With today's reveal of the tech behind Project Scorpio, we now know what is inside the next Xbox. But why did Microsoft build it in the first place?
PlayStation boss believes that $80 games are affordable due to the value they provide. Using Mario Kart as an example, he noted that it offers numerous hours of gameplay with just one purchase.
He never said anything about affordability at all. He only commented about the perceived value that a game can have to a player that gets many hours out of it.
Again, as with many other forms of we are disrespected and lied to.
Title says Yoshida said $80 games are amazingly affordable. This is a lie.
Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it? If one person says $500 was worth it because they played a game for six months, what does that mean to someone who didn’t share that experience or see that value?
This is exactly where corporate thinking falls apart. The value is defined by them, and then they twist the logic to defend it from a purely internal, out-of-touch perspective.
I’ve never based the price of a game on how long I’ve played it. There’s a standard price range that consumers feel is fair. If it were truly based on time or value, Resident Evil 2 Remake would cost $20, and Final Fantasy VII Rebirth would be $1,000.
@Crimson
"Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it?Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it?"
I think his point is that it is subjective.
Honestly, expedition 33 is a prime example of quality for the low. Expedition 33 launched at 50$, and that game gave me more fun than most 60-70$ games I’ve purchased within the last decade.
Clearly, they want to increase prices. They need to convince people that it’s not so bad. As long as they can do that, they can do whatever they want. You gave an outstanding example of the direction things could go if creators were focused primarily on The community and quality. If that example or a few others like it didn’t exist, it might be hard to convey to many how it is even possible.
I get the concept.
People buy movies for $20-$30 dollars that offers only a couple of hours of enjoyment.
While games offers 3-10+ times the amount of hours and content.
So in theory yeah I get it.
But I will never accept it and would rather keep the price now or even better PS360 price lol
On the surface ye that makes sense, but when you realize the budgets are very comparable, you realize it's kinda stupid and overpriced especially when it common for it to be released unfinished
Not really, movies that have similar budgets have the box office where if they arent a flop- they typically make all their money back or a profit. Movies have a much wider audience. Games however just have that release and have a smaller market.
Are many people buying movies for $20-$30? Outside of the more dedicated movie goers who have a physical collection, I imagine most rather scoff at that and stick to things like Netflix instead.
You also have to take into consideration that most games are enjoyed by one or two people, while movies can be enjoyed by a group of people who are either friends or family.
Another thing is that the value of an entertainment product cannot be judged based on its length, but how it makes the user feel when it is all done.
An example of this is Ubisoft games. They can last close to or exceed 100 hours, yet many people hate on them for doing things to pad the length of the game, while Uncharted 4 and other Naughty Dog games average about 15 hours in length and are hailed as some of the best games of all time.
The value of an $80 all-you-can-eat buffet is undeniable, making it curious why some people choose a $20 restaurant for a single, standard meal.
In a similar vein, movies, despite their higher production costs for a two-hour experience, outperform video games in revenue while also being priced around $20. Suggesting that video games need 100 hours of diluted gameplay to compete seems like a misdirection. The real solution might lie in re-evaluating how their core offering is valued.
Individual movies yes, the movie industry as a whole? No, the movie industry is dwarfed by the behemoth in terms of revenue that gaming is.
Lol so rich people want to speak for my wallet now? I still haven’t adapted to 70$ yet, and not planing on to. I don’t mind waiting on sales.
Square Enix president Takashi Kiryu discusses the dropping player count of Final Fantasy XIV and the numerous projects of YoshiP.
Also who wants to keep paying a monthly fee every month, there are other options like Guild Wars 2 😁with no monthly fee and while not that many people overall compared to FF XIV, it did increase to about 21 mil now.
I prefer to pay since i do not like guild wars and it keep kids away, but FF14 decreased on quality since they started to make it "more accessible", tried throne and liberty and while it was okay it has so many issues, same for dune awakening... Its time to start making a new FF MMO
Looks like Square Enix is self-aware but still stuck in place, they see the player drop and apologize for the bugs, but nothing really changes. Shame, FFXIV used to be the gold standard
My entire free company has stopped playing. The writing has consistently gotten worse and the content is sparse and lacking; unless you are a hardcore player there's very little for you to do. They are over-catering to the people who will grind three+ times a week on a single fight for multiple months when the playerbase by large doesn't want that sort of content. Square needs to dedicate more resources to the game instead of wasting them on mobile and other live service slop.
The biggest factor for me is the way they butchered job design over the years , the casualization and over simplification really hurt a good chunk of enjoyment I used to have . Jobs lost any form of complexity and just became " press glowing button" DDR style for fighting where the gameplay loop is a about the 2 minute burst window . They removed most DoTS, timer mechanics , cast times, pets, RNG ect and all around homogenized everything . When you try and can cater to everyone ... you cater to no one .
Game Rant interviews Dune: Awakening composer Knut Avenstroup Haugen about his process for giving the harsh deserts of Arrakis a musical voice.
Interesting. Confirmed more expensive than Pro so I'll say 600 dollars
This is too similar to PS4 pro. I like it for the UHD Blu Ray and new dashboard, but it's going to be hard to justify. The 12gb is nice, but the dream of Zen and Rysen is over like a lot of people said. And for the real power to show you still need first party studio's or patches. And seeing how third party studio's are doing that on the PS Pro... Well, it's going to be interesting. Price is going to be a huge factor here. Sony won't have to do anything as long as the games keep coming, or just a price drop on the Slim and Pro.
So, here's my take, which is based on limited tech knowledge,
PS4 Pro:
GPU: PS4 Pro: 4.20 TFLOPs Polaris GPU
CPU: overclocked 2.1GHz Jaguar CPU
Scorpio:
an RX 480 would be: 5.8 TFLOPs, which, this is close to in scorpio. 40 customized compute units at 1172MHz.
CPU: 8 custom x86 cores clocked at 2.3GHz
I suppose, they're close in power. Obviously the edge goes to the Scorpio over PS4 PRo, but that's as it should be for hardware released after the PS4 Pro.
This is not quite the powerhouse I'd hoped for, but this is likely the best case scenario for the available hardware at release time.
Basically, I feel this is the same conversation We all had in regards to PS4 Pro when it released. Both are solid values, both are solid systems.
Well clearly as far as hardware goes it will be a strong console. MS needs to cultivate a more interesting diverse set of titles. Will it dominate in sales? I doubt it will dominate but sell far better than X1, I suspect it will. But likely at some point Sony will announce a new console being developed which will leap frog. And so the game will go. So what will the difference maker be? Games and where one's friends play.
He didn't see anything else running on the Scorpio except Forza? I wanna see if Witcher 3 can run in 4K 60fps
The most impressive thing and the thing that is going to make sure many a game can indeed perform rather well and reach 4k is the DirectX 12 implementation in silicon!
The CPU is just a beefed up Jaguar like in the Pro, the GPU is an AMD GPU with Polaris features and additional MS specific additions just like the GPU in the Pro is...
I do think MS has a slight edge here that they did more in software/libraries in an abstract way, especially with DirectX where Sony of course also has libraries devs can use but devs could also go real low level on the PS4 which can cause compatibility issues on different hardware...
Still, the Forza demo was rather nice, but the game was already running 1080p@60fps on stock X1, everyone already assumed they would be able to get games that do that already to become 4k@60fps (4 x 1.3Tf = 5.2Tf). What is impressive is that they apparently did it using only 4.2Tf (70% of 6Tf, the GPU wasn't utilised fully, fluctuated between 55% and 70%).
Let's see, to get a 900p game to 1080p they need 1.44 times the power. They managed to go from 1080p to 2160p using 3.25 times the power. To get a 900p game to 2160p it needs 1.44 x 3.25 times the power. Multiply that by 1.3Tf and the machine should be able to do 6.084Tf. Hmm, whaddayaknow, that IS possible.
Still the games that fluctuate with dynamic resolutions lower than 900p won't be able to.
Also, and this is very important to think about: games running at 30fps won't go to 60fps all that easily. So don't expect a 900p@30fps game to go to 2160p@60fps since that will be impossible. And yes, for double the framerate you do need a faster GPU, apparently some here believe that is not the case, but it really is...