Thinking about how E3 will play out, I've got a hunch. When you start digging into Natal, or whatever it's soon to be called, the major problem with the vaunted controller-less controller is just that. No buttons.
My prediction is that at E3, Microsoft will introduce a similar buttoned one-handed controller, or a set of controllers to remedy the issue. I'm not sure if it will include any motion tracking the way Sony's Move wand does, but I can't see Natal going very far without buttons. However, instead of assuming Microsoft is filled with fools and it is written by the gods that Microsoft can never do anything right, I'm going with Microsoft biting the inappropriate appropriations bullet and stomaching whatever sniping the fanboys have for the theft.
The PlayStation brand CEO, Jim Ryan, said that the Bungie deal gives them way more value than the Activision acquisition.
Urm. Yeah if it was literally just Destiny vs Call of Duty but Activision is made up of a fair few other games especially on the Blizzard side of things
Then you have Crash Bandicoot and Spyro, two ex PlayStation mascots from the old days
I feel this is just standard bullshit PR talk since the UK approved the Activision deal
If Destiny was enough then why pursue so many GaaS games…
"If Destiny was enough then why pursue so many GaaS games…"
I mean, that's what he's getting at when he says the Bungie deal can give them more than spending $69b. It was never just about Destiny with it, they brought them in to help build their GAAS, and if that ends up working for them, while knowing not all will succeed, then yeah they could get more in the end.
It's def. Pr and a lot of ifs, and personally I feel they are overvaluing what Bungie can deliver, but all they need is one "Fortnite" "COD" mega gaas to be successful and that 3.6B would end up being pennies in the grand picture.
But again, I think they're putting way to much faith in Bungie. I mean, look at what's been going on with their own game this season, tons are upset over it, and this has been going on even before they were bought. That's who they want leading their GAAS? Remember, it's rumored that they're the reason that Faction 2 is delayed since it couldn't apparently work as a GAAS.
“and if that ends up working for them, while knowing not all will succeed, then yeah they could get more in the end”
Well hopefully they fail spectacularly or else PlayStation will forever be changed
Once they get a taste of that kind of money then there’s no going back and it will just get worse slowly over time.
They can make more than one type of game... Games are expensive, the multiplayer games can help fund the single player games.
It's not one or the other, and Sony has been telling you this since the start, they still plan to keep making single player games.
And hoping Sony fails spectacularly is basically hoping that the PlayStation brand fails, because with Microsoft doing what they are doing that's what you're going to get.
As what Ein said, the interview was last year. As someone else said there's like over 28 games in development at that time. 10 suppose to be live service and those 10 suppose to be spreaded out over the years. Those 10 suppose to be different genre and some based on already existing IP last of us, horizon are 2 of them. Read the full interview people would get what he is talking about. One point he made was that they will help boost single player games.
Destiny was supposed to be their mega gaas success, it's why they left MS (and for some reason sided with activision). This is just straight up bs, there's no way that bungie will ever make even close to anything that actibliz does. also a bit dumb of Ryan to say that Bungie, a single studio, will go head to head against a company made up of 20 studios, 15 highly regarded ips and even their own publishing branch, it's just not happening.
“I mean, look at what's been going on with their own game this season, tons are upset over it“
People get upset with most live service multiplayer games because you can never please everyone. At least that’s the way I’ve seen it on the internet.
Crash and Spyro barely sell anymore and aren't enough to move any kind of needle. I'd barely count them as having any kind of impact at all.
My point is it’s still something
If your main meaty part of the deal is COD and Blizzard games then Crash and Spyro are nice little bonuses
I think he means quite literally it gives them ,Sony, more to work with than less (like actual money). In the same Interview he goes on To explain that Spending 69B is a means to an end for Microsoft to pursue its goals with Subscription. However, the 4B Bungie purchase allows them to build their own content without spending untold billions acquiring everything.
He further explains that they are only acquiring where the see they have a need. So, while they are good on the single player front, they had to make a purchase that would allow them to build up their multiplayer and live service front.
You may also be interested to know that the title doesn't reflect the exact context that Jim is speaking in.
I’m sure the Bungie buyout was to give their first party studios multiplayer expertise which is exactly why Factions got put on the back burner. And Microsoft will probably run Activision in the ground anyhow. They can’t even properly run the studios they have now.
You are correct. As I said below Bungie is their to teach their teams how to build lasting multiplayer experiences. Even if their games never had any MtX (spoiler: they will) this would still lead to higher profits because of this thing called PSPlus.
The thing about crash and Spyro is that Microsoft doesn't seem to make platformers anymore. Crash and Spyro will likely sit dead ips once that deal finishes.
Heres the full interview, this site needs to change. Start posting the full thing not one thing from it making 10 different topic
https://www.reddit.com/r/PS...
Dude I get it man but accept Activision was bigger purchase even though it shouldn't have happened regardless but modern gaming these days it's full of cheerleaders imo.
Probably not, but, even so, that would only be because they have a bunch of planned GaaS titles coming down the pipeline, and Bungie's purchase literally was just for them to help direct all the studios in how to best monetize the releases.
It was to teach their teams how to build multiplayer experiences that focused on increasing the longevity of engagement. It turns out you don't really need to go overboard with monetization. All you have to do is get gamers to keep coming back.
The longevity part is the crux here because even though Sony makes top tier games, they are mostly one and done experiences (that don't require PS Plus to enjoy).
So listening to what he is actually saying and viewing the whole picture, basically all they want to do is make their own multiplayer games that can pull people into PSPlus so the are less dependant on 3rd party to drive their subscptions. That's the biggest prize. Of course we need to be vocal and make sure that they don't get carried away with monetization but anyone who is honestly listening to him and using critical thinkingncan see that this is about replacing 3rd party dependence with 1 party content and driving subs.
if thats the case move and natal will be so similar specially with that fighting game footage where hip hop gamer wasn't using controllers, showing games can function with PS eye like they will with natal
I don't think so. They've been tooting their No controller horn for a long time now.
If they do demo something, it would be the object scanning thing that they have been showing in their trailer
This is exactly what I was thinking, the same exact damn thing.
It's interesting to note that maybe Move can work WITH Natal! Since Natal scans real life objects. I doubt it's that precise but it'd be funny as hell if it happens.
Except that it would really be borrowing from Nintendo, since the whole motion stick and Nunchuk was theirs far before it was Sony's