I love his Drakiness and would love to see him in many more adventures but I only wish they mixed up the story a bit. We know he will encounter supernatural elements, encounter long lost civilisations (all of which have fallen and are dead pretty much), have to save the world from supernatural or other threat and the game will end up with the place destroyed and Drake without a cent. Dont get me wrong - UC does this incredibly well but I would like a major change or surprise somewhere. 

Youre right.  In each game it followed a similar story so they do need to mix it up a bit.  I loved Uncharted 3 playing him as a kid though XD

Games without guns are definitely not just for kids.  I would love to play a new crash or jak game, the latter being the most likely because Acti owns crash.   It's just as if they are maturing their games as their fanbase matures.

I won't mind if the other ND team does a new IP so that the TLOU team can do the next Uncharted.

It's a retailer event.  We'd only get stuff if it leaks.

Hold on just one minute. This level of support for the PS4 carries with it some implicitly bad things as well. Others have pointed out that this is tantamount to killing off most if not all first party support for the Vita. That is only half of it though. It also means the same thing for the PS3. Isn't this a tacit admission on the part of Sony that they are abandoning the PS3.

I personally never put much stock in Sony's claims that they would actively support the platform for ten years, and I sure as hell didn't believe the almighty Kaz when he proclaimed as much, but I had the ten year life cycle thing tossed in my face more times then I can count. Yet here we have Sony confessing that they are going to do what they lead people to believe that they weren't going to do. By abandoning their platform when it isn't even seven years old.

I think this behavior deserves at least some token acknowledgment. Sony just fucked you guys over, and you are plain acting thrilled to death about it all. Setting aside the fact that many current owners probably cannot afford, or have the desire to replace their console this year, or maybe even next year. Someone out there probably took the almighty Kaz at his word, and got fucked over royally in the bargain. Ten years of support was the justification for that outrageous price after all.

I know someone is going to argue that Sony can put the platform on cruise control, or some form of life support, but was that what was being implied. Sony is literally doing what Sony said it wasn't going to do to the people who supported them at the start of the generation. Can anyone square this circle for me, because it all seems callous, and manipulative. Here is a direct quote.

Kaz Harai

"I think that we are offering a very good value for the consumers. We look at our products having a 10-year life cycle, which we've proven with the PlayStation. Therefore, the PlayStation 3 is going to be a console that's going to be with you again for 10 years. We're not going to ask the consumers to suddenly buy another PlayStation console in five years time, and basically have their investment go by the wayside. So for all those reasons, I think at $599 we're offering a very good value to the consumers."

So I ask you. Is this not a sign of Sony doing what they implied they weren't going to do?

Naughty Dog has two teams and they are already working on another game off of the same engine they used for Uncharted and you know about Last of Us already.

Sony's last game for the PS2 was GOW2 in 2007 but they kept making PS2s till 2012. I think the 10 year cycle is fine even without 1st party support.

Both of those are ports of PSP games lol. I'm sure the PS3 will be equivalent.

@BasilZero

I don't think it is about what I believe, or necessarily even what you believe. Most of the people who listened to, or read those comments. Probably thought that life cycle was synonymous with support cycle. As in continued first party support. His argument in support of his first statement made it seem like that was what he was talking about. That Sony was going to continue to provide first party support for its platform right up to the ten year mark. I had it explained to me as exactly that over and over again on these forums.

I know it isn't likely that Sony will ever be held to account for fostering false expectations. At least on these forums, and many other such forums such as this, but doesn't every promise broken, or at least perceived to have been broken. Damage the brand to one degree or another. What would you say to someone who thought that they were going to get that level of support for ten straight years. To keep them from holding a grudge against Sony, and maybe even deciding to stop gaming with them?

It is really a pretty good question that deserves a answer. We have a number of brand haters on these forums. That went from being supporters of a brand. Until they were slighted by that brand one too many times, and now they spit venom on those brands constantly. How do you turn somebody around based on what this story is tell us. I sure as hell have no clue as to how to do that.

I know it is a common practice on these forums to argue that the failings of another justifies the failings of oneself. The thing is that is just all about trying to change the subject. It isn't any kind of a defense. I cannot commit a crime against someone, and offer up as my defense. That somebody else committed a crime against somebody else, and since. That person and I are equally bad. I should be let off the hook for what I did. Microsoft and Nintendo didn't create this understanding in the heads of Sony fans. That is something Sony did to its fans.

Anyway back to the point. How do you explain to a Sony fan that may feel betrayed in this instance by Sony. That they aren't actually being betrayed?