But that's just it, with any new technology it takes time to learn how to best maximize their performance. Games at the beginning of any and all generations are vastly different to the games at the end of the same generation. Metal Gear solid 3 looks vastly superior to Metal Gear solid 2. That's just sort of how things work. and with each console generation's leap in technology getting smaller and smaller (in terms of what we see and feel, not in raw power), I just don't see how games are going to make a HUGE leap at the beginning of this generation so why not make games cross-generational. 

If it's gonna take a few years to truly integrate the new console's features into games, why not take the games that CAN be played on the old hardware and adapt them to do so? 

Not all games are going to need instant teleportation or any of the unique features of the PS5. Not all games will need to take advantage of the SSD and blast processing and all that jazz. MOST games - even first party games - are just going to be prettier, better performing versions of old games. In any new console generation only a small percentage of games make full use of the console's unique features. 

Except Nintendo games. those tend to do a damn good job with their unique features. but Sony isn't Nintendo. I would like it if they could take some cues from Nintendo, but they seem to be doing well enough. 

Agreed, but err, BotW says hi ;) Ninty has a problem as well, games need to run on tv and handheld mode, with and without motion controls. I guess they make some exceptions? But they can't really make handheld only games or games that only work on tv.

(Plus I still haven't forgiven Nintendo for ruining Skyward sword with wonky motion controls that have a mind of their own :p Was it so hard to add an option to play without motion controls, apparently not since it's coming to switch and switch lite)

Exactly. for better or for worse, Nintendo DOES tend to push its gimmicks a lot. sometimes that's good (Wii), sometimes people hate it or are indifferent (WiiU). 

If God of War's creative direction doesn't require something like a Link to the Past style instant world transition, then I see no need to require it. If it's just a prettier, better-performing follow-up to God of War 2018, then I'm okay with that. Miles morales was just a prettier version of Spider-Man, and that was great. That's just an example, but a good one. If the game doesn't need to take advantage of the console's unique capabilities, then why shoehorn it in? After how good 2018 was, I trust Cory Barlog, and if the vision he had in mind can be adapted to PS4's capabilities, I'm happy with that. It's not challenging. 

"Of course games matter.  No one said otherwise.  The issue is exclusives probably don't.  No one is likely to switch to Xbox, just because PS4 is getting subpar versions of new games."

People are very likely to switch to X|S if these same games are on PS4.  They can say "hey I don't need a PS5 to play Spider-Man and God of War.  I'll buy an XBox for Gen 9 games so I can play those exclusives too."  I.e. people can alternate from one generation to the next.  Console loyalty is not really a thing, especially not in North America.  In North America, we pick a new company to win almost every generation.

"What matters is quality. Grand Theft Auto by itself is a bigger deal than all 1299 Vita games combined. That's what the Vita lacked. It basically had 3 even remotely notable games."

Every console has quality games, and that includes the Vita.  The Vita has Minecraft.  That is even bigger than GTA.  However Minecraft is not even remotely exclusive.  I know, personally, that the Vita has about a dozen games I'd enjoy if you ignore the fact that I can play these games on systems I already own.  The Vita lacks quality exclusives.

>Even the Wii U sold pretty well at first. 
"No it didn't. It had a decent launch, then it dropped off."

I think you just disagreed with me and agreed with me at the same time.  The PS5 will take longer than the Wii U to drop off, but it can drop off too.  It can't rest on its laurels.  No console can.

"MS literally was the one who said they were going to be making all games cross platform for the next two years, it's possible they changed their minds on that, but they're the ones who started the conversation.
Additionally, every one of their games is so far coming to PC."

You should know better than to take Microsoft at face value.  They lie about stuff all time time, especially to screw with their competition.  We'll see on June 13 if they "changed their mind" or not.

Here's the primary question, does going cross gen change the scale or how the game functions? If the answer is no, then it doesn't really matter.

9th gen games on average are going to be a lot like 8th gen games with much better visuals. Its very likely these games were always planned for PS4 or the scale of the games wasn't beyond PS4 capabilities.

Sony probably lied about focusing solely on next gen because they weren't entirely committed or sure PS4 support was continuing. So its been a good laugh for people who always felt cross gen support makes sense for some projects.

Sony should have been more honest when they had ps5 reveal. Ifkr me that puts a sour taste in my mouth. It's gd to have cross gen as I don't have to buy ps5 for couple of years

This goes for any company doing this: I don't like it. Why? Because I like consoles to be as distinct from one another as possible. It gives them more personality and makes owning them more worthwhile and interesting. By allowing current generation games to be played on past generation consoles, I feel less inclined to buy the new console. I also don't like the fact that it hinders innovation in terms of graphics and AI. Yes, I know what they're all saying. But I don't really buy it. Making a game that will run well on an eight-year-old console is bound to gimp the current version in some way. And when I spend half a grand on a brand new console, I want the games I buy for it to be cutting edge.

I don't actually mind the cross-gen for first party games that much, but I do mind how Sony marketed themselves and these games. Especially with how Jim Ryan vehemently stated "We believe in generations" and wanted to get as many players onto the new console as quick as possible, and people like Mark Cerny making it seem like these games would've only been possible to develop for the PS5 because of the hardware.

Ever since the console reveal presentation last year, which was omitting the fact that major games like Miles Morales and Horizon II: Forbidden West was also being released on PS4, they set the tone of scepticism for each major first party game like God of War: Ragnarok that was being announced or revealed for the PS5, making us wonder if they're also cross-gen games as well. I have no doubt these games will be fantastic and will be even better on the PS5, but it's not the best impression to make to state one thing so openly and do the complete opposite, while also making it a bit harder to shell out on a new and expensive console, which was in a bit of a drought of major games shortly after launch.

Should 1st Party games be cross-gen? Sure, why not?
I've never been against this. I even was ok with games being on both Switch and 3DS and games that were 3DS only. So I'm ok with this too.

So many comments here but The_Liquid_Laser’s in particular...