Sheikah

Well it's not up to publishers to give a shit about things like lootboxes anymore - like Jim says, it was never his preference for government to get involved. But regulate themselves they never would - and thanks to publicity from people like Jim, we're starting to see the knock on effects elsewhere in the media leading to lootbox regulation at the governmental level, getting the scrutiny they deserve. And just one point to your comment - while you've provided an example of a publisher who doesn't give a fuck, I could give you an example of a publisher who actually stripped lootboxes from their game. And another example of a developer proudly exclaiming their game doesn't have lootboxes, given the reputation they now have.

He doesn't need to be mature to get his point across or convince people of his points, so I disagree with you there. He is already often referenced in gaming media (and in the BBC, as Dcubed points out) and has helped successfully pressure publishers despite how he does it. And I'm sure he'd rather have fun doing it being himself than conform like that. It rather sounds to me like you're being a little bit uptight; I appreciate his brand of immature humour isn't for everyone, but it clearly does still work. He doesn't need to change - in fact changing could well render him less interesting to watch, and he could lose his audience; losing money and his means to carry on doing this job. I actually like that he doesn't shy away from showing his personality and hobbies (especially the wrestling). It would be very easy not to include that stuff for worry of being ridiculed, particularly because of his weight, but he generally doesn't give a fuck. That, or he hides it well. I also can't disagree more about your complaint about how he pronounces triple A. That's actually one of his best things. That, and "live services". [emoji14]

For a lot of people it's the first time they've heard about it; not everyone follows gaming websites Even then, there are details in the videos that I didn't know about and made me realise how crappy Bethesda had been, particularly with regards to Obsidian (repackaging their iconic outfit they developed, after previously having denied them bonuses). If nothing else it is interesting to hear how low a publisher can fall. It is now actually making me question purchasing their future games, thanks to watching Jim's video.

I can't agree with that. I frequently indulge in schadenfreude when watching his "post-mortem" videos but have a happy life, all things considered. I suppose what it comes down to is that negativity and calling out is fine so long as the recipient is deserving (in Jim's case it's usually greedy, faceless, corporate publishers getting their come-uppance). It's like watching the bully in the playground receiving their just desserts; there is a certain allure to seeing justice, or at the very least the drawing of attention to their behaviour. It's not like there isn't good intention behind it, either. The result of his and others' pressuring and not letting things slide also has positive effects - you are seeing some publishers these days proudly exclaim on social media that loot boxes will not be included in their games. It's thanks to pressure that we are starting to see change, with some people at least.

This is a very good point. It's only recently that he has become reasonably "famous", despite being in the industry for years. If he was doing it for fame with little care for the industry like Ronnie said, it would make no sense why he has been in it for so long.

Well, I strongly disagree that his wanting to change and draw attention the industry is more or less an "afterthought". It's clear through his videos that he genuinely cares about the subject matter.

Well my point was really that he doesn't only deal in negative talk, and that his videos prove this - it shows he is passionate about a lot of games, rather than just being a characateur who only tries to drum up clicks using outrage. It's true that more of his content is calling out the shittiness of the industry using his alter egos, but I think it's pretty clear he actually believes in what he's doing. I read Ronnie's post as Jim basing his persona on trying to cause outrage/be negative as the end goal to generate clicks, rather than trying to shine a light on bad industry practices and cause change.

It can't be in any way true if he doesn't only do negative videos. You're also being disingenuous, claiming he has based his persona on stirring up outrage rather than having a vested interest in wanting to expose and improve the gaming industry.

Definitely this. A lot of people criticise him for being only negative but that's not true, he's always posting impressions on games he's playing, often positive.

But as stated, Sony have never needed to do this, people buy Sony consoles knowing it will be their main console for years to come, and that there are the sorts of games they want to buy on it. Annoying people who are waiting for the PS4 version by delaying it to tie in with the PS5 launch would not go down well with gamers, and it's questionable how much it would benefit from being a PS5 exclusive given how it was developed for PS4. Sony will still have those exclusives whether they are there at launch or not. Sony have never really had strong launches and yet always seem to be successful, I don't think Nintendo's approach is necessarily right or needed for them. Console gamers will ultimately end up upgrading to continue to buy games for the next 7 years. Again no different from the norm then. The natural course of time and gradual movement away from past generations entices people to upgrade. The real question is, what will cause PS4 owners to switch to an X2 rather than a PS5? From Sony's point of view, they've developed some really good exclusives on PS4 and people know if they want the inevitable sequels they will need a PS5. That is a very strong position to be in. Well with the several fold decrease in loading times I think that could be a very big reason to upgrade, as well as the inevitable improvements in graphics. Again, when have Sony ever exploded out of the gate?

I think 450 - 500 is fine, similar to what the Xbox One X was. PS3 launched at 425 back in 2007 so compared to that price it would be practically a steal.

But with Twilight Princess, the Wii version used motion controls and the Gamecube one didn't, and this was before console patches. Here there is not much point in having separate versions. PS5 will have PS4 backwards compatibility so it would make more sense for them to have one game that runs differently between consoles. And if it does come out on PS4 as scheduled, with the PS4 having backwards compatibility, anyone who bought it on PS4 already isn't likely to buy it again 3 months later or so if their new console still runs the disc. Also, having a killer exclusive to sell your console is Nintendo's style, not Sony's. Neither PS3 or PS4 had a killer exclusive at launch. They don't need it. Sony work by being the best at what they do in the long run. If it's such a no brainer then why did the exact same thing happen with PS3 (TLOU released on PS3 a few months before the release of the PS4)? The install base of PS4 is much bigger than what PS5 will be on day 1, so from a developer's point of view they want to sell to as many people as possible. That's because Gamecube was a poorly performing console, whereas Wii was lightning in a bottle and people were enraptured by motion controls at the time. A lot of people would still buy TLOU2 on PS5 if there was a separate version, because a lot of people buy consoles at launch and need games to play, but the situation isn't the same as your example. I disagree. I think people are ready to buy a console on the slightly pricier side, as the mid-generation consoles have shown us. People do spend more on phones and gadgets these days. Ultimately if they can show games loading in a twentieth of the time (or whatever Cerny demonstrated) then I think that would justify the cost. I don't mind paying more than the standard console price if it's worth it. This system has to last us 7 years, after all.

If they do release it again later that's fine, no different from what they have some with games like Witcher 3. PS4 backwards compatibility on PS5 means that the "spank them twice" attitude won't really fly, if you're able to pop the same disk in the PS5 then a lot of the drive to buy the game again goes out the window.

PS5 is PS4 backwards compatible, so PS5 owners will still be able to play it.

What's the point in that, it's still been developed for PS4 so it will look and feel like a PS4 game even if it gets released as a PS5 game. No point delaying it further, going back on their word about it being a PS4 title, pissing off the fan base and restricting its sale to new PS5 customers. Besides, PS5 gamers can still play it because PS5 will be PS4 backwards compatible.

Switch couldn't haven't done BC regardless since it's a small system that can't play Blu Rays. And PS5 is going to have PS4 BC, they wouldn't do this if they only want to re-release old games. It's more that including the necessary hardware to have functioning BC is expensive and generally before has not been worth the effort, in the cases where it wasn't there. An example is with the PS3, where they had some PS2 compatibility in the original fat model but later dropped it. The PS3 had strange architecture which is most likely why the PS4 didn't support BC. From what I've heard though, there's similarity between PS4/PS5 which is probably why it's not too much effort to have it this time.

I'm sure it isn't worth it, in terms of driving sales. PS4 and Switch don't do it, and they are leading right now. It is a nice thing to have BC for the previous generation at launch though, to ease the transition. Not partway through the generation like how Microsoft did it; most people had already moved on by then. It would be pretty neat if the next consoles had a boost mode on every past gen game you ran. Instantly being able to play say Fortnite or Apex at a higher resolution or framerate would be a useful feature to have and encourage an early upgrade.

See, I don't understand how Game Pass is either good for the gaming industry or an innovation, and I certainly don't see how it's sustainable in its current form. I would be very interested to hear why you thoughts as to why this should be a role model. With Game Pass, developers are either getting a fraction of the money they would normally take or Microsoft are bankrolling them. Here's an example - Gears 3 sold 3 million copies at retail in its opening week. In the UK charts at least, at retail Gears of War 3 sold 20 times better than the newly released Gears of War 5. Yet...Gears of War 5 had 3 million "players" at launch. What gives? Well, you can bet your ass the vast majority of those digital players are doing it on Game Pass. Game Pass can be continuously renewed via a seemingly never-ending offer, meaning people can play for $1. You can also get a crazy deal where you convert your XBL subscription into Game Pass. Long story short, people are playing a number of games on the Game Pass for a minuscule fraction of what they'd be paying if they bought the game up front. We're not talking a half price saving here either, we're talking tens of times cheaper than if they were to actually buy the games. I start to wonder if this is an image thing, like it was with the Xbox One X. Microsoft want to appear to be doing well or being the best. Because they're almost giving their games away with Game Pass they can boast about having lots of "players" at launch and how many people they've convinced to sign up for Game Pass. And with the Xbox One X, I bet they hated having the inferior powered console for all those years so they went overboard by releasing a very expensive machine so late into the generation (450 quid for a console refresh!). But hey, they could then proclaim that they have the most powerful console. Can you give some examples of how Sony are being reactive? The only thing I can think of is that they were slow to adopt cross play with other consoles, but that made sense given they are generation leaders. Other than that, they continue to release the best games of the generation while their direct competitor has done very little.

Well the argument for many is that you're going to buy a PS5 anyway to carry on playing games for the next 7 years, it's just a matter when, and if there's cross gen games coming out that play better on PS5 then that's a good reason to upgrade immediately. The sooner you upgrade, the sooner you get a better experience. If you buy a whole year later you might get a small reduction in price or bundle, so it's up to the buyer whether the performance upgrade is worth it. For me it usually is. That interview with Mark Cerny suggested some neat features such as drastically reduced loading times in games, so if that was something you could get with new cross gen games then I'd be very interested. With regards to backwards compatibility with the gen that immediately went before, this could be pretty useful in today's world. There are a lot of games people play an awful lot now, day after day, like the biggest game in the world - Fortnite. Being able to say the PS5 can play it day 1 as well as new PS5 games would be a massive boon.

None of that matters compared to having games like Last of Us 2, God of War 2, Horizon 2, Demon's Souls, FFVII, etc. Sorry to be blunt, but it doesn't. Game pass is financially a good deal from a customer perspective but if the games you have on it aren't the ones people are going crazy for then people will still get the PS5. If Game Pass was so enticing then you'd have seen tons of PS4 owners go out and buy an X1 in the last year or so, which hasn't really happened. Game pass in my view is also unsustainable as people are paying almost nothing for it (constantly getting trial periods for peanuts - Google it!) which is no doubt hurting the bottom line of the game developers since people aren't paying for their new games; either that or Microsoft are losing money by bankrolling them. Also backwards compatibility going back beyond the previous generation will not affect anything, X1 has shown that while people like the idea of it it ultimately had no change in X1's fortunes. PS4 continued to outsell X1 big time. Backwards compatibility with the last gen is a very good idea to have at day 1 though to ease the transition process. BC going further generations back and you're talking about something that is just nice to have. Also to address your point of Sony's E3 no show and mindshare - could not disagree with you more. Bear in mind that Sony's appearance next year (wherever it may be held) will be focused on PS5, 2019 will be completely and utterly forgotten. It may as well not even have happened. Look at what happened with Nintendo at the E3 before the Switch was announced. It was terrible, but does anyone remember it? No! Is the Switch suffering because of it? Hell no! In fact you might even argue that by missing a year, there's even more anticipation on what they'll say next. Could not disagree more. Sony are their first party studios that have been working hard to make some fantastic games in the last few years, and continue to make them. Sony have therefore been doing the absolute most important thing as a console owner - working hard to make great games to support their games console. Microsoft have completely dropped the ball on this one - I can't think of many X1 exclusives of the same quality that I want to play. Where is X1's Bloodborne and God of War? Where is X1's Persona 5? Sony also continue to support the system with exclusives right up until the end - coming up are Last Stranding, TLOU2, Nioh 2. And they've got FFVII coming from S-E - a console exclusive they seem to have secured, at least for a time. In terms of other things they've been up to, Sony also developed the most successful VR headset out there. Until Switch took over (which is understandable) they also had (and still have) a much more developed indie scene than X1. So forgive me, but I'm of the belief that Sony have been more than a little busy! It was never in their interest to allow cross play - nor would it ever be in the interest of anyone console manufacturer who was leading the generation. Why open up your console to cross play and give people an opportunity to buy an Xbox and still play with their existing PS4 friends? Not saying it's right, just that it made sense for Sony to wait until the next generation has nearly started before allowing it. Now they can go into the next generation with the practice in place, claim to be playing ball, while having been able to milk their situation for as long as possible. I dislike this sentiment. They won the generation by making a great machine at a good price. People act like Microsoft gave them the win. While they certainly helped, you have to remember that it's seemingly easy for them to get it wrong - Sony slipped up with the PS3 at launch, if you remember. Nintendo also made colossal missteps with the Wii U around that time too. IIRC it was only Sony that went up to the developers and asked them what it was they wanted. They deserve full credit for keeping things like used games alive because it they also did what Microsoft did, they'd probably be dead right now! In what way? By having not having an unsustainable Game Pass? [emoji14] No doubt there are more PS Plus subscribers than there are XBL gold users due to sheer numbers of PS4s out there, so not sure why you think Microsoft's subs are ahead? If Sony carry on with their current strategy of making games that are orders of magnitude better than their direct competition then they've pretty much got it in the bag. Microsoft will need to do something special to pull customers to their side - a Game Pass without games like TLOU2 or GoW2 isn't going to do much, at the end of the day.

The days of the generation 'reset' are gone. PS5 is rumoured to be backwards compatible and if so it'll be a pretty easy sell - get the PS5 and carry on playing your old games (and your PS Plus games) as well as your new ones. No doubt we'll see cross generation games too which will have an advantage being played on PS5 (e.g. higher frame rate/resolution) so there's a good reason to just buy right away. Unless Sony do something very strange you will see the majority of PS4 owners go PS5. What does Xbox even have to entice people over? From a software point of view the X1 didn't complete with the PS4, so what is there to suggest it'll be anything different this time?

That expectation has been set by the manufacturers. Sony and Microsoft regularly sell their consoles at a loss because it's far more lucrative for them in the long term to get a big install base and make the money back via Plus/XBL subs as well as games. Can't say I disagree with this approach, the competition means we get a better deal. When you look at the iPhone though, people are buying it for the brand even though there are more powerful Android phones for less money.

Absolutely, it's money for old rope in EA's eyes so they won't drop UT unless forced by government.

...wut?

Are those joycons or the controller on the Switch Lite that you're referring to?