What did you think about Sony's Pre-TGS Conference? | |||
| It was nice | 10 | 11.90% | |
| Nothing that really caught my attention tbh | 25 | 29.76% | |
| It was awesome! | 8 | 9.52% | |
| Not Bad | 7 | 8.33% | |
| I didn't like it | 11 | 13.10% | |
| It was okay | 10 | 11.90% | |
| Needed more LoD! | 4 | 4.76% | |
| Decent | 2 | 2.38% | |
| Other | 7 | 8.33% | |
| Total: | 84 | ||
For everyone who spites physical games, you suck. Digital will never replace physical for me. I absolutely hate the idea that one day all my purchases will get washed down the drain when plugs are pulled on servers Sony doesn't want to run anymore. And it will happen. Sony has no obligation to run servers forever so that you can have access to your PS3 and PS4 games 30 years from now.
NewGuy said:
Main roadblocks are whether or not ND wants to go back to platformers. ND has the resources. They don't have an "A" team and "B" team, it's a CI environment where people are moved all over. They started developing multiple games when they got to ~200 employees. They now have 280 employees according to linkedin and are hiring another 11 full time and 13 temp positions. They could make 3 or 4 games simultaneously, but obviously at different stages. If the long time rumor of them getting the crash license back, then that puts an even bigger question mark to them supporting 2 platformers at the same time. |
Yeah, ND has the resources but they won't do it.
| binary solo said: Underlined is simply not true. Over the course of a year PSN+ gives you 24-36 games you can download and permanently rent. Over the lifetime of the PS4 (let's say 6 years) that amounts to over 200 games you will be able to access, and if you have a PS3 or Vita that number of games you will have access to doubles, or triples if you have all 3 systems. I believe the EA vault currently sits at 13. How long will it take for the Vault to get to 200 games? Bold, is all a matter of opinion. Of the games in the vault currently I am only interested in Dragon Age Inquisition and Garden Warfare, and I already have both (I got GW for free from EA's Playstation 20th anniversary birthday gift). So for the time being EA Access is worth exactly $0 for me, and I have obtained vastly more and better games from my PSN+ subscription. My objective analysis of the merits of the PSN+ model vs. the EA vault model is that the PSN+ model is a far better service, representing better value for money and exposure to a much wider variety of games. Hence there is no value to Sony or PS4 gamers in putting EA Access on PS4. If EA are going to be dicks about their games and not let Sony put any of their titles on PSN+ then that's actually EA's loss. I do agree that Sony needs to put some genuine AAAs on PSN+ soonish or they will start losing subscribers like me who only have PSN+ for the games. I almost never play online so I don;t need or want PSN+ for that aspect. |
The way I see it:
- It's not 200 games on PS+ that you can access, because you need to becan active subscriber forca long time and for much more than $50 to reach that number. EA gives you those 13-15 games immediately as you subscribe, with no prior commitment.
- Of course, games available are subject to taste, but EA Access offers current year's sports titles (I'd definitely play FIFA and Madden and give NHL a try), and EA does make good games. If one does not need to play a game day one, it's a great value. 6-9 months after release there will be Mirror's Edge, Star Wars Battlefront, Mass Effect. Games everybody knows have no chance appearing on PS+, and neither do their counterparts from other publishers like The Witcher, Shadow of Mordor, Dying Light, Far Cry etc.... One day when at least on high profile mega selling game comes to PS+ I'll stop bitching (even though I either played it or have no interest in it at all). I mean, the outlook of those games coming is so improbable that people are actually willing to settle for Killzone, Knack or The Order...
- But, ultimately, my major gripe is and has always been that Sony decided on the value in my name. Sure, to you or many others PS+ is much greater value, but you really cannot say that EA Access has zero value. Maybe it really is less valuable, but why cannot I decide that? Imagine if Sony said: Tomb Raider will not be allowed on PS4, we have Uncharted and see no value in TR.
If EA Access is such poor value, then surely most PS4 users will recognize that and choose PS+ over it. To me, EAA has a good value because it offers certainty: You know which games are coming to the service, and the approximate timeframe. In PS+ you are entering a lottery: A chance that one or more games might actually be good (like Rocket League) paired with the chance that they might be a huge broken unplayable mess (like Ether One).
People are so afraid that other companies will introduce their own Access, but are willing to accept Sony making decisions in their name. And with Sony dominating, I am actually more afraid of other Sony imposed restrictions on gaming than of a minor chance of Rockstar or Activision doing their own thing.
NieR concept art
A young boy stares out over a dilapidated city in this wonderful piece of concept art for #NieRNewProject pic.twitter.com/1KqVHBBOTk
— PlatinumGames Inc. (@platinumgames) September 2, 2015
http://gematsu.com/2015/09/megadimension-neptunia-vii-coming-west-early-2016
Had a feeling it wouldn't make it in 2015
During a livestreamed event from GameStop Expo, Naughty Dog Community Strategist Arne Meyer talked about some interesting points on Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End.
Meyer mentioned that there’s still a lot of work to do, but he’s not worried about the release date. He also talked on the reasoning behind the release date announcement.
“There’s a pretty decent amount of thought, we got sort of a development timeline trying to figure out when we figure we can be ready. I mean, the problem is that if you leave it up to us we’ll never be ready. It’s good to sort of set a deadline. We sort of try to figure out when the right window is, try to guess when other games might be out…”
Meyer also explained why Naughty Dog decided to create a single player DLC for the game:
“It worked really well for us for The Last of Us, we thought we could put together a really great piece of content as well. Left Behind was a really great addition. It’s one of those thing when talking about Ucharted we said, “wouldn’t it be great to make another story DLC?” “Does it fit into the story?” And that sort of thing. I think we rose to the challenge for The Last of Us and decided to take another shot at it.”
We then got quite a lot of interesting miscellaneous information:
[Source]
I doubt we'll get to play as Drake in the DLC. It'll be interesting to see who we do play with if I'm right.
| TheGoldenBoy said: I doubt we'll get to play as Drake in the DLC. It'll be interesting to see who we do play with if I'm right. |
Didn't they try to do an Ellina SLC for uncharted 2 or 3 then decided to strap it.
Bet with gooch_destroyer, he wins if FFX and FFX-2 will be at $40 each for the vita. I win if it dont
Sign up if you want to see God Eater 2 get localized!! https://www.change.org/petitions/shift-inc-bring-god-eater-2-to-north-america-2#share
SnakeDrake said:
Didn't they try to do an Ellina SLC for uncharted 2 or 3 then decided to strap it. |
No idea. I've actually never played the mainline Uncharted games before.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
