I bought Days Gone in a digital sale but I never got around to playing it. I've given my PS4 to my sister for now until I get a PS5 next year sometime, probably when Horizon Forbidden West comes out. I'll have so much to play as I've yet to play Ghosts or The Last of Us II, either.
Yeah I believe days gone sold really well. I remember it being high on the charts months later. Even though it wasn’t received as well as other Sony games, I think it will definitely get a sequel.
Win some, loose some. For every 5 Horizons, you'll get one Days Gone. Doesn't mean you have to stop making Horizons just because you got one Days Gone.
I can't wait to replay HZD on PS5. Only then will I be ready for Forbidden West. HZD looked great on my base PS4 at 1080p with HDR, so I'm looking forward to experiencing the game again at Pro settings on PS5 before playing the sequel.
Sony are amazing. They let Guerilla Games go away from Shooters to make whatever they wanted, and they chose to make Horizon Zero Dawn. The rest is history. Sony take risks with their amazing game studios. MS never takes risks in game development and that showed the entirety of Xbox One generation. This gen? We'll see
"Never:? Sea of Thieves wasn't a risk? Don't know why people feel the need to speak in definitive terms. Scalebound was also also a risk, and one that didn't pan out as favorable to date.
A much simpler game with barebones content at launch despite a major studios development. Not really taking risks seriously. And, again. Scalebound was not taken seriously as they decided to can it because they thought it to be risky to go any further rather than salvage it. You're rewarding them without even releasing it? Lol.
How's that a risk when it launched with next to no content and it got a pass because it was on gamepass. Quality wise ms has a lot of catching up to do when compared to sony and nintendo
Do you all even pay attention to what you post? You say the game had no content. How would that NOT be a risk, of spending money and releasing a game with little content, from a key developer that most of you all claim is not even a shell of its former self?
So if Scalebound was not being taken serious, you are saying Microsoft burned money just for the fun?
But somehow you ask think Sony took a risk by letting itd proven developers continued to do what they have been doing. You all are such a contradiction.
So they take risks by releasing unfinished games AND by canceling projects. Not by putting actual effort into a fully realized project with a great release? Sony spends years perfecting games and allowing their studios to adopt entirely new gameplay concepts. MS earns a participation trophy at best.
You have to admit, Sony are really taking risks. Just look at the diversity of genres this generation: you have Uncharted 4, a third person action/adventure game, Last of Us 2, a third person action/adventure game, Spider-man, an open-world third person action/adventure game, Horizon, an open-world third person action/adventure game, God of War 12, a third person action/adventure game and Assassin's Creed: Japan, an open-world third person action/adventure game.
MS is playing it safe with their FPS, TPS, strategy, racing, simulation and RPG games, not to mention Sea of Thieves, the safest game to make ever.
The point is they all are VERY different with very compelling storylines and feature sets. You're implying Ghost of Tsushima and The Last of Us while both third person adventures are copies of one another......God of War and Uncharted are completely different games. Spider-Man is nothing like any of them.
I love how you separate FPS/TPS as if they're really different.....both can fall under "Action/Adventure" with a different camera angle but thats neither here nor there. Is Gears of War a TPS or an Action Adventure game? Just curious....
Other Games for PS5 that are already out or coming very soon: Gran Turismo - Racing Destruction AllStars - Multiplayer Battle Royale Demon's Souls - RPG Ratchet & Clank - Platformer Sackboy - Platformer Deathloop - FPS
Varying genres is important....but being the best at a couple genres is even better. If you're going to be the best at a single genre Action/Adventure is the one as it covers most peoples interest in the world. The same reason why people enjoy movies - Storytelling.
Ok, since you are taking your corporation of choice so seriously, let me just explain the joke: the point is that Sony is very risk-averse, which makes sense given their situation as a company. This is why their big-budget games are mostly third-person action/adventure, built of tried-and-true blocks. They are not EXACTLY the same, but the principles are pretty copy-paste. Sure, the games are of high quality and I myself enjoy them, but it doesn't change the fact that Sony is playing things pretty safe with their game design.
Really that's your argument? For xbox 360 they used the same 3-4 IP throughout the whole generation. With xbox one what risky games did they release which were great? You are listing game genre from the studios that's acquired ms have yet to release their games. As gamers we all want ms to do well and actually compete and release amazing games that are up for GOTY contention
It's also about creative freedom. Letting GG make an open world RPG going off the fact they had made FPS games for a while
The whole generation was IMHO quite stale, nowhere near the 360/PS3 times. But Sea of Thieves was a risk, Flight Simulator was a risk, as was Gears Tactics. Crackdown 3 was a risk that didn't pay off, same with this weird Quantum Break in-game TV series, but that's the price of innovation.
Currently there's a big push towards RPGs, and I don't mean action games with skill trees, but 'true' role-playing games. Some of them are already out, like Wasteland 3, and a lot of them are under development. Letting Playground Games, a racing game studio, reboot Fable is a risk.
It's ok to like Sony 1st party games, but there's no denying that they are really focusing on the same set of Ubisoft tropes: 3rd person action, open world here, skill tree or crafting there, obligatory stealth mechanism, Ubi-towers.
Totally agree with your take and I realized this as I was playing through Horizon Zero Dawn, especially the ubi towers and stealth mechanism of hiding in the bushes. I swear every sony game I played had those. And also like you said, they were high quality and polished, but they all seemed like they had a checklist of things to include.
Witchcraft, your comment is a strawman loaded with such ignorance it's a miracle you thought to post it.
God of War was a sequel that was a complete shift in every conceivable way from every game in the series prior, it was a massive risk which could have alienated the entire fanbase. Instead, it became one of the games of the generation.
Horizon, regardless of genre, is a new IP. That is the definition of risk. If a new IP is not a risk, then what the hell is? Guerrilla could have just kept on making more Killzones. They sell. But, new IP, successful enough to launch a new franchise.
Naughty Dog, instead of making more Uncharted games, made The Last Of Us. A "zombie" game at the end of a generation that killed the zombie genre, right before the launch of the new gen, and a total departure from their usual. Survival games were not for the masses back then. Risk.
Spider-Man, while not a risk, had a mountain to climb to be as good as it was. Hundreds of games, cash grabs, failures on its back. Ended up being good enough to start a new series.
Detroit, not a risk as it's an established developer and their style of game, but it surely adds to the diversity of the games on offer.
Dreams, new IP, niche concept, risk and diversity of game offering.
Ghosts of Tsushima. Call it Assassin's Creed Japan if you want, but again, rather than stick Sucker Punch with making more Infamous games after Second Son, and beating that horse to death, they got to make a new IP. Risk regardless of what you think, especially considering the money that goes into a new IP and the lack of guarantees.
Death Stranding, new IP, probably the riskiest game made this entire generation, regardless of having Kojima behind it.
Bloodborne, not a risk, but again a new IP and diversity of offering.
Shadow of the Colossus. You could argue there's risk in remaking a game from 2005 that most of your current audience probably don't even know about, but if you don't agree it's a risk, it still adds to the portfolio of games.
The Last Guardian. Big risk releasing this after so many years in development hell and being a cash sink. Could have landed up being another Duke Nukem Forever. Even if you want to shoot down the risk factor by saying it had a following and established developer, still a new IP and unique offering.
Days Gone...look another new IP.
The Order...look another new IP.
Knack...look another new IP.
Astro VR...look another new IP, rated one of the best platformers.
Sackboy...new game, diversity of portfolio.
Then to further add to the portfolio there's still your usual Ratchet and Clank, Gran Turismo, Persona 5, etc etc...
Even if you still delude yourself with the idea that Sony doesn't take risks, they have one of the most diverse gaming portfolios on offer and launched multiple new IPs this generation with potential to become established franchises. It's fact at this point, no matter how you wish to strawman it.
The only point I'll give you in your favour is that Sony do have similarities between their games, in that they favour story heavy cinematic experiences...but to lob them in the same boat as Ubisoft is a ridiculous notion.
This is called alternative facts: yes Spiderman, Ghost of Tsushima, bloodborne, Unchartrd, God of war and Horizon plays exactly the same. A similar camera angle means the game is the same just like GTA and tomb raider are the exact same game. What kinda BS is this? If anything we’ve got more than enough FPS and tps games like Halo and Gears in the market. Almost every MS game is a shooter. That’s just pathetic.
Also worth pointing out: Ghost of Tsushima was a MASSIVE risk. Not only was it something well out of Sucker Punch's wheelhouse, but it was a game set in Feudal Japan that strove for accuracy. Accuracy to the culture, to the period, the world. No anachronisms that were popular even in Japanese-produced games with the same setting, no over-the-top swordplay, using actual swordmasters to choreograph the fight scenes.. and then hoping that it not only sells here in the States but in Japan, without offending massive numbers of people.
And they pulled that off! Not only was the game loved in Japan, but the most offended people were those who live here, with no real connection to Japanese culture.
Those MS games you mentioned were not risky games to make. They just suck ass games. No real risk or effort made. Just run off the mill gaas filler crap
Because they clearly are so POOR! And they don’t include micro transactions, season, or battle passes in full priced games and make billions from said things. You should keep that mentality on being a fool with money, these corps love easy quiet fools like you not fighting back with your wallet wide open for that next piece of overpriced skin.
I think you're taking that frustration out on the wrong corp. You might need to direct that energy to the one that actually said they were going to adapt the GaaS model.
I see this commentaries from Jim just to justify price increases. He's just being what he is, an executive trying to make more money with the same recipe, which is great for Sony but greedy. Sony has previously launched great exclusives without price hikes, but now due to economics, due to inflation, due to whatever you can think about, is a valid excuse to their goal. I cannot argue their decision because that's their business and they run it as they want, but don't think nor suppose people can't read between the lines.
It is his job, and people need to quit acting like Executives are supposed to do anything different. Phil Spencer does the same thing just in a different style. He talks a great game, but has not delivered anything exciting to the video game industry in 7 years since he took over. And it took him a whole lot of cash just to wow anyone. Good job bro. I’ll be impressed when you release 3 very good new games that’s not Gears, Halo or Forza or any continuation of an IP that you bought.
These are for-profit businesses people. Can we all just move on? They made the decision, you can either choose to buy them, or not. None of you are entitled to these games, or their prices. And you can make a point with your purchasing decision. If you’re that upset, Dont buy any $70 game for a couple years. If there are that many of you out there, Sony will be hurting in there sales revenue.
Video games still provide the best bang for your buck in terms of entertainment. Most of Sony’s games are 15-30 hours of quality story, gameplay and graphics. That’s $2-5/hour of entertainment at $70. Better than the film industry outside of $5 matinees (which every area doesn’t have), sitting down at a good restaurant, golfing, etc...
I wouldn't spend 100 million dollars developing an art piece or new product over years. Only to sell it for $60 and a risk it won't make back the cash spent.
I'll get down voted for this but games are cheap considering how much money it costs to make.
If its too much wait for price drops a few months later.
People should stop bending over to these companies and shouldn't listen to what corporate mouthpieces have to say because well... https://www.pushsquare.com/...
When will gamers realize that the gaming industry is an absolute anti-consumer joke and that they shouldn't ever listen to what the people that are part of it have to say?
So they made a lot of money becasue people love and buy their games whats that got to do with the fact these games cost a lot of money to make as he is saying?
What got me was your blanket statement, so I responded in a blanket matter. I appreciate those people that “cry” over the price increase. Why would you spend time suppressing them? I can safely bet that you must’ve made at least a single purchase on a game that went on sale physical or digital.
I'd like to see a full general analysis of what break even in terms of sales is along with the required IRR they both utilize to move forward with big projects like this.
Man, I was already thinking this but it’s nice to hear it confirmed. Sony takes risk. The dualsense could have been universally trashed. The PlayStation VR could have been the worst selling VR option instead of the best selling. Ghost of Tsushima could have been trash, the God of War reboot could have started a revolt, Blu-Ray could have been HD-DVD, CDs as a game storage device could have never happened, and even a classic like Shadow of the Colossus could have stayed a shadow. I’ll gladly pay that extra $10 for Sony to stay as they have been. Sure we can nit pick ANY company and zero in on negatives, but damn. The good FAR outweighs the bad and how can you NOT support them.
They don't guarantee sales. Look at MediEvil. Was hardly a huge seller despite being a labor of love, and critics slammed it for not updating the "out-of-date" gameplay. But had they changed that gameplay, do you think that would have gone over well with the diehards?
The only problem I have with game prices increasing is, that they shouldnt be the same price digitally as the physical copies (specially Sony games) as Sony doesnt have to pay a fee to put them on the store like other companies since they own it.
I think Digital games from Sony should be cheaper then the physical copies 100%.
In a perfect world, yes 100%. But its possible that some of the cost is being offset by the savings in the digital sales. Otherwise I agree wholeheartedly
They did that on Vita for a while, but then some devs had an issue with it after like the first year and they were forced to have some games cheaper and some the same price. Was a whole mess and a half for years. Better for communication sake to keep it one price
Give it a rest Jim. All everybody wants is new IP's. No one wants the same shit churned out year after year. I know that suits your agenda because it makes more money because you just recycle old assets but no one else cares... & if blockbuster games are now costing 100m+ then that's due to pure stupidity & bullshit, nothing else!
Nobody dared to comment on Kratos due to its popularity. But days gone was an easy target for many agendas out there. That game is easily one of the better open world survival games out there.
I'm playing it now. Easy 10/10 for gameplay and graphics but the characters are so boring and the story is your usual generic "humans are either pacifists or murdering thieves after an apocalypse, and all is not as it seems so there must be a conspiracy which I must uncover!". It is under-rated though.
They make up a decent amount with ps+ subs. However if you have a problem with the $70 price tag, just wait 2 months. Sales usually happen and reduced most games by $20.
Thankfully those risk have paid off. Just look at Ghost of Tsushima and Horizon: Zero Dawn
Sony are amazing. They let Guerilla Games go away from Shooters to make whatever they wanted, and they chose to make Horizon Zero Dawn. The rest is history. Sony take risks with their amazing game studios. MS never takes risks in game development and that showed the entirety of Xbox One generation. This gen? We'll see
Expensive, people definitely shouldnt cry over the price increase.
straight after that comment, he said - we are committed to these types of games and have seen massive growth in this area.
just incase anyone was worried.
I'd like to see a full general analysis of what break even in terms of sales is along with the required IRR they both utilize to move forward with big projects like this.