Paperclyp

Apologies for still being suspicious they have some bullshit up their sleeve. Most of my PS4 games are digital. They certainly say the machine can play PS4 games, but until they say outright that the PS5 storefront will allow you to download those PS4 games and play them, I’m going to remain suspicious. This is a feature they know people want and they’ve had 2-3 presentations about the machine so far. It is baffling to me that they haven’t been more clear about it. Even in the one when they unveiled PS4 back compat, they confused people with their wording with the “top 100 games” or whatever. I’ve had enough of the cat and mouse game. Tell me wtf I’m buying.

Certainly inspires confidence that there won't be weird shenanigans with PS5 backward compatibility!

I suspect they've bought into the Switch hardware for another generation or two, so I suspect you'll be right, but I certainly don't trust Nintendo to do it. And their only BC consoles are the Wii and the Wii U.

This has been the most bullshit info dump on both sides of any console generation ever. I feel like we still basically know very little about how these things work, what the UI is like, etc. Can I put a literal PS4 disc in my PS5 and have it work? It seems like it but they have kept it vague enough that I don't fucking know. How about my digital PS4 games? I dunno man, the whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. And to have Keighly now dripping out new info. Just, fuck off.

Congrats man

I think 1 + 2 are better, but 4 is a good game.

Hope your wife is doing OK.

I have a hunch this is as low as Sony was willing to price the PS5, and that they will just match. Those new video cards are looking better and better TBH.

They confirmed $499 for the X. Overall, I think that's a really good offering from MS. Good prices.

Lol like you can hedge it any number of ways. My point is a good halo game trumps the shit out of Spider-Man in driving interest in a brand new console.

Care to elaborate?

I don’t really disagree except to say Joe doesn’t have a gaming PC.

I've already addressed this. Of course it is a mainstream property. If the first game (and again, keep in mind this is not being perceived as the follow up, it is seen as a side game) was in the low end top 10 (which I kind of doubt, but let's even say it's 8th) - no, that's not a system seller IMO. It's in the same vein as like an Assassin's Creed game or an NBA 2K game. Sell very well, generally highly regarded, but when I said "mainstream" before I mean it's not going to get the casual video game consumer to go out and buy a $500+ machine to play it. So, let me put this in the clearest possible terms so we can stop (not really ) arguing that Spiderman is a popular property: 1. Microsoft is releasing a machine that will in all likelihood be at least $100 cheaper than the competition. 2. They had an opportunity to couple that with the release of a Halo game, and I'm putting forth a hypothetical world where that Halo game is universally praised 3. With those combined, that would have given them a CLEAR advantage over a more expensive Sony machine + a Spiderman game As it stands, Sony is going to have the clear software advantage, but I certainly don't believe joe shmo is sitting at home ready to spend $600 to play a 12 hour spiderman spinoff.

I disagree completely. I don’t think you can look at total sales like that - it also outsold Mario 64, but nobody is going to argue it would be anywhere close to the system seller that Mario 64 is.

It’s not that it’s not mainstream, it’s just not going to drive sales of the mainstream. A great halo title has that power. A Spider-Man spinoff game that they’ve already botched the messaging on absolutely does not.

$299 is an aggressive price, but it’s an odd combination of A) there’s not a significant next gen game releasing this year and B) it seems to me early adopters are going to purchase the expensive one. I’m sure it’ll do fine, but it feels like a missed opportunity to really stick it to Sony at launch. I don’t think Sony is going to have the library at launch to appeal to the mainstream either, but that is kind of what I mean - MS could have really gotten off to a fast start, and sometimes that’s all it takes to become the it machine.

Dear god I hate what the youth has done with “reporting” shit.

Ah yes the two ways to play EA games without giving EA money.

I pre-ordered 3D all stars. The only available til March thing seems like a scam but it worked like a charm on me.

I'm sorry I really am not being clear I'm not really disagreeing with your assertion that $69.99 isn't unreasonable. I prefer to not really assert either way whether or not it's reasonable, but I don't disagree with you. The only point I'm trying to make is that I don't think showing prices of retail games tells the story of what people paid for games back then. Like, it would not be unlike (in spirit) showing you the cost to rent that recent Pete Davidson movie (wasn't it like, $30 to rent) in 50 years and being like, see, new movies used to cost a lot to rent back then too. It's not a great analogy, but I'm just trying to get across that the price itself does not show the full context of the situation, and I think it's misleading. And I hope they are paid well. From the sounds of a lot of these studios, they do not get paid enough, especially if these games go on to sell gangbusters. You can't put a price on that crunch time, and it seems they've been taken advantage of for years. The people doing the work should get the money, and when they're not, I just don't think people should rush to defend the cost of a game.

I see that Demon’s Souls has been rated for release, but I certainly have 0 confidence it releases in 2020.

Again it appears you are arguing with something I am not saying (I'm not making a claim about what games should cost today). But I would say to this that games didn't sell near as much, and I would imagine the profitability of a AAA game completely waxes the best of the best back then. Cheaper to make, similar cost to the consumer, made a fraction of profit for the company. That's where I would come into that argument that you guys seem intent on pulling me in on. I just grabbed a name, Bobby Kotick has a net worth of $600 million. I'm sure the people directly under and a couple levels under him make an absurd amount as well. A lot of these games are making money hand over fist, so I'm not gonna work very hard to be like "actually guys we have it good now." I'd GLADLY pay more money of the dudes who made the game got the money. They instead get totally shit on. So when ya'll are floating numbers from 1994 and being like, see, it's not so bad, I just don't care when the people responsible for making the stuff I like are working for jack.

I’ve never argued games are too expensive now. I dunno if people are reading subtext into my posts, or if I’m just that bad at getting my point across. All I’m saying is the gaming landscape was COMPLETELY different in those eras where people are pointing out retail prices of games, so it’s apples and oranges to me. So I don’t buy this, “see, games were really expensive back then” thing and just showing retail prices of games. I don’t think it tells the story accurately, even though technically yes street fighter 2 was $70 at retail or whatever.

I grew up in a town of 3,000 people, we had one stoplight and a single grocery store. I could rent games from three different places as a child and we had an arcade. Edit: Wait no, 4 different places lol.