Speaking as someone who found the TLOU II "lies" accusations kinda silly, I think there's greater weight in regards to Ryan's cross-gen language.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-05-29-sonys-jim-ryan-its-time-to-give-fans-something-that-can-only-be-enjoyed-on-playstation-5

"We have always said that we believe in generations. We believe that when you go to all the trouble of creating a next-gen console, that it should include features and benefits that the previous generation does not include. And that, in our view, people should make games that can make the most of those features.

"We do believe in generations, and whether it's the DualSense controller, whether it's the 3D audio, whether it's the multiple ways that the SSD can be used... we are thinking that it is time to give the PlayStation community something new, something different, that can really only be enjoyed on PS5."

His quote appears to have been broached by the interviewer with the contrast of Microsoft's 'Xbox Family/1-2 years' statements made previously so... there's some pretty strong insinuations here along with how hush-hush they were on cross-gen during their reveal event.  Lies by omission are still a thing.  Does Ryan cross that threshold worthy of being outright lambasted?  It's... dicey to say the least.

I'll put it this way: if anyone here is quick to complain about MS' oh-so-deceptive "Xbox Launch Exclusive" tagline they've used at events, you have no leg to stand on if you're defending Ryan here.  The framing they initially established, the first event's focus, and their hush-hush attitude about this until the credits end looks worse than that imo.  

The funny thing is... both sides 'lying' would be more of what I want anyways.  It's a consideration between business & creative ambitions that makes Sony's mix-n-match look better.  If some of your devs have such astute understanding of last-gen's hardware that they can manage being cross-gen?  By all means.  If you're pleading with your corporate overlords about some ambitious idea where SSD & a not-lackluster CPU is required?  Push them to next-gen only.  I hate how MS put themselves into that kind of corner so early.

Me too. The only thing that's holding me picking up an S is the lack of disc. I still feel uncomfortable with that.

And I agree about the 10 year investment think, in terms of overall devices, consoles are still the cheapest. But most people don't see that way, they only see the price tag, and consoles had a below 500 price tag for ever and they used to have lots of price cuts. Full game price is still 60 tho.

Tech is supposed to get cheaper. Laptops used to be more expensive, not any more. Anyone can find a very cheap laptop.

Consoles are still kinda cheap, but they used to be very cheap, easy to just impulse buy, like a cheap laptop or a cheap tablet, but not any more I think.

Perhaps it's time to have more console versions with multiple price ranges, like we have with tablets and even phones. (I know that gaming dev is not the same as app dev. I'm just thinking out loud at this point)

32GB RAM wouldn't work. Unless you want $600+ consoles. 16GB is more than enough, granted some of that will be allocated to OS. I mean even the RTX 3080 has 10GB VRAM as base. In comparison Xbox Series X has 10GB of fast ram and other 6GB slower but usable memory, PS5 16GB of GDDR6 which is slightly lower but one speed.

Also better but also at a cost. A RTX 3080 will is around $700 assuming you can get a hold of one for that price. A RTX 3070 will probably offer slightly higher performance than consoles ($500), yet cost the same as a whole console and arguable won't age as well with its 8GB of VRAM.

This is the arguably the first generation of consoles where consoles have really high performance relative to whats on the PC market. And even have some advantages like custom architectures that fully take advantage of state of the art SSD's without you spending a considerable amount of money on new motherboards that support PCI-e 4 and expensive SSD. Granted this is the best time to jump into PC gaming after the terrible GPU launches over the last years.

Really, the faster the console launches the better for the tech industry. Ie higher demand for SSD's pushes down NAND prices. So lower priced SSD's for everyone. This benefits everyone. I'm down to upgrade my PC with 2TB of fast NVMe next year assuming prices drop. New consoles push the games industry forward. Seriously, we need to get away from games being designed around those Jaguar cores and slow HDD's asap.

Okay.  If so clear and concise about their framing of potential cross-gen games then why would you even be cagey about that with Miles Morales or Horizon II for so long?  You can't disregard the context surrounding that.  I'd have been savaged for locking in a prediction of Horizon II being available on PS4 just a few days ago.  

If you're standing by it?  Fine.  But I feel the need to re-emphasize this point with a question: if you see no deception when considering all of the elements I've brought up for Jim Ryan's quote, do you find any mal-intent in Microsoft's past framing of "Console Launch Exclusives" during events?  Because if you were to re-read that, it seems like another way of saying timed exclusive for consoles.  

If you say no to that question?  Alright then.  As I said, I'm not fully committed to the "liar, liar" accusation.  But I still see a bit of weasely-ness to the whole thing; then again, they're kinda paid to do that.

Yeah they said all games developed on next gen hardware post launch will be for ps5 only. But games that have already been in production 

I thought the Matt booty/Phil spencer quote was that all first party will be next-gen.  Isn't that true so far? We have seen one game so far - Halo. Which is Cross gen.

We know nothing about Hellblade, Forza, State of Decay, Everwild etc.

Look: can we at least NOT go down the route of bullshit mini-jabs and stick to the point?  Anyways... now you're talking past me in respect to being cagey.  The amount of interviews or attention-seeking MS is doing compared to Sony wasn't the point.  I've already laid out the deliberate framing I see and built my case around that in previous responses.

No, no.  That's not what I'm saying.  To clarify: the "I would have been..." hypothetical I bring is to gauge just how strong the assumption was for Horizon II being a PS5 exclusive.  I shouldn't have gone with "I'd" there as the " 'd " is pretty flexible.  The point: let's not pretend that strong presumption wasn't guided by strategic marketing here.

Dude... I literally shot the "muh 2 years" argument down before.  I assumed you tacitly conceded that timeline wasn't so cut-n-dry when you shifted the goalposts to discussing AAA titles on page 41.  It's almost like you're gaslighting what I said less than 24 hours ago.  I literally laid out my case for why I find Ryan's quote & presentation to be suspicious and NEVER interpreted that text as "all Sony 1st party games will be PS5 exclusive after its launch."  I'd encourage you to re-read what I'm putting across again.

Also, it's rather funny you didn't answer my innocuous question in my last comment.  I'll rephrase it so you can give a simple yes/no answer:

You find Jim Ryan's quote & actions regarding cross-gen to be honest here.  Do you believe Microsoft's "Console Launch Exclusive" branding at video events to have been deceptive marketing to any degree?

Is this just cheap retaliation for when I used that word against you?  Let me be clear: I'm sticking by everything I've said within this comment chain about Ryan's quote unless new material comes along that challenges it.  Further, I'm literally having trouble comprehending how having a nuanced take can be framed so disingenuously as you've done.  Do I have to plant my flag in the "Jim Ryan is a vile, dishonest hack" ground regarding this situation in order to make a point?  I have a feeling I'm just going to exchange pleasantries, wash my hands of this stink, and move on from this topic.

Yep...this is the point that crosses that line for me.  Anyways...

Why not?  Did the time between said communications exist in some void from which they could not give more information?  Of course not.  Not to mention that both during or post-1st event, indies and 3rd party studios not under Sony's umbrella fully provided their own details on the matter.  The Pathless, JETT: Far Shore, Kena: Bridge of Spirits (<- that one was explained afterwards).  Like, you don't just get to ignore that timeline.  And, sure, they were more forthcoming here...as they kind of ought to have been.  And you did talk past my point b/c I never said MS' copious interviews vs. Sony's fewer interviews was what I was talking about.  That's what I'm getting across.

You didn`t understand why I put the MS copious vs fewer for Sony. What was important on that is that since Sony have talked very little about their games and console basically they had 2 times to talk about that, they didn`t in the first but did on the second. If you look for MS reveal and multiple talks not all of that would have been clarified at all. Just look at their two presentations and almost no game had even a tentative year informed. You not liking that all information was given on the first opportunity doesn`t mean it was wrong or anything from Sony to do it.

This is such a nonsensical way of approaching what I'm arguing. I'm literally setting up a hypothetical scenario wherein I'd be disregarded or shot down for claiming Horizon II is going to be cross-gen.  The assumption of exclusivity didn't just come from osmosis.  That's what I'm trying to point out.  That's not even controversial.

So it didn`t happen, you are just pretending that you would be shot down if you have said it? Then I won`t even discuss it.

How else am I suppose to interpret this: "MS said all exclusives would be crossgen for the next 2 years, at least one game isn`t, so he wasn`t true on exact quote."  That's literally in your previous reply.  

MS said next couple years, I used next 2 years, why does their doesn`t mean 24 months but mine have to mean? Again until the end of 2021 would be less than 24 months.

Pivoting isn't an answer.  So yeah, I don't like it.  What's your argument for saying my counter-example is dissimilar?  We are on the topic of potential corporate deception, right?  I'm bringing up one of the most popular criticisms against Microsoft/Xbox in respect to lying or deceptive advertising.  Oddly enough, it seems like did answer the question in a vague way:

I already gave you multiple times why it is dissimilar. One talks specifically about having all games being crossgen. The other is about supporting their nextgen console, how are they the same? They aren`t, you are just trying to push that to make someone accuse Sony of lying or say MS wasn`t lying. You are trying to get a not guilty for MS by warping what Sony said into something that isn`t like it at all. Seems like you even ignore the example that would show the total difference between both comments from MS and Sony.

"...you use people assumptions to try and prove something, but you can`t accuse someone based on what other people misunderstood by their own with nothing to sustain it."  

So you agree then that Microsoft's Console Launch Exclusive tagline at events isn't deceptive to any degree, correct?  I'm just pointing this logic back at you to find some semblance of consistency.  God knows you're not doing it with direct responses.  Given the bad faith I just can't help but detect every step of the way here, a part of me 99% knows you've criticized them over that phrasing in the past.  There's just no other way you seem this unwilling to simply provide a yes/no to that.

Don`t remember I saying it was in bad faith. But when only one single AAA would be crossgen (yep I was said Gears Tactics should also be considered, but then I saw it already released in PC, it is just that console version will be at the time of Series release so basically X1 version is being hold back) and one of their bought exclusives will release only on Series. Would you classify that being deceptive, misleading, lying or what? The thing is by the time they said it they most likely already knew how many games were targeted to release by 2021 end.

Just so we're clear: I've never been against the logic you're laying out at the end.  As I said, MS made their own trap with the '1-2 years' comment compared to Ryan's later quote & actions.  But as I initially said, the framing and how unforthcoming they acted with this info is still pretty dicey.  He has to have known what he was doing and fanboys lapped it up like they always do.

So are you going to do the Ludicrous Speed route and say "perhaps Sony didn`t say it but their fanbase used it and kept mocking MS"? He have done it whole gen regarding the power gap. Sony didn`t talk about X1 at all or said their console was the strongest ever. They put the specs of the console and that is just it. Fans of Sony used that to say it was stronger and bring on most of the multiplat comparison (as did MS fans on the previous gen), and the mockery only began when MS fans started to bring secret sauce into the conversation.

Could Jim have better communication and could Sony presentation have more information and all dates and consoles and duration of exclusivity? Sure it could. But it usually isn`t like that in console. I didn`t see any out of their way try to hide information or deceive, just that at the time they revealed the console the focus wasn`t the same as in the second show.