By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - How Sony will respond Game Pass?

sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

A 10 hour campaign is meaty? Ok. 

You know what I have to do to change the color of my armor in GoT? Spend 15 of the flowers that are littered all over the game. 

GaaS isn't superior long term content. It's watered down content. They take 50 hours of gameplay and stretch it out into 300 hours, with artificial game lengtheners. Meanwhile a good single player game will offer up 20-100 hours of gameplay that respects your time. GaaS is like a single bottle of Soda watered down into twelve bottles. 

Advertising games as being bad, doesn't excuse them from being bad. 

What is a non-instructive MTX? 

You are right to speculate that Sony would have all MTX in their games if all their games were multiplayer based. It's pretty clear, that Sony would do that if their focus was on multiplayer. Thankfully it's not. 

Multiplayer takes considerably less effort and assets than single player. This particular point isn't one that you can't argue with me on (or anybody that has bothered to try their hand at making games). 

Sorry I mean non intrusive, as in Forza never made me feel like I had to spend money. Otherwise there isn’t much to say because each brand caters to different experiences. I just don’t think it’s fair to compare having purely single player experiences to one that does both SP and MP. Of course because one just focuses on SP the efforts show all the more, just so you clear where I stand on it. The quality isn’t lost on me. 

Any game can do a multiplayer component but great ones last years. Take SoT, which is having its best year in 2020. It was mocked in 2018 compared to gems like GOW and Spiderman. Yet in 2020 those games only serve a purpose to be bragged about on the internet where as SoT has outlasted them all due to an addicting multiplayer loop coupled with substantial content updates. 

Just saying you may not prefer multiplayer components but you can’t deny their appeal either. Totally different approaches to games that aren’t completely comparable to each other. So calling out micros in Xbox games is one thing, but you also should acknowledge that at least they have a multiplayer. 

If you want to talk about 2020, so after SoT had 2 or 3 years to improve how does it compare to GoW that hadn't been updated? Or if you prefer to pick something from this year. How does it compare to TLOU2?



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DPsx7 said:
JWeinCom said:

So, it's not enough that it offers variety? Does Microsoft have to come to your house and force you to play a variety of games? What point are you even trying to make?

And no, it's not fine. This is something we've discussed among the mods. So, that's going to be looked at negatively going forwards. So, just use a normal S. It's in a far more convenient location anyway.

It doesn't and my point was made before. I think you're just trying to be a problem right now. Already stated it's not for most people but if anyone wants to try it then what do I care. I have like 300 PS4 games to keep me busy and it cost less than the rental pass. Their experiment changes nothing for me.

It's fine trust me. No reason to pull an attitude.

You didn’t respond to my quote where I listed the insane value of all the games I played and what I paid to play them all. No way you would have spent less then me. Denying the value aspect is burying your head in the sand. 

But also, saying M$ is simply outdated. Game Pass is not a massive profit point for MS at the moment. Rumors that Gold is being phased out. On the flip side I’m pretty sure Sony has made more money then Xbox given the huge hardware and software sales gap. It makes more sense to say $ony then to say M$. Its a subtle dig and frankly a little silly to imply only MS cares about making a buck in gaming. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:

Sorry I mean non intrusive, as in Forza never made me feel like I had to spend money. Otherwise there isn’t much to say because each brand caters to different experiences. I just don’t think it’s fair to compare having purely single player experiences to one that does both SP and MP. Of course because one just focuses on SP the efforts show all the more, just so you clear where I stand on it. The quality isn’t lost on me. 

Any game can do a multiplayer component but great ones last years. Take SoT, which is having its best year in 2020. It was mocked in 2018 compared to gems like GOW and Spiderman. Yet in 2020 those games only serve a purpose to be bragged about on the internet where as SoT has outlasted them all due to an addicting multiplayer loop coupled with substantial content updates. 

Just saying you may not prefer multiplayer components but you can’t deny their appeal either. Totally different approaches to games that aren’t completely comparable to each other. So calling out micros in Xbox games is one thing, but you also should acknowledge that at least they have a multiplayer. 

If you want to talk about 2020, so after SoT had 2 or 3 years to improve how does it compare to GoW that hadn't been updated? Or if you prefer to pick something from this year. How does it compare to TLOU2?

Just listing the advantage of a multiplayer title vs a single player title. Time is on ones side more then the other (If done right). At the moment LOU2 is being played more. But in a year from now? SoT can easily remain relevant where as the other needs a next gen re release with its delayed MP component to stay relevant. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

A 10 hour campaign is meaty? Ok. 

You know what I have to do to change the color of my armor in GoT? Spend 15 of the flowers that are littered all over the game. 

GaaS isn't superior long term content. It's watered down content. They take 50 hours of gameplay and stretch it out into 300 hours, with artificial game lengtheners. Meanwhile a good single player game will offer up 20-100 hours of gameplay that respects your time. GaaS is like a single bottle of Soda watered down into twelve bottles. 

Advertising games as being bad, doesn't excuse them from being bad. 

What is a non-instructive MTX? 

You are right to speculate that Sony would have all MTX in their games if all their games were multiplayer based. It's pretty clear, that Sony would do that if their focus was on multiplayer. Thankfully it's not. 

Multiplayer takes considerably less effort and assets than single player. This particular point isn't one that you can't argue with me on (or anybody that has bothered to try their hand at making games). 




Sorry I mean non intrusive, as in Forza never made me feel like I had to spend money. Otherwise there isn’t much to say because each brand caters to different experiences. I just don’t think it’s fair to compare having purely single player experiences to one that does both SP and MP. Of course because one just focuses on SP the efforts show all the more, just so you clear where I stand on it. The quality isn’t lost on me. 

Any game can do a multiplayer component but great ones last years. Take SoT, which is having its best year in 2020. It was mocked in 2018 compared to gems like GOW and Spiderman. Yet in 2020 those games only serve a purpose to be bragged about on the internet where as SoT has outlasted them all due to an addicting multiplayer loop coupled with substantial content updates. 

Just saying you may not prefer multiplayer components but you can’t deny their appeal either. Totally different approaches to games that aren’t completely comparable to each other. So calling out micros in Xbox games is one thing, but you also should acknowledge that at least they have a multiplayer. 

Well keep in mind that being purely single player doesn't make it impossible to do MTX. Just look at modern Assassin's Creed or Shadow of War for examples of MTX in single player games.

I don't have much interest in racing games. I haven't played Forza since 2009 and likely never will again. So I'll take your word on it.

Anybody can boot up GoW or Spiderman and play them right now. I didn't play FF6 until 2006, 13 years after its initial release. God, you might was well favorably compare the Simpsons to Seinfeld, and be like "Seinfeld gathers dust, but the Simpsons still has new episodes! Take that T.V. shows that end!"

But I will have to give SoT a good old 10-20 hour try sometime.

*sarcasm*Dang it! Why isn't their multiplayer in Spiderman or GoW? We should have PVP levels where you use all the mechanics of a single player game to do some shoehorned multiplayer task! METROID PRIME 2 WAS AHEAD OF THE CURVE PEOPLE!!!*/sarcasm*








Cerebralbore101 said:
Conina said:

Yes, MTX in that game, and Uncharted 4, and TLoU remastered are bad. Sony blows for even allowing it. That doesn't excuse MS from throwing MTX into all three of their biggest flagship IPs (Forza, Halo, Gears). 

I can still enjoy the vast majority of Sony's exclusive titles without having to put up with MTX, or a half finished game. The same can't be said for playing Microsoft's games. 

I played Gears 5 from beginning to end BEFORE day one on Game Pass. Had one if the most enjoyable experiences of 2019 and didn't spend a penny on microtransactions (because I don't play multiplayer outside of co-op).



Twitter: @d21lewis

Around the Network
sales2099 said:

Just listing the advantage of a multiplayer title vs a single player title. Time is on ones side more then the other (If done right). At the moment LOU2 is being played more. But in a year from now? SoT can easily remain relevant where as the other needs a next gen re release with its delayed MP component to stay relevant. 

So games are only relevant if they are being played by a bunch of people today? Does that apply to movies and books as well? Should I never talk about Return of the Jedi when discussing films? How about Lord of the Flies with books? Exactly where is the cutoff line between relevancy and irrelevancy? Does a game suddenly go from relevant to irrelevant once it drops from 100,000 players to 99,999 players?

The whole idea that games are only relevant so long as they are being played came right from some GaaS game's marketing department.

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 02 August 2020

d21lewis said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Yes, MTX in that game, and Uncharted 4, and TLoU remastered are bad. Sony blows for even allowing it. That doesn't excuse MS from throwing MTX into all three of their biggest flagship IPs (Forza, Halo, Gears). 

I can still enjoy the vast majority of Sony's exclusive titles without having to put up with MTX, or a half finished game. The same can't be said for playing Microsoft's games. 

I played Gears 5 from beginning to end BEFORE day one on Game Pass. Had one if the most enjoyable experiences of 2019 and didn't spend a penny on microtransactions (because I don't play multiplayer outside of co-op).

Gears is primarily a multiplayer experience, so most people aren't going to be able to say the same thing as you.



DPsx7 said:
sales2099 said:

You didn’t respond to my quote where I listed the insane value of all the games I played and what I paid to play them all. No way you would have spent less then me. Denying the value aspect is burying your head in the sand. 

But also, saying M$ is simply outdated. Game Pass is not a massive profit point for MS at the moment. Rumors that Gold is being phased out. On the flip side I’m pretty sure Sony has made more money then Xbox given the huge hardware and software sales gap. It makes more sense to say $ony then to say M$. Its a subtle dig and frankly a little silly to imply only MS cares about making a buck in gaming. 

This place doesn't take me straight to unread posts. I have to guess where I left off.

I almost never pay retail price for my games. Physical drops faster than digital pricing. Then as I said before that's the only time I have to pay, no sub.

Just click inside the parenthesis and it will get you there.



...to avoid getting banned for inactivity, I may have to resort to comments that are of a lower overall quality and or beneath my moral standards.

DPsx7 said:
DroidKnight said:

Just click inside the parenthesis and it will get you there.

Oh crap, seriously? Only been here a week or two and didn't know that, thanks. It appears to just be on the front page though. Once in the forum listing I don't see it.

For me in the forum listing I just click on the thread title and it gets me there.  Maybe you are glitching.



...to avoid getting banned for inactivity, I may have to resort to comments that are of a lower overall quality and or beneath my moral standards.

Two different companies = different strategies. I don't think there is anything that needs to be countered. Sony is doing great and why throw a wrench into it? If it's not broke don't fix it.



...to avoid getting banned for inactivity, I may have to resort to comments that are of a lower overall quality and or beneath my moral standards.