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?

DonFerrari on 02 August 2020
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.

You can also go on the budy list, it will show green for all read, orange for new posts, blue for new posts that are answers to a post you made.



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
sales2099 on 03 August 2020
Cerebralbore101 said:
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.

Well being socially relevant is a given. I mean literally relevant, millions aren’t watching Return of the Jedi in 2020. Hope that makes sense because that’s what I meant. People actually playing the game in large numbers. I’m sure LOU2 will be ingrained in gaming history so that wasn’t what I meant. 



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

 

sales2099 on 03 August 2020
DonFerrari said:
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. 

Still those multiplayer games with all these advantages are still worse evaluated and sold than the single player games Sony have been putting, so doesn't seem like these advantages even with several years of improvements made much of a difference. And I prefer to play a game complete and be done with it instead of playing the same game for a long time even more if it isn't as good as that other one.

It is a double edge sword. Polished single player game gets critical acclaim and practically guaranteed audience. Negative is little long term incentive to return. GaaS gets critically panned and it’s really anybody’s guess if it makes it past the first 6 months. But if it claws itself out a community, the long term rewards are great. 

Otherwise I get it, you do you. It’s different preferences we talking about. 



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

 

Cerebralbore101 on 03 August 2020
sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

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.

Well being socially relevant is a given. I mean literally relevant, millions aren’t watching Return of the Jedi in 2020. Hope that makes sense because that’s what I meant. People actually playing the game in large numbers. I’m sure LOU2 will be ingrained in gaming history so that wasn’t what I meant. 

Why does a game have to be literally relevant though? What benefits does being literally relevant offer to a game?



sales2099 on 03 August 2020
Cerebralbore101 said:
sales2099 said:

Well being socially relevant is a given. I mean literally relevant, millions aren’t watching Return of the Jedi in 2020. Hope that makes sense because that’s what I meant. People actually playing the game in large numbers. I’m sure LOU2 will be ingrained in gaming history so that wasn’t what I meant. 

Why does a game have to be literally relevant though? What benefits does being literally relevant offer to a game?

Benefits include continued updates and content. Pretty nice for the community. 



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

 

Around the Network
DonFerrari on 03 August 2020
sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:

Still those multiplayer games with all these advantages are still worse evaluated and sold than the single player games Sony have been putting, so doesn't seem like these advantages even with several years of improvements made much of a difference. And I prefer to play a game complete and be done with it instead of playing the same game for a long time even more if it isn't as good as that other one.

It is a double edge sword. Polished single player game gets critical acclaim and practically guaranteed audience. Negative is little long term incentive to return. GaaS gets critically panned and it’s really anybody’s guess if it makes it past the first 6 months. But if it claws itself out a community, the long term rewards are great. 

Otherwise I get it, you do you. It’s different preferences we talking about. 

Not wrong. But even the single player games that excel get legs that keep selling months or even years after release.



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."

Cerebralbore101 on 03 August 2020
sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Why does a game have to be literally relevant though? What benefits does being literally relevant offer to a game?

Benefits include continued updates and content. Pretty nice for the community. 

That offers benefits to the community, but what about the game itself? And what happens when all those updates still fail to make the game as good (or as well selling) as its competitors?

Do you believe that SoT for example, is better than some of the critically acclaimed PS4 exclusives, after all its updates? And if so, would most gamers agree with that?