Sony, Sony, Soony

[SonyFanboyTears]

But what about TLOU Remake for example? It has enormous production values compared to the PS4 version.

And ships without multiplayer while the original did.

They didn't even do new mocap correct?

Even still, TLOU II was a significantly bigger task than TLOU I and they were fine with $60.

 

[Deleted member 13]

And ships without multiplayer while the original did.

They didn't even do new mocap correct?

Even still, TLOU II was a significantly bigger task than TLOU I and they were fine with $60.

$60 for back then. Over time things change. You can't say "well damn, bread was $1.00 last year and now it's $1.10 this year". The increase has to happen at some point in time.

 

[SonyFanboyTears]

$60 for back then. Over time things change. You can't say "well damn, bread was $1.00 last year and now it's $1.10 this year". The increase has to happen at some point in time.

You're ignoring everything im saying.

 

[laynelane]

For example. If they know what games they are porting to the PC, why not announce all the games for the year?

What is the current time frame for announcements of games coming to PC? Months ahead, weeks ahead of release? Or is it dependent on the game? I haven't kept close track of this since it doesn't apply to me. I was under the assumption that PC port announcements are mostly integrated into Sony events.

 

[nominedomine]

Sony sucks, sure, yet no other publisher comes close as far as releasing quality AAA games consistently.

Blame the competition for the fact that Sony can just coast, maybe MS should've been creating something in the last 10 years instead of whatever it is that they have done instead.

As far as PC, Sony is glad if you buy their games on PC allowing someone else get that PS5 unit. If it ever become obvious that releasing the games on PC is costing them games/console sales they'll just stop or delay the ports further (so far it doesn't look like that's how they are interpreting the effect of their games being available on PC).

 

[Deleted member 13]

You're ignoring everything im saying.

No, I'm not. I heard everything you are saying. But I disagree with your premise. Games will become more complex and that requires higher prices - EVEN if you think it's not enough to take up the slack. I then asked you to give suggestions to make $70 seem viable and I got none.

 

[Deleted member 13]

What is the current time frame for announcements of games coming to PC? Months ahead, weeks ahead of release? Or is it dependent on the game? I haven't kept close track of this since it doesn't apply to me. I was under the assumption that PC port announcements are mostly integrated into Sony events.

They are waiting like 1-2 months before releasing info on the game. I think Spiderman was even shorter than that.

 

[laynelane]

They are waiting like 1-2 months before releasing info on the game. I think Spiderman was even shorter than that.

Are you referring to port announcements or more detailed, technical information on the game itself? If the latter, I can understand your frustration.

 

[SonyFanboyTears]

No, I'm not. I heard everything you are saying. But I disagree with your premise. Games will become more complex and that requires higher prices - EVEN if you think it's not enough to take up the slack. I then asked you to give suggestions to make $70 seem viable and I got none.

You didn't ask me what suggestions to make $70 seem viable. You asked what they do should besides raising the prices of games. To which I did answer.

You ignored the fact that even without raising the prices since the PS3 era, record profits and revenue. But now suddenly we just can't budget a game properly at $60? If you wanna point the finger at inflation then the price for ALL of sony games should go up. Not just PS5 games. Did that happen? No. If Sony is just bleeding out here due to inflation, which they are not, then they would raise the prices across the board. They are not. We both know why.

You also ignored the fact that people have justified that $70 will keep things like MTX and such out of games. Which also is not true. Sony, Activision, 2K are all examples of this.

You also ignored my opinion that games are getting too big and not a single person asked for it. DO you know anyone who said Assassins Creed games need to b 120 hours full of content or I am not buying? I sure dont. If anything I see people that skipped it because they are too long. Nobody asked Ubisoft to pump more and more resources to make Assassins Creed Odyssey 120 hours plus.

Again, I am not against raising the cost of games if it makes sense to the consumer. And it doesn't. Games are riddled with nickle and diming, first and third party with corporations creating games to specifically cater to paying more than the sticker price. And now they want to raise the sticker price as well?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Ok. I will send your concerns to Jim Ryan.

 

[rofif]

I have a master degree and 20 years of experience on Internet forums … and I’ve never seen so much text my life

 

[Dr Bass]

You didn't ask me what suggestions to make $70 seem viable. You asked what they do should besides raising the prices of games. To which I did answer.

You ignored the fact that even without raising the prices since the PS3 era, record profits and revenue. But now suddenly we just can't budget a game properly at $60? If you wanna point the finger at inflation then the price for ALL of sony games should go up. Not just PS5 games. Did that happen? No. If Sony is just bleeding out here due to inflation, which they are not, then they would raise the prices across the board. They are not. We both know why.

You also ignored the fact that people have justified that $70 will keep things like MTX and such out of games. Which also is not true. Sony, Activision, 2K are all examples of this.

You also ignored my opinion that games are getting too big and not a single person asked for it. DO you know anyone who said Assassins Creed games need to b 120 hours full of content or I am not buying? I sure dont. If anything I see people that skipped it because they are too long. Nobody asked Ubisoft to pump more and more resources to make Assassins Creed Odyssey 120 hours plus.

Again, I am not against raising the cost of games if it makes sense to the consumer. And it doesn't. Games are riddled with nickle and diming, first and third party with corporations creating games to specifically cater to paying more than the sticker price. And now they want to raise the sticker price as well?

On what I bolded above ... I actually have seen plenty of people express that opinion. Maybe not with that game or set number of hours but yeah. Plenty of people saying "only 80 hours? Screw that!" or something similar. No I do not have links. But I've seen it.

Btw "profits" are what keeps these games getting made. If they were just breaking even, these companies would not venture to make this stuff. So record profits is GOOD if you want gaming to expand and keep offering you bigger and better things. Now I don't think being greedy is good, but wanting a profit is not the same thing. And as @VFX_Veteran stated, these things have become incredibly complex and expensive to make. Gamers keep demanding more, but don't want to pay for it? It makes no sense. Something has to give.

And if you don't like it vote with your wallet. That's all you can do. But it doesn't seem like it's going to make a difference because the Sony 1st party stuff is selling fantastic at the new price.

 

[SonyFanboyTears]

On what I bolded above ... I actually have seen plenty of people express that opinion. Maybe not with that game or set number of hours but yeah. Plenty of people saying "only 80 hours? Screw that!" or something similar. No I do not have links. But I've seen it.

Btw "profits" are what keeps these games getting made. If they were just breaking even, these companies would not venture to make this stuff. So record profits is GOOD if you want gaming to expand and keep offering you bigger and better things. Now I don't think being greedy is good, but wanting a profit is not the same thing. And as @VFX_Veteran stated, these things have become incredibly complex and expensive to make. Gamers keep demanding more, but don't want to pay for it? It makes no sense. Something has to give.

And if you don't like it vote with your wallet. That's all you can do. But it doesn't seem like it's going to make a difference because the Sony 1st party stuff is selling fantastic at the new price.

I have bene gaming for an extremely long time and I have not once heard of people complaining an Assassins Creed game is too short. I am not saying you're lying but I am saying I feel like we all know its the very small minority that would say that. Or they are trolling.

I understand that profits are good. And I fully agree that something has to give at some point. But my point is that they have now started taking without giving in return. There is nothing about the $70 games that are coming from any publisher that justify the price-tag. And a majority of them have had corssgen counterparts for the $60 as well. Showing that its the same game running at higher settings. The same thing you get on PC for less money. (initial price of the software not counting hardware costs)

Companies have to protect their future investments and profits. However, that does not mean they simply need to charge more money. You have to budget better. Create new work flows, fresh ideas and talent. ETC.

If any of these publishers were out here saying. Look this is what we can do if we raise the budget and were showing these mind blowing experiences then fantastic. Heres my $70. Companies did this with the HD era. You saw stuff like Killzone 2, Gears, Oblivion, COD4 that were steps up in every aspect of the product. As a consumer I could say, OK, i get it. Here is my money.

Now I have games that are constantly nickle and diming me. Filled with MTX and other money hungry schemes. Where is my upgrade to my experience as the player?

I have voted with my wallet and I will continue to. I will not fault anyone for continuing to play games. its their money. But to say $70 are needed is not in the realm of truth at this point and time when you look at the numbers.

 

[Deleted member 13]

You ignored the fact that even without raising the prices since the PS3 era, record profits and revenue. But now suddenly we just can't budget a game properly at $60? If you wanna point the finger at inflation then the price for ALL of sony games should go up. Not just PS5 games. Did that happen? No. If Sony is just bleeding out here due to inflation, which they are not, then they would raise the prices across the board. They are not. We both know why.

I think all games will end up being $70 for the foreseeable future tbh.

You also ignored my opinion that games are getting too big and not a single person asked for it. DO you know anyone who said Assassins Creed games need to b 120 hours full of content or I am not buying? I sure dont. If anything I see people that skipped it because they are too long. Nobody asked Ubisoft to pump more and more resources to make Assassins Creed Odyssey 120 hours plus.

100% agree with you there. Games (especially open world) are too big coming from companies like Ubisoft, etc.. However, I think a lot of SP games are also too short. So not sure if that's a trend or not (games being too long). I think SP games are very short because of the production costs.

Again, I am not against raising the cost of games if it makes sense to the consumer. And it doesn't. Games are riddled with nickle and diming, first and third party with corporations creating games to specifically cater to paying more than the sticker price. And now they want to raise the sticker price as well?

Agree here.

 

[rofif]

I think all games will end up being $70 for the foreseeable future tbh.

100% agree with you there. Games (especially open world) are too big coming from companies like Ubisoft, etc.. However, I think a lot of SP games are also too short. So not sure if that's a trend or not (games being too long). I think SP games are very short because of the production costs.


Agree here.

For sure!
I am fine with 70$ games... since games come out so rarely these days.
If it was 2007 or 2011? That 70$ would mean spending 50x70usd lol.
And I totally am up for smaller, shorter games. Days Gone could be so much better if they scaled it down....
Imagine how bad Gears of War 2 would be if they scaled it up like open world and stuff... that gives you gears 5.

 

[Dr Bass]

I have bene gaming for an extremely long time and I have not once heard of people complaining an Assassins Creed game is too short. I am not saying you're lying but I am saying I feel like we all know its the very small minority that would say that. Or they are trolling.

I understand that profits are good. And I fully agree that something has to give at some point. But my point is that they have now started taking without giving in return. There is nothing about the $70 games that are coming from any publisher that justify the price-tag. And a majority of them have had corssgen counterparts for the $60 as well. Showing that its the same game running at higher settings. The same thing you get on PC for less money. (initial price of the software not counting hardware costs)

Companies have to protect their future investments and profits. However, that does not mean they simply need to charge more money. You have to budget better. Create new work flows, fresh ideas and talent. ETC.

If any of these publishers were out here saying. Look this is what we can do if we raise the budget and were showing these mind blowing experiences then fantastic. Heres my $70. Companies did this with the HD era. You saw stuff like Killzone 2, Gears, Oblivion, COD4 that were steps up in every aspect of the product. As a consumer I could say, OK, i get it. Here is my money.

Now I have games that are constantly nickle and diming me. Filled with MTX and other money hungry schemes. Where is my upgrade to my experience as the player?

I have voted with my wallet and I will continue to. I will not fault anyone for continuing to play games. its their money. But to say $70 are needed is not in the realm of truth at this point and time when you look at the numbers.

I've been gaming a long time too. Early Atari stuff. I don't know what your point is, because that is neither here nor there.

Are you doing the accounting, development, managing, R&D, or payroll at these companies? You have no idea what is needed or what is not needed. And like I said, do you want them to make profit or not? I don't think the margins on this stuff are huge. Sony and Nintendo are tiny, tiny players in the tech world when you look at their revenue and profit.

You commented:
"Companies have to protect their future investments and profits. However, that does not mean they simply need to charge more money. You have to budget better. Create new work flows, fresh ideas and talent. ETC."

I mean, not to offend, but this comment is complete and utter nonsense. Technical professionals are incredibly smart people who WANT to be efficient, and are constantly creating "new workflows" for things they do. To be an armchair quarterback, and assume you know better than the people in the trenches is fairly arrogant. Do you honestly think these people are aimlessly bouncing around, not knowing how to manage their product/company, but you could jump in and show them the way with "better budgets" and "new workflows"? You can't "create talent" by the way. You can find it, and foster it, but you don't just create it. And fresh ideas ... you don't think those are a big risk, or that people don't have them? So you're arguing for more risk taking and lower prices? Better budgets, meaning less spending, so less money for the talent you want to find? Again your statements here just don't make any sense and they contradict each other.

I agree MTX and such are not great. But they are basically a result of people being cheap and companies trying to figure out how to extract money out of people a bit at a time. Everyone knows about "whales" and such. So what ends up happening is people with spending problems subsidize the people that spend less. But all of that is a result of people complaining about prices!

Nintendo warned about this decades ago. That higher end tech was going to balloon budgets and make gaming more expensive. It happened.

I don't think you realize this, but if you could actually do the things you're saying should be done, then go do it. Companies would clamor for you to work there, and you would make a lot of money. Seriously, if you know the answers to all this then get to work. You'll be rich and famous for revolutionizing the current video game production pipeline ...

I'm going to make one final analogy, just in case the above is not demonstrating how absurd your statement is.

Patients are dying of cancer.

"These doctors man. They gotta get in there with more effective treatments. Better ideas, new talent! They need to budget better so the patient can get more treatments!"

Hopefully that gets it through how ignorant the original comments come across.

For sure!
I am fine with 70$ games... since games come out so rarely these days.
If it was 2007 or 2011? That 70$ would mean spending 50x70usd lol.
And I totally am up for smaller, shorter games. Days Gone could be so much better if they scaled it down....
Imagine how bad Gears of War 2 would be if they scaled it up like open world and stuff... that gives you gears 5.

Well the reason they come out less frequently is because of those higher costs/complexity in making a modern game. So we are talking bigger risks with higher expenses. Of course prices are going to go up.

Also I paid 90 dollars (plus tax!) for Chrono Trigger when I was like 15 with money I saved from Birthdays and allowance and crap like that. I don't give a rats ass about 70 dollar games as a professional adult.

 

[SonyFanboyTears]

I've been gaming a long time too. Early Atari stuff. I don't know what your point is, because that is neither here nor there.

Are you doing the accounting, development, managing, R&D, or payroll at these companies? You have no idea what is needed or what is not needed. And like I said, do you want them to make profit or not? I don't think the margins on this stuff are huge. Sony and Nintendo are tiny, tiny players in the tech world when you look at their revenue and profit.

You commented:
"Companies have to protect their future investments and profits. However, that does not mean they simply need to charge more money. You have to budget better. Create new work flows, fresh ideas and talent. ETC."

I mean, not to offend, but this comment is complete and utter nonsense. Technical professionals are incredibly smart people who WANT to be efficient, and are constantly creating "new workflows" for things they do. To be an armchair quarterback, and assume you know better than the people in the trenches is fairly arrogant. Do you honestly think these people are aimlessly bouncing around, not knowing how to manage their product/company, but you could jump in and show them the way with "better budgets" and "new workflows"? You can't "create talent" by the way. You can find it, and foster it, but you don't just create it. And fresh ideas ... you don't think those are a big risk, or that people don't have them? So you're arguing for more risk taking and lower prices? Better budgets, meaning less spending, so less money for the talent you want to find? Again your statements here just don't make any sense and they contradict each other.

I agree MTX and such are not great. But they are basically a result of people being cheap and companies trying to figure out how to extract money out of people a bit at a time. Everyone knows about "whales" and such. So what ends up happening is people with spending problems subsidize the people that spend less. But all of that is a result of people complaining about prices!

Nintendo warned about this decades ago. That higher end tech was going to balloon budgets and make gaming more expensive. It happened.

I don't think you realize this, but if you could actually do the things you're saying should be done, then go do it. Companies would clamor for you to work there, and you would make a lot of money. Seriously, if you know the answers to all this then get to work. You'll be rich and famous for revolutionizing the current video game production pipeline ...

I'm going to make one final analogy, just in case the above is not demonstrating how absurd your statement is.

Patients are dying of cancer.

"These doctors man. They gotta get in there with more effective treatments. Better ideas, new talent! They need to budget better so the patient can get more treatments!"

Hopefully that gets it through how ignorant the original comments come across.



Well the reason they come out less frequently is because of those higher costs/complexity in making a modern game. So we are talking bigger risks with higher expenses. Of course prices are going to go up.

Also I paid 90 dollars (plus tax!) for Chrono Trigger when I was like 15 with money I saved from Birthdays and allowance and crap like that. I don't give a rats ass about 70 dollar games as a professional adult.

Lol. You know we were having a pleasant conversation til you have to go and name call.

You calling me ignorant is rich considering I never said anything was simple and easy.

You took what I said way outta context then made character judgments that are as you would say ignorant.

Think about what you said and then read what you wrote.

 

[Dr Bass]

Lol. You know we were having a pleasant conversation til you have to go and name call.

You calling me ignorant is rich considering I never said anything was simple and easy.

You took what I said way outta context then made character judgments that are as you would say ignorant.

Think about what you said and then read what you wrote.

Hey man, first off, I probably was a little too aggressive with my wording. I honestly didn't mean anything I said as an insult. The only point I was trying to make was that the people in the industry actually doing the work do care about the things you mentioned.

I agree with you on things like MTX and trying to extract every dollar out of players. We see that everywhere these days. Unfortunately I think costs are going to continue to go up, and I think the 70 dollar thing was probably a way of getting ahead of that as the new generation started.

So, I apologize if I came across insulting. Didn't intend for that at all.

Please understand.

 

[peter42O]

1 - I would like to see Sony change their refund policy but at the same time, since PS5 is for exclusives only, this doesn't really apply to me all that much.

2 - Cost of games being $70 is actually agree and disagree. Personally, doesn't matter to me for the games I buy physically since I trade them in anyway once completed so a $70 game at release basically becomes $35 after trading in the game. And in some cases, costs even less. Ratchet for example cost me $31 after trading it in to GameStop. So in this regard, I have no issues with the $70 price tag. Also, I paid $80 for Chrono Trigger in 1995 so paying $70 25+ years later isn't something I can complain about.

In regards to Sony's $10 upgrade fee, I see it as a total and complete cash grab. Gamers always complain about other gamers being cheap but yet never bitch about the companies being cheap despite having more money than their entire fan base combined. Thankfully though, this doesn't apply to me.

Business wise, I see the $70 price tag and the $10 upgrade fee as bad moves simply because in 2020 during Covid and people out of work, why the fuck would you increase the price? It makes no sense. Two years later, countries including the U.S. are going into a recession if they're not already in one and people want to spend less money, not more. If Covid never happens, then I don't see this as a major issue but since Covid did happen, I simply think Sony is overvaluing their games. They're not Nintendo. Never have been and never will be. In fact, no one will ever be Nintendo in this regard. If they would have stayed at $60, they would also avoided the $10 upgrade fee fiasco completely. Wrong decision at the wrong time in my opinion.

PC wise, Sony should put their exclusives on PC day one. First, the games are developed on PC's anyway so why waste more money, time and resources when you can do it all at the same damn time? Second, it will allow Sony to bring in more revenue and expand their eco-system by bringing in new customers on PC who quite simply aren't guaranteed to buy a PS5 no matter what Sony does. After all, there's plenty of reasons as to why PC gamers play on PC and not consoles. Third, while consoles are valuable, it's only for the time that they're actually supported. In other words, every console dies. Just a matter of time. The IP for the game however do not. Increasing the value of an IP by releasing it on PC and in turn, making the IP bigger and more popular by being available to more consumers is simply worth much more than keeping the game tied to your console for whatever amount of months.

With all of that said, outside of the technical issues I had in HFW, I personally haven't had any major issues with Sony or PlayStation 5 as my secondary exclusives only console. The 6 exclusives (including third party) were great to excellent and no real complaints.

 

[Deleted member 13]

Third, while consoles are valuable, it's only for the time that they're actually supported. In other words, every console dies. Just a matter of time. The IP for the game however do not. Increasing the value of an IP by releasing it on PC and in turn, making the IP bigger and more popular by being available to more consumers is simply worth much more than keeping the game tied to your console for whatever amount of months.

This is *BIG*! I forgot about this. Consoles do have a time limit on them as well as backward compatibility issues whereas the PC has a much much longer time limit where the hardware performance is the limitation (which can be scaled down to run) and no backwards compatibility issues per say.