Quantcast
Cross-play on PlayStation 4 is now available for all developers to use in their games

Forums - Sony Discussion - Cross-play on PlayStation 4 is now available for all developers to use in their games

LudicrousSpeed said:

What drives someone like you to make comments about games you clearly haven’t played and present them in such a factual way? You’re clueless about Gears 5, and Forza and Madden with that comparison, and MC very much was in Halo 5. 

Just curious. I don’t care for a game like Death Stranding or most Japanese nonsense even though I own a PS4, so I don’t comment about them. Why put your foot in your mouth for no reason? 

 

Asks someone what drives him to comment on games he never played.

States that he doesn't comment on games he doesn't care.

LudicrousSpeed said:

They deserve mocking, they’re Japanese titles. But I never do it to any specific game with something blatantly false. I don’t play them, so I’m not going to discuss them in any serious manner.

Proceeds saying games he didn't play deserve mocking.

LudicrousSpeed said:

No, Japanese is a style, not an origin. 

Also, of course I dismiss it. I know I won’t enjoy it. I can dismiss any country album that comes out because I know I won’t enjoy it. However, I wouldn’t say something about the latest Garth Brooks album with authority that is blatantly false just to make some point. 

And no, that’s not worse 👍 Talking out of your butt is worse.

And that dismisses it because apparently he knows he won't enjoy them, even as he never played them.

LudicrousSpeed said:

I do put it as I don’t care about the titles. To me, they are bad. What part of this is confusing you?

And what console warz nonsense are you bringing in to this, as if there are no Japanese titles on Xbox or Switch or PC, all platforms I own and game on. They aren’t exclusive to PS4 😆

I’m not going to reply to this nonsense tangent anymore, enough people called him out on it.

Then comment making assertions about games that he have never played being bad, even as he never played them.

LudicrousSpeed said:

What drives someone like you to make comments about games you clearly haven’t played and present them in such a factual way? You’re clueless about Gears 5, and Forza and Madden with that comparison, and MC very much was in Halo 5. 

Just curious. I don’t care for a game like Death Stranding or most Japanese nonsense even though I own a PS4, so I don’t comment about them. Why put your foot in your mouth for no reason? 

Now do you have the answer for your own question?

Full cycle.



Around the Network

Yeah except that simply saying I don’t care for Death Stranding isn’t the same as spreading some bullshit about it. You’re smarter than that.

If I say Death Stranding has go-karts or that Joel isn’t in Last of Us 2, then you’d have a point. Hope that helps 👍



LudicrousSpeed said:
Yeah except that simply saying I don’t care for Death Stranding isn’t the same as spreading some bullshit about it. You’re smarter than that.

If I say Death Stranding has go-karts or that Joel isn’t in Last of Us 2, then you’d have a point. Hope that helps 👍

Great that you jumped all to focus on just one point. You dismiss, mock and belittle a lot of games you never played plus claim they are basically trash. Nope it isn't about you not caring for Death Stranding.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Cerebralbore101 said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

That’s true. Just imagine how good GTA V or Witcher 3 would have been had they been designed to sell consoles.

Witcher 3 would have been sitting at 96 or 97 aggregate reviews had it been designed to sell consoles. Rockstar is the only dev that can consistently get review scores as high as BotW, GoW, TLoU, or Odyssey. 

lol what would have been different about Witcher 3 had it been confined to one platform? If anything without the reliable sales across three (soon four) platforms it would have been a smaller, less ambitious title. There’s no logic that magically creates a scenario where the game would be better had it been designed to “sell consoles”. 

All games are designed to sell consoles. Developers want to make good titles that people buy. Publishers want to back promising titles that will make their money back. For your theory about MS games to hold any weight (minus the stuff you pulled out of your butt to support your point) MS would have had to have great first party before focusing on their play anywhere push. But did they? No. Sony first party games have the success they do because good developers make them. Has nothing to do with any “made to sell consoles” nonsense. These are all businesses looking to make sales lol



LudicrousSpeed said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Witcher 3 would have been sitting at 96 or 97 aggregate reviews had it been designed to sell consoles. Rockstar is the only dev that can consistently get review scores as high as BotW, GoW, TLoU, or Odyssey. 

lol what would have been different about Witcher 3 had it been confined to one platform? If anything without the reliable sales across three (soon four) platforms it would have been a smaller, less ambitious title. There’s no logic that magically creates a scenario where the game would be better had it been designed to “sell consoles”. 

All games are designed to sell consoles. Developers want to make good titles that people buy. Publishers want to back promising titles that will make their money back. For your theory about MS games to hold any weight (minus the stuff you pulled out of your butt to support your point) MS would have had to have great first party before focusing on their play anywhere push. But did they? No. Sony first party games have the success they do because good developers make them. Has nothing to do with any “made to sell consoles” nonsense. These are all businesses looking to make sales lol

@Bolded: BotW has sold over 15 million units (Edit: Wii U + Switch Sales) despite almost never going on sale. Meanwhile Witcher 3 has reached a little over 20 million sales while being up to 70% off. So your whole logic about going multiplatform leading to more reliable sales and a bigger budget doesn't add up. Horizon, and God of War were both just as ambitious as Witcher 3 despite being exclusives. So there's no reason to think Witcher 3 wouldn't have been as ambitious as an exclusive.  BotW is vastly superior to Witcher 3 despite being "less ambitious". 

For your theory about MS games to hold any weight MS would have had to have great first party before focusing on their play anywhere push.

Nah, the theory still works if their overall review scores plummet around the same time, or shortly after their play anywhere push. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 08 October 2019

The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

Around the Network
Cerebralbore101 said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

lol what would have been different about Witcher 3 had it been confined to one platform? If anything without the reliable sales across three (soon four) platforms it would have been a smaller, less ambitious title. There’s no logic that magically creates a scenario where the game would be better had it been designed to “sell consoles”. 

All games are designed to sell consoles. Developers want to make good titles that people buy. Publishers want to back promising titles that will make their money back. For your theory about MS games to hold any weight (minus the stuff you pulled out of your butt to support your point) MS would have had to have great first party before focusing on their play anywhere push. But did they? No. Sony first party games have the success they do because good developers make them. Has nothing to do with any “made to sell consoles” nonsense. These are all businesses looking to make sales lol

@Bolded: BotW has sold over 15 million units (Edit: Wii U + Switch Sales) despite almost never going on sale. Meanwhile Witcher 3 has reached a little over 20 million sales while being up to 70% off. So your whole logic about going multiplatform leading to more reliable sales and a bigger budget doesn't add up. Horizon, and God of War were both just as ambitious as Witcher 3 despite being exclusives. So there's no reason to think Witcher 3 wouldn't have been as ambitious as an exclusive.  BotW is vastly superior to Witcher 3 despite being "less ambitious". 

For your theory about MS games to hold any weight MS would have had to have great first party before focusing on their play anywhere push.

Nah, the theory still works if their overall review scores plummet around the same time, or shortly after their play anywhere push. 

And actually when a game is designed to push consoles then they may put more money and time than they would if they needed to profit on the SW itself. He likes to bring how much Sony fell compared to PS3 where they had 6 of 10 making loses 2 breaking even and just 2 heavily profiting. That out there show how a platform holder making games to push HW may increase investment in a SW compared to someone that is selling everywhere.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

double post

Last edited by Baddman - on 08 October 2019

Cerebralbore101 said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

lol what would have been different about Witcher 3 had it been confined to one platform? If anything without the reliable sales across three (soon four) platforms it would have been a smaller, less ambitious title. There’s no logic that magically creates a scenario where the game would be better had it been designed to “sell consoles”. 

All games are designed to sell consoles. Developers want to make good titles that people buy. Publishers want to back promising titles that will make their money back. For your theory about MS games to hold any weight (minus the stuff you pulled out of your butt to support your point) MS would have had to have great first party before focusing on their play anywhere push. But did they? No. Sony first party games have the success they do because good developers make them. Has nothing to do with any “made to sell consoles” nonsense. These are all businesses looking to make sales lol

@Bolded: BotW has sold over 15 million units (Edit: Wii U + Switch Sales) despite almost never going on sale. Meanwhile Witcher 3 has reached a little over 20 million sales while being up to 70% off. So your whole logic about going multiplatform leading to more reliable sales and a bigger budget doesn't add up. Horizon, and God of War were both just as ambitious as Witcher 3 despite being exclusives. So there's no reason to think Witcher 3 wouldn't have been as ambitious as an exclusive.  BotW is vastly superior to Witcher 3 despite being "less ambitious". 

For your theory about MS games to hold any weight MS would have had to have great first party before focusing on their play anywhere push.

Nah, the theory still works if their overall review scores plummet around the same time, or shortly after their play anywhere push. 

dont really care about your guys argument but the bolded I can see the argument for god of war but Horizon? nah it is nowhere as ambitious as witcher 3 and I have played and beat all three games



Cerebralbore101 said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

lol what would have been different about Witcher 3 had it been confined to one platform? If anything without the reliable sales across three (soon four) platforms it would have been a smaller, less ambitious title. There’s no logic that magically creates a scenario where the game would be better had it been designed to “sell consoles”. 

All games are designed to sell consoles. Developers want to make good titles that people buy. Publishers want to back promising titles that will make their money back. For your theory about MS games to hold any weight (minus the stuff you pulled out of your butt to support your point) MS would have had to have great first party before focusing on their play anywhere push. But did they? No. Sony first party games have the success they do because good developers make them. Has nothing to do with any “made to sell consoles” nonsense. These are all businesses looking to make sales lol

@Bolded: BotW has sold over 15 million units (Edit: Wii U + Switch Sales) despite almost never going on sale. Meanwhile Witcher 3 has reached a little over 20 million sales while being up to 70% off. So your whole logic about going multiplatform leading to more reliable sales and a bigger budget doesn't add up. Horizon, and God of War were both just as ambitious as Witcher 3 despite being exclusives. So there's no reason to think Witcher 3 wouldn't have been as ambitious as an exclusive.  BotW is vastly superior to Witcher 3 despite being "less ambitious". 

For your theory about MS games to hold any weight MS would have had to have great first party before focusing on their play anywhere push.

Nah, the theory still works if their overall review scores plummet around the same time, or shortly after their play anywhere push. 

That’s great and all for Zelda but that’s a Nintendo title. No other games sell like Nintendo games. Even those two games you listed from Sony saw massive price cuts not long after release. So yeah, the point still stands about revenue coming back in. Sales on three platforms versus one. Without someone paying for an exclusive deal, you’re limiting the return on your investment which of course affects what you invest. Pretty basic stuff.

And cool, I wasn’t aware MS had some era this gen where their games reviewed very well and then they “plummeted”. Oh wait that didnt happen, just more pulled out of the butt to support the argument. 

We can agree to disagree about the ambition of those titles, especially Horizon 😬



Wow. I honestly can't believe some people still buy the bullshit that "Games wouldn't be as good if they weren't made to sell consoles". This is a fallacy as yes maybe a small few exclusive games that didnt have a good publisher/developer, might not have turned out as good. But many more would have turned out the exact same. I honestly don't know how the movie or music industry survived for so long without needing to sell tapes/cd's/DVDs etc and the players to go along with them.