Naughty Dog should go back to one of its first hit classics - Crash Bandicoot. Which games in the series should they go back to?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shadowfall Studios have announced via X.com the studio is now an official PlayStation partner.
https://www.shadowfallstudi...
Looks like a Skyrim clone. Very interesting if done well.
Replies(3)
"Crytek was founded by the Turkish-German brothers Cevat, Avni and Faruk Yerli in September 1999 in Coburg, Germany."
So he's right, Crysis games are not made IN Turkey... ;)
Just as Zeke mentioned..Crytek is a German developer, created by a turkish guy who lives there, was probably born there.
What I meant are games completely made in the country
-Mount & Blade: Warband
-Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord
-Oddmar
-Anomaly Agent
-Demonologist
-Stygian: Reign of the Old Ones
-Cardboard Town
-Conarium
-Monochroma
What is turkish mythology? They don't have a mythology of their own. Unless we are going to rewrite history? Can someone fill us in on what mythology turkey has.
It could mean folklore, proverb, or even fairytale like Jack and the magic beanstalk. It could even just be lore about historical figures like you even see in American culture like Jonny Appleseed (a real person whose life story was mythologized).
You know that thing called google. (Or DuckDuckGo, depending on preference 😏)
Have a go at it sometime. It’s good
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
Replies(1)
FIFA president Gianni Infantino teases the future of FIFA games in a brand-new interview, and NBA 2K24 studio 2K Games might be behind it.
There’s PES and now we’ll have FC25 and FIFA so yes, but it is no longer true, shit is about to get real!
Now if we only had two viable options for Basketball and American football we’d be on to something.
If what we've heard is true, the reason FIFA games don't change is literally because of FIFA itself rejecting nearly every pitch for new features and mechanics.
Hmmm, let’s see how they do. If they riddle it with microtransactions, hell no. Otherwise, I’m excited.
It would be nice. They have two teams now so if one does something realistic like the Last of Us while the second does fun, colourful platforming games then it could work and help keep each release feel fresh.
Hell you could incorporate a Crash Bash styled multiplayer to Crash if they wanted.
ND aren't into creating games like Crash anymore
Sounds like they want to keep the simplicity. I'm all for the revival of Crash, but it really seems off course for modern day Naughty Dog. Just feels like a step backwards. They've moved past Crash and I, personally, see it as underutilizing their current prowess.
The fact is, Naughty Dog is doing astonishing work as is. They have shown a very powerful talent doing what they do now. Sony has plenty of other studios that are up to the task. Heck, why not tap a long time partner like Insomniac to handle it?
Then there's the matter of simplicity as the author suggests. I actually worry that if the mechanics are too simple (as they were back then) it wouldn't do well by modern standards. It'd have to do something cool to make it successful. I wouldn't mind Naughty Dog acting as a consulting figure to pitch ideas to the developing studio, but having them make it? No doubt it'd be great, but again, just feels like a waste.
To put it into PlayStation terms, it would be like playing God of War II with the Blade of Olympus on the easiest difficulty. Perceivable overkill.
Naughty Dog ain't going back. They just ain't.
This is going to be produced by them at the very most, with a developer like Sanzaru being contracted for it.
The last of us 2 with a amazing story and another new ip with a amazing story they tell the best stories bring it on ND