Speaking on what’s coming next for Naughty Dog, which could be either their new IP or The Last Of Us Part III, Druckmann gave what he seems to feel are realities of the project he’s talking about. That it’ll both be “really ambitious” but also “really hard.”
Neil Druckmann talks about Naughty Dog's Next Game which is really ambitious and parts of it are hard to make! pic.twitter.com/IqY2KEI1Gb
— DomTheBomb (@DomTheBombYT) March 1, 2024
Industry insider Dusk Golem reveals that there is no Resident Evil 1 Remake in the works. Instead, Capcom are reportedly in active development of Resident Evil Zero and Code Veronica.
RE Zero would be better to do first over RE1 because they can tie the story into RE1 more.
The original RE Remake was weird because Rebecca never mentioned anything about what happened in Zero and it felt so disjointed because Zero was developed during the Remake and they clearly didn't share any notes with one another.
LOL! A phone call from you? ROFL! They have been remaking RE games for YEARS! It was a matter of time!
TechRaptor writes, "After getting our hands on the Frostpunk 2 story, we got to sit down with Łukasz Juszczyk to talk about how the game evolved from the original."
Founder of Metal: Hellsinger studio says he wasn't against Game Pass until their game launched on Microsoft's service, which affected game sales.
Why did PS copy gamepass if it's so terrible and unprofitable? PS Now was before gamepass but it was streaming trash that no one had any interest in.
And honestly the way the industry releases overpriced and broken games with day one season passes and dlc who wouldn't want to just pay for a subscription instead of $70 per game?
Only biased PS fans would defend paying more to a corporation rather than an option that's cheaper for the consumer overall. If it's from an indie studio that needs the sales that's different but games published by larger companies are fine on a subscription model. Also any of these devs who complain did decide to put their games on gamepass in thr first place.
Ahhh yes the typical but but but Sony in a Microsoft article.
When did Sony copy Microsoft? I havent seen Sony's big day one titles such as God of war Ragnarok or GT7? Do you want to know why they are not on the service? Because people are still willing to PAY for the games. Sony has already admitted they lost millions putting Horizon Forbidden West and Ratchet & Clank on PS+ Extra.
"larger companies are fine on a subscription model" Oh really? So why is all the cod games yet to be on it? Where is elden ring? Resident Evil 4 Remake? Street Fighter 6? Boulders Gate 3? Alan Wake 2? Where are they of gamepass is great and big publishers are fine putting newer games on it?
I'll tell you where they are. They are currently still selling for their respected publisher's. You know actually making them money. That money they can use to fund the next project.
who wouldn't want to just pay for a subscription instead of $70 per game?
I'm one of the millions who much rather pay $70 so fully support the publisher. Why do we do this? Well for starters I rather just pay for it rather than keep renting it each month. If we all just kept renting years ago blockbuster would still be around. Secondly, I rather we have AAA titles in 10 years time to enjoy. Rather than play mobile quality crap from a subscription.
Tell me how this is a good thing for gaming going forward. The last time I subbed to Gamepass was October 2023. During that one month subscription I played the newly released Starfield, Forza and a few other titles. All for the cost of about $7. Since then Microsoft have not released anything I want to try out or put anything on GP I want to try. So they last made $7 from me 8 months ago.
In the last 3 months. I have bought Sea of Thieves on PS5 (earning MS more money on that than my 1 month subscription to gamepass). Resident Evil 4 for £20 and Diablo 4 for £25 (again earning MS more buying this than buying a sub). Tell me how it's best for gaming I pay $7 and play the latest and greatest for a month. Rather than just buying what I want even if it means waiting a few months and getting it cheaper than full price yet earning the publisher more than renting said games of a monthly sub.
...but didn't this game leave GP and then join PS+?
If a sub service is so bad, why get into another one right away?
Finally devs waking up! More will follow .. reminds me of capcom during PS3,360 era almost going bankrupt they released extremely poor games because Xbox gave them paychecks not to release them on PS3 for as period. Sales were terrible and they went away from that.
Sony has never released new titles day one. They experimented with Forbidden West which was fairly new and quickly discovered that it cannabalized sales. XBOX gamepass was always an act of desperation to remain relevant and in their desperation they effectively dug their grave where today everybody is biding their time for their formerly exclusive titles. In a nutshell GamePass made XBOX not relevant.
It wasn't desperation. Subscription Models had a very different outlook in 2017 and then with the gaming surge during COVID reaching critical mass seemed more and more possible.
Phil convinced Satya to chase a trend and it hasn't worked out
Pretty much. People can say what they want but Ms said it themselves with the court papers. It was definitely desperation. Xbox was getting it handed to them. They were desperate.
Literally dev who put game on gamepass:
It's not good
TheProfessional: but but sony but sony
Sony didnt copy MS. MS copied Sony, then MS went on to make xbox a subscription device. Remember that part? Yeah.
You're not too bright, right?
First of all, Sony didn't copy Microsoft regarding PS+ and GamePass, which you admit to early in your comment, but with some faults. PSNow was not only streaming.
The mentality at Xbox gamers, is to NOT buy games, because they are used to get it on GamePass, preferbly day 1 like with all Xbox Studios games.
This is not a thing at PS+ and never was.
Sure there was plenty day 1 games on PS+ like, Rocket League, Stray, Sea of Stars, Tchia, Operation Tango etc, but those didn't take away from gamers that it was more like a "bonus" than a "thing".
Playstation gamers buy games, a lot of games and PS+ has been proving to be way better for business than GamePass, both by actually having more subscribers but also no eating up sales.
"Only biased PS fans would defend paying more to a corporation rather than an option that's cheaper for the consumer overall.“
How can you possibly come to this conclusion?
First, you pay for a subscription.
Then download games. But games will eventually leave the service. You will again need to buy them if you want to play them ever again. Or if you cancel your subscription. Right?
Eventhough this may NOT have an effect on every subscriber, this IS in fact the economical motiviation behind the service like GP.
If you are not already paying "double" this way, you pay at a 1.2 or maybe even at a 1.5 ratio eventually than opposed to simply buying the game in the first place.
As I said, this maybe doesn't apply to every subscriber. But this doesn't erase the fact of this business model existing. And possibly keep growing.
It's driving me nuts at times that especially the die hard Xboxers seem not to understand what they are actually cheering for foolishly.
xbots always tryna group...
..they'll never understand or refuse to acknowledge why these two console brands are miles apart. Gamespass isn't the golden egg some would have you believe. Its hit its peak and is nowhere near the demanded target of subs by the purse holders
xbots always tryna group...
..they'll never understand or refuse to acknowledge why these two console brands are miles apart. Gamespass isn't the golden egg some would have you believe. Its hit its peak and is nowhere near the demanded target of subs by the purse holders. on top of that it seems more devs on top of the devs that have shunned the service are not seeing the value of subs vs actual sales. Sell first, sub later works better than sub off the bat. MSGaming has a major sea change decision to make regarding COD. Do they release it dod and lose a high portion of up front revenue or either up the price of gp on the whole or create an even higher sub tier to cushion the blow or don't release it on gp at all and potentially damage the good will gesture reiterated not too long ago. The acquisition money wasn't free money....they'll have to pick their poison
"Why did PS copy gamepass if it's so terrible and unprofitable?"
They didn't copy GP. They aren't dumb enough to put their exclusives day 1.
"Who wouldn't want to just pay for a subscription instead of $70 per game?"
People who don't like to rent things.
It's funny when he says who wouldn't pay for a subscription instead of paying 70$. Well no shit...if MS keeps releasing average titles who wouldnt..🤣
The reason is playstation didn't copy anybody and they don't release broken games, their games are still not day 1 and Ps players still buy games so ps+ is just an option for those that want a subscription service, the fact playstation doesn’t push it front and centre should tell you a lot.
On xbox gamepass IS front and centre with an option to buy games on the side, look how that is panning out for them!
Xbox fans are the only ones trumpeting this from the rooftops
Weren't we able to download ps3 on ps3 and ps4 on ps4 systems back then I really don't remember.
Truth is Ms still copied Sony and made a couple adjustments. One adjustment being day one games which clearly has been xboxs issue hence the ps5 releases, and they groomed the base to not buy games.
To be fair it takes it's own level of bias to not see the harm day one game pass is doing to xbox and the industry as a whole. Harm that xbox themselves have admitted to.
“Why did PS copy gamepass”
This is a long story that spans decades. Sony subscription services for games (PS+ and PS Now) before Microsoft. Sony and Microsoft weren’t the only ones. We’ve seen OnLive die, Google’s Stadia die, and disc rental services die. What made Game Pass successful is the amount of money Microsoft is able to lose. Everyone expected Sony to offer a one-to-one Game Pass competitor and they did. To actually make money, Somy sells its own games for at least a year before relegating them to PS+. Sony also has scale. More PS5s sold means more users which means more money. Will these subscription services last? Probably not. Few things do.
As a huge fan of PS Premium, I don't recall a single AAA game launching on it. Even a AA game.
Everything I've found on PS Premium has already been out for sometime. Better selection too. There are games I trialed that I said "yup, I'm buying".
I feel no sympathy for the guy, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that putting your game on gamepass would affect sales.
Seriously, how is it that devs need one of their games to bomb in sales due to Gamepass for them to realize what so many people could easily predict? Like people joke about "armchair CEOs" on here, but at least with respect to the effect of Gamepass, we keep seeing that the armchair CEOs are actually smarter than the real heads of these indie studios.
Probably short-sightedness when he saw that initial Microsoft check, temporarily made all reason jump out the window 🤑
In some of the devs defense they know the game won't sell. So why not take the gamepass check. Hopefully yaluza/like a dragon sell decent on Xbox. I'd like to keep this series around.
The 'day-one' feature is the breaker or maker with GP, business-wise.
GP is no Netflix.
Because, from all the Marvel's Avengers to Sicarios, illustratively speaking, they all had their box office money. Before they had entered Netflix.
This concept shows you what Microsoft have actually put themselves into.
And what situation studios put themselves into if they go day-one into GP.
Why not sell your game the traditional way first? Then after about 6 months to a year put it on a sub service.
Day one on gamepass is a gamble. It works for some (Pal world) and not for others.
It's the old psych. experiment. Set out some candy and tell the person they can have it all now, or if they wait, they can have double the amount. Most choose the first option, then complain when it doesn't work out for them.
"I’ve really surrendered to knowing it’s going to be really hard, knowing it’s going to stress members of the team out"
As if crunch wasn't stressing them enough
That it’ll both be “really ambitious” but also “really hard.”
Not 'is' but 'will be', kinda suggests that they haven't started yet, hope not.
Come on ND, a game PLEAAAAASSSSEEEE. Desperate this gen.
Also, just off-topic slightly but..
Does anyone think that layoffs now may well be making space for AI integration of game development, and 'crunch-time', 'unsustainable', 'big budget' are all terms been used to butter us up to receiving the news that AI integration will help and maintain the level of AAA games that were accustomed to? Perhaps the layoffs were the devs that didn't join a union quick enough and if only they had the smarts of SAG members and strike while the time is right, before its too late?! Imagine DEV's on strike at a time like this, there's already a game drought.
I hope they remember to make it realy fun to play.
And then Sony will lay off 900 more staff to save costs