Why 16? Is 17 months too long of a wait? Are the games so good looking that waiting too long is unbearable?
I really wish Sony would have just shown games we already knew a lot about.
I only want my consoles announced too early.
I really want to know about 6 teraflops in the upcoming nameless mystery box, but don't want to hear a damn thing about the games that will launch along side it.
Good job, Microsoft!
A year ago, even having the latest and greatest console wasn't good enough for a lot of people. Last gen versions of games were supposedly holding back games on new consoles.
Generations aren't going away at all. This is just an opportunity to sell an Xbox to someone who already has an Xbox, while avoiding the fact that two or three years later, the next real generation begins.
These are just the new slims and Elites, because smaller boxes and fan...
The article says "console exclusive". But the boxart that they are pointing to as proof of that simply says "Xbox One exclusive" which we already know is false.
Why does it say Xbox One exclusive when it was already announced for Windows?
The boxart is the only thing we've seen that says anything about exclusivity, and it's obviously inaccurate, so I don't why anyone would rule out PS4 at this point.
"Before they commit a disservice to those who have supported them since the start ."
Max Payne fans?
Just played that on my PS4.
Really? You'd wait three years if you knew a slightly better PS4 would release?
You're that bothered that you won't have the best PlayStation out there, that you would go without one entirely for several years, and stick to something that released in 2006 just to save a couple hundred bucks? Sure.
A port is a port. You can't exclude Zombi because it's a port from another system, yet give Tomb Raider a pass because it's a port of a better game. Make the argument that Zombi just isn't as good if you must, but don't pretend you want retail games that aren't ports if you're going to just make that contingent on quality anyway. Don't drum up technicalities that only matter half the time. And I'm not arguing that Plus wasn...
Indeed. At $49.99 for a year, each game costs us $0.70. They ain't free. They're under $1 each. Huge difference. Thanks for pointing it out.
I think he understands what's going on perfectly fine. Standards are all over the place. Thief and Sherlock were on PS+ over a year ago, and despite the only difference being current-gen vs last-gen (and a year's difference), they're used as examples when making extreme claims about how good or bad PS+ and GWG are. We aren't seeing "PS+ ain't bad, but it could be better". We're seeing "Still trash. GWG is so much better than ps+." A...
No way will it live up to the high standards set by Sherlock Holmes.
PS3 also had seven or eight years to build up a library. The best months, such as the one that included BioShock Infinite, came after the PS4 was released. Not only did games like BioShock have to compete for attention with tons of other games... they had to compete with brand new consoles too. People seem to forget this has as much to do with publishers as it does Sony and MS. Neither MS or Sony have had any major third party retail games like Sony offered on PS3.
Anonymous source "speculates" that Activision will give out two games on a console that they probably won't have a marketing deal with this year. Seems legit.
We really do deserve more for our $4.16 each month. Only six games doesn't cut it if most don't regularly sell for $30 in a store.
@Number_9 There is no list war to have. Like I said, making fun of this.. "my mediocrity is better than your mediocrity". People like you make it out to sound like there is some massive quality disparity between PS+ and GWG, but in reality, there isn't. The best "AAA" stuff on GWG for Xbox One are third-rate games Sherlock and Thief that nobody cared about when they were on PS+ for PS3 a year ago. And yomfweee also sai...
Mass Effect, BG&E, SSX, Dragon Age, Grid, and Super Stardust, Walking Dead S2, Grim Fandango, and Broforce, among others. "Mediocre and forgettable." Sure. None of those stack up to Sherlock and Supreme Commander 2. I can see how what Sony offers can be so easily forgotten by comparison to those blockbusters.
Who said you had to like anything? There's plenty of games I don't like. But the difference between you and me is I don't consider the games I don't like garbage.
And really, who would ever want to play on a crappy SNES? We all know those games are garbage too. Better graphics means better fun. Can't wait for killstreaks in 4K. I wish Rocket League ran in CryEngine so I could have more fun with it. Such a shame. If only they spent more money making it, it wouldn't be indie trash.
Budget = quality. This is why indie titles are garbage. Creativity and talent mean nothing if you don't have Activision's checkbook. DESTINY GOTY
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.