5, Just Cause 3, NBA 2k16, The Division, SFV, FIFA 16, Mortal Kombat X, Lego games, Watch_Dogs, The Order, DA Inquisition, Far Cry, Guitar Hero, Final Fantasy, and even Rocket League (it's their third game of the type, just this one is popular).

I could go on for hours listing games that do not focus on advancing gameplay and/or innovation.

So throwing out a few that you think do, doesn't do anything to combat the fact that the industry is designed to sell us shinier versions of old games while Indies are the ones who are truly innovating and advancing gameplay.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3389d ago
IamTylerDurden13389d ago (Edited 3389d ago )

Or we can have both..

Horizon Zero Dawn, Uncharted 4, Dreams, Detroit.

Christopher3388d ago

All of those are old gameplay concepts with new and better graphics. Dreams is more innovative as it truly advances the LBP theme, but that's it, and it actually doesn't advance gameplay but creation capabilities.

This isn't about what games are good or fun to play, but about the industry's focus on looking good over truly advancing gameplay and being more innovative.

The industry, in an effort to play it safe, moves at the pace of a snail. Whereas Indies are stepping more and more outside of these boundaries and truly finding new ways to do things (some of them horrible, some of them great).

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3388d ago
Hoffmann3390d ago

Ristar (1995) looked a lot better than Streets of Rage (1991) on the Sega genesis btw.

Or just remember the differences between Ridge Racer (1994)..one of the Playstation launch games and Ridge Racer Type 4 (1998)

DragonDDark3389d ago (Edited 3389d ago )

Riiiidge Raaaceerr..

@below
It's the true history of Japan.

Hoffmann3389d ago (Edited 3389d ago )

#GiantCrabsInAncientJapan-Find ItsWeakSpot

Show all comments (88)
140°

Sony Faces Class Action in the Netherlands Over Allegedly Inflated PlayStation Store Prices

Mass Damage & Consumer Foundation in the Netherlands has filed a class action against Sony for inflating PlayStation Store prices.

dveio3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

My personal opinion:

Manufacturers and publishers have indeed inflated the industry.

From $700 million development costs for games like Call of Duty, to digital (store) prices for games and DLCs, online multiplayer fees on consoles (why can you play Helldivers 2 online for free on PC but not consoles?) or still preventing sell/lend digitally purchased games.

Sometime in the future, this bubble will collapse.

They should know better, but they just can't help themselves and suck even the last penny out of our wallets.

BeHunted3d ago

Because Sony knows people will be forced to pay those prices for single player and multiplayer games, not everyone prefers PC gaming. Sony also has a monopoly on PlayStation digital games. In 2019, they stopped allowing retailers and game key sellers to sell PlayStation digital games, making them available only through the official PlayStation Store

anast3d ago

The Dutch gov. wants a piece of the pie.

Eonjay3d ago

They should be suing the individual publishers increasing the prices to $80 instead of suing the store. There are plenty of publishers still selling game for like $50 with much success (like E33). But this proves that the publishers are the ones setting the prices.... so again nothing changes because they aren't even going after the main offender. How is suing Sony going to make Microsoft not charge $80 for the next COD? Sony being the number one store in the market doesn't mean that publisher have to charge us an arm and a leg. Again the industry is laughing at us because consumers never get real representation. Just these fake platitudes that are meaningless.

BeHunted3d ago

"How is suing Sony going to make Microsoft not charge $80 for the next COD"

Because Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, I can purchase Call of Duty at a huge discount from CDKeys or other gaming retailers. The only way to purchase digital PlayStation games is through the PlayStation Store.

djl34853d ago

Weird, I swore GoW, Stellar Blade, Horizon Zero Dawn, TLoU, etc. were on the steam store....uh.....

BeHunted3d ago (Edited 3d ago )

@djI3485

I'm talking about PlayStation games that you can only purchase on PlayStation. I can purchase Steam and Epic games from 3rd party retailers and key stores.

"Sony to stop selling full-game download codes at retailers"

https://www.videogamer.com/...

Killer2020UK3d ago

About time. There is zero fair reason why digitally distributed products that you cannot recoup any value when you want to dispose of them, should be priced higher than that of physical copies that entail all of the costs and the benefits of owning.

Show all comments (12)
220°

Yoshida claims PS believes Xbox is their only competitor, truth is they don’t have one any more

Former PlayStation boss Shuhei Yoshida claims PlayStation still believes Xbox is their only true competitor, not Nintendo.

Read Full Story >>
videogamer.com
11d ago
Terry_B9d ago

True, they have pretty different audiences..and some People just have both at home or a PS and a PC that emulates more or less everything from Nintendo.

Knightofelemia8d ago

Xbox hasn't been a competitor since the XB360. Last generation and this generation Sony has been running circles around Xbox. As for Sony vs Nintendo Sony runs circles yes but I don't really see Nintendo as competition. Nintendo does their own thing and it works.

8d ago Replies(1)
Lightning778d ago

Details are important. Console sales yes. Overall games Xbox seems to be doing fairly well in that department.

LoveSpuds8d ago (Edited 8d ago )

MS were doing so well that they had to start selling their games on their main competitors system which in turn results in around 30% of each sale going to Sony as the platform holder.

I do think tjat MS' fortunes will improve now that they are actually selling games rather than giving them away for pennies on the dollar.

Something that occurs to me is that the more success MS published games have elsewhere, the more stark it will become that selling games is much more profitable than renting them. If that becomes highly noticable, I wonder what the shareholders (who ultimately run the show) will make of a service which has stagnated for years?

crazyCoconuts8d ago

PlayStation doesn't compete with third party games, they compete on consoles. They profit from third party games. If you're not comparing consoles there's no point in comparing.

drivxr8d ago

Console wars are over.

Eventually, everyone else will catch up to this fact.

attilayavuzer8d ago (Edited 8d ago )

I think it's all PS fans have left at this point. Console wars were always a competition for fourth place behind Nintendo, PC and mobile. If Xbox evaporates into a hybrid virtual platform, then PS will be perennially left in last place.

Christopher8d ago

Strange, I recall all those FCC documents and witness testimonies saying the exact opposite... Guess Microsoft doesn't know what it's talking about?

PanicMechanic8d ago (Edited 8d ago )

Great analysis. Just joking.

Pretending like companies give a f about where they “rank” against each other is just super retarded. This isn’t the World Cup.

Tell me, how does “PC” compete against a brand like PlayStation? It just doesn’t make sense at all. What you just said, is complete and utter nonsense

BlaqMagiq18d ago

I don't think PS cares about being in this so-called "last place" you came up with when they're making profits hand over fist.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 8d ago
Destiny10808d ago

microsoft wanted to crush sony into dust and they had the money to do it, but with such weak leadership it was always going to fail

Reaper22_8d ago

Had the money? They still have the money but the industry has changed since xbox 360. Microsoft is the number one publisher in gaming. I'd hardly call that failing.

IRetrouk8d ago (Edited 8d ago )

The industry hasn't changed though, just ms, Microsoft was the no1 publisher for a month in december 2024, the actual no1 for fy2024 was tencent if game sales are all that's being counted.

Profchaos8d ago

Money doesn't mean you'll be successful large corporations have entered and failed before like Nec

Show all comments (23)
220°

Shuhei Yoshida warns subscription services could become 'dangerous' for developers

'If the big companies dictate what games can be created, I don't think that will advance the industry.' -Shihei Yoshida

Read Full Story >>
gamedeveloper.com
Sonyslave329d ago

🙄 same guy who said 80$ is a steal lol and according to him M$ shouldnt put good on a services🤣 wtf

Obscure_Observer29d ago

Talks about "innovation" while all his previous company is focused on is GaaS and Remasters. Smh.

This guy is a walking contradiction.

pwnmaster300029d ago

This makes no sense at all.
What does his PREVIOUS company have to do with him and his statement??
Did he have a say on what they are doing? Could of sworn that was Jim Ryan’s fault?

Outside_ofthe_Box28d ago

"This guy is a walking contradiction."

The irony

Profchaos28d ago (Edited 28d ago )

Yet he was In charge and led the PlayStation to overtake xbox

Console VR was birthed because if him he pushed the whole psvr project if that isn't innovative then what is.

Doesn't matter how many alts you use to try and constuct ab alt narrative shu is highly respected in the industry and has done as much for gaming as some of the best names in the industry

Obscure_Observer27d ago (Edited 27d ago )

@Profchaos

I don´t care what he did in the past.

Sony didn´t cared for him either as he was forced to accept a role as CEO of Indie games or get out! After everything he done for the company.

https://www.eurogamer.net/f...

I been seeing LOTS of innovative day one games on Gamepass (Including Clair Obscur) and all I´ve been seeing for Playstation first party @Full Priced is mostly (but not only) GaaS and Remasters. Deny all you want, that´s the truth.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 27d ago
XiNatsuDragnel29d ago

I can agree with that on some level

robtion28d ago

Subscription services are absolutely awful. They have essentially destroyed the movie industry and unfortunately gaming may be next.

In the long term you will end up needing 10 different subscriptions and the prices will keep going up while the quality keeps going down.

MrDead29d ago

Subscription services have f***ed the movie industry and it's work force, caused massive studio buyups by companies like Disney consolidating huge parts of the industry under one roof and have creatively sterilised the IP's they've gobbled up. The same thing is happening to gaming, MS being the main greedy piggy.

goken28d ago

Well… if you’re talking about the US movie industry, then I couldn’t agreed with you more.
But the movie industry isn’t just the US. For some other countries, it’s been considered good. Like where i am, the movie industry here used to be terrible, now it’s a bit less terrible. Mostly this is because in the past movies only can make money mostly on it’s cinema run, but now after the cinema run they can get some funds from the subscription services. Which helps significantly.
But these movies mostly suck due to the low budgets and general lack of talent lol

Vits29d ago

I get what he's saying, but I don’t think we need subscription services to see a lot of the problems he's pointing out. All we really have to do is look at the gaming industry over the last two console generations. Even without subscriptions, the big AAA publishers have already been moving in a direction where almost every game feels like it's built from the same template. It’s all about streamlined, safe design choices that are meant to appeal to the widest possible audience. At this point, you could probably ask an AI to make a AAA game from a certain publisher and it would spit out something pretty close to what they’re actually making.

Now, about the whole “walled garden” thing... that’s not some future problem, it’s already here. Consoles have always worked like that. Their entire business model is based on controlling what gets released on their platforms. Sure, maybe they’re not as locked down as the extreme examples people bring up, but the end result is similar. If you’re not making the kind of game the platform holder wants, you’re probably not getting through the door. We’ve seen it with Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, even Valve does this in its own way with Steam. So yeah, the issue isn’t new or exclusive to subscription services.

Would a subscription-only future make that problem worse? Sure, it definitely could. But I don’t think we’re heading in that direction anytime soon. Unless physical hardware truly becomes a thing of the past and everyone switches to streaming games, I just don’t see subscriptions becoming the dominant model. They’ll stick around as an option, but I doubt they’ll take over completely.

Now, what will take over completely is digital media, and that’s a whole different issue that’s going to hit us a lot sooner. PC and mobile are already basically 100% digital, and that makes up around 70% of the gaming market. The remaining 30% is consoles, and even there we’re seeing the shift. Sony’s removing the disc drive from boxed consoles, Nintendo is releasing just one super expensive 64GB cartridge for their new system, which means almost all third-party publishers will end up going digital and Microsoft is mostly digital already. You either get a digital-only or a physical box with disc that only acts as a activation key. So yeah, that future’s already knocking on the door and the damage will be enormous.

CrimsonWing6929d ago

Right, because then you can’t sell individual games at $80, which is an incredible value for the consumer!

BLow29d ago (Edited 29d ago )

I find this statement quite telling. Apparently a certain fan base wasn't buying games at $60 or $70 dollars either. That's why the Gamepass model exists with day and date. What was the excuse then?

We as gamers want it all but don't want to pay for anything. Well, I take that back. A good chunk of them. You don't have to buy a game at $80. Wait for to go down in price. Most gamers have a massive backlog. Play those games until the one you wants drops and n price. Simple

goken28d ago

I never buy any games at full price, it’s up to the consumer to wait for a price cut.

Generally I don’t buy above $10, normally around $5. So don’t agree with 80 70 60? Just wait a bit

CrimsonWing6928d ago

Totally fair if that approach works for you, but the flip side is that some dev studios do rely on full-price sales to stay afloat—especially smaller or AA teams. The ‘just wait for a sale’ mindset can really hurt games that aren’t backed by massive budgets or publishers.

It’s also kind of a bummer to finally see a game release you’ve been hyped for, only to feel like you have to wait another year or two just to get a decent discount.

That said, I think the deeper issue is with bloated dev budgets. It’s wild seeing games like First Berserker or Expedition 33 launching at $50 while still managing to look great and make a profit. Meanwhile, some AAA studios say $70 isn’t enough to break even. That raises real questions about where the money’s going and whether the pricing problem is actually a budgeting problem.

thorstein28d ago

To me, it depends on who made it and who will profit.

I bought No Man's Sky back in 2016. They gave me all updates, PSVR,PS5, and PSVR2 versions all for free.

That makes it worth every dollar I spent. Same with Balatro, Stardew Valley, Dave the Diver etc.

Chevalier28d ago

Yeah weird it's like a certain fan base that doesn't buy ANY games and their sales cratered that was why prices has gone up to $80...... hmmm...... they've the same one that has tried to buy up the industry and now has to release games on competing platforms to be viable now...... but you know the studio/company slipped my mind

goken28d ago

You have a point on the bloated development budgets.

I mean look at black myth wukong’s $80m budget vs the $150-200m (possibly more) budget of concord.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 28d ago
Show all comments (37)