Dcubed

Playstation 5 Console Discussion

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Dcubed said:

It’s almost as if Switch didn’t already have these features almost 5 years ago or something…

They'd need to have analogue triggers before they can have adaptive ones.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been available on Xbox and PC for a while now, but Deep Rock Galactic is finally coming to PS4 and PS5 next month!

Dwarves, mines, alien creatures and guns.

Looks like a hell of a lot of fun, already convinced my mates to hop in with me when it launches :D if you need further convincing that this game might be for you, I definitely recommend checking out Skill-Up's video:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schreier with those PlayStation Game Pass competitor scoops, well...kind of not? No first party games Day One. 

Quote

The service, code-named Spartacus, will allow PlayStation owners to pay a monthly fee for access to a catalog of modern and classic games, said the people, who asked not to be identified because they weren't authorized to speak to the press about the plans. The offering will likely be available on the smash hit PlayStation 4, which has sold more than 116 million units, and its elusive successor, the PlayStation 5, which launched more than a year ago but is still difficult to buy due to supply chain issues.

When it launches, expected in the spring, the service will merge Sony's two existing subscription plans, PlayStation Plus and PlayStation Now. Currently, PlayStation Plus is required for most online multiplayer games and offers free monthly titles, while PlayStation Now allows users to stream or download older games. Documents reviewed by Bloomberg suggest that Sony plans to retain the PlayStation Plus branding but phase out PlayStation Now.

Details on Spartacus may still not be finalized, but documentation reviewed by Bloomberg outlines a service with three tiers. The first would include existing PlayStation Plus benefits. The second would offer a large catalog of PlayStation 4 and, eventually, PlayStation 5 games. The third tier would add extended demos, game streaming and a library of classic PS1, PS2, PS3 and PSP games. A representative for PlayStation didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Still, sounds like it could be an impressive package depending on its price. If it works out at £10/month or less a year I could see myself biting, but otherwise I'd probably just check it out in quiet months (which aren't really a thing anymore :laughing:). I just want to play the good Battlefront II, maybe force Metal Gear Solid on some friends, and see more people play Suikoden and Suikoden II. 

Here's hoping! 

Edited by Julius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But what will it mean to their bottom line!"

The beauty of Game Pass is that Xbox's first party line-up are all on there day 1. That surely won't be the case for Playstation, though I suppose maybe it doesn't need to be quite as good and enticing as GP, something that's 'good enough' might do for them.

PS Plus has been pretty terrible for a while now, so anything to make the service better would be welcome. The slow trickle of PS5 games doesn't help though tbf.

Edited by Ronnie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tier 3 sounds like it could expensive unless they lower the price of "tier 1".

They should add Crunchyroll&/Funimation subs to sweeten the deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that always bothers me about subscription services is that games lose all value. Not immediately gripped on the game? Oh well, it was "free" so just move on to the many other games you have access to 

When you spend £50 upwards on a game (or less if you get it after a few months), you're more likely to give it a chance to get going. 

I wonder how many great games have been passed over or received less attention because they didn't immediately present their best content at the beginning of the game.

Also, if people aren't paying for a game (apart from the fraction of the subscription price that goes to the developer), game developers will make their money elsewhere. Spoilers: more "pursuasive" microtransactions.

I do like gamepass from a consumer point of view, but I do wonder what the future of gaming looks like when/if it becomes the norm.

Edited by Goafer
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Goafer said:

One thing that always bothers me about subscription services is that games lose all value. Not immediately gripped on the game? Oh well, it was "free" so just move on to the many other games you have access to 

Purely anecdotal, but I'm in the last quarter of Final Fantasy 13, and even on GamePass, it still holds no value.

Utterly awful game.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, one side effect or unintended consequence if you like (though perhaps intentional?) of these monthly subscriptions is that the price of what used to be standard, boxed, physical games, do seem to be lowering at a significant rate, so if you've got any old PS4 or Xbox One games (soon to apply to PS5 and Xbox One X games possibly) that you don't play any more, then it might be worth considering selling them, while they are still worth even a few pounds.

Of course, if you don't subscribe to these services and still buy physical games, chances are games will be a lot cheaper, and become more affordable at a quicker rate, so if you intend to buy one or two games throughout the year and don't mind waiting, then you probably won't be paying much for them. Though I suppose if you only play one or two games a year, you could sign up for a trial of one of these services, play the games you wanted to check out, and then cancel.

Either way, modern physical games are seemingly becoming almost disposable on Xbox and Playstation platforms with the introduction of these services.

It's nice to have options, but at the rate things seem to be going, physical games could well be phased out, at least on Xbox and Playstation, with the only way to get them being limited print runs for those that still want them. Personally, I'm not too bothered any more, I've collected games for a while, and I've often advocated for physical games in the past but if you don't form that much of an attachment to modern games, in the same way as a lot of older games, then they might as well just be cheap and accesible. ::shrug:

Thousands of digital distractions at your finger tips, all on a pay-monthly service... I can see the appeal, even if it's something I'm unlikely to invest in. :peace:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Goafer said:

One thing that always bothers me about subscription services is that games lose all value. Not immediately gripped on the game? Oh well, it was "free" so just move on to the many other games you have access to 

When you spend £50 upwards on a game (or less if you get it after a few months), you're more likely to give it a chance to get going. 

I wonder how many great games have been passed over or received less attention because they didn't immediately present their best content at the beginning of the game.

Also, if people aren't paying for a game (apart from the fraction of the subscription price that goes to the developer), game developers will make their money elsewhere. Spoilers: more "pursuasive" microtransactions.

I do like gamepass from a consumer point of view, but I do wonder what the future of gaming looks like when/if it becomes the norm.

I 1000% agree with this, very well said. 

Heck, I get choice paralysis because I've got too many games I've bought sitting on my shelf, but I do intend to play them all -- that's why I bought them! Giving me access to tens if not hundreds of games I am only tangentially interested in? For my style of play, where I enjoy focusing in on one single player game at a time, it just doesn't work. It's why something as cool as Quick Resume doesn't move the needle for me, because I personally wouldn't be juggling multiple games at once. 

Re: microtransactions and Battle Passes, by all accounts - from everything I've read and heard - Halo Infinite has quite possibly one of the worst implementations of the system that we've seen in the last few years from a free-to-play model. In case it wasn't already crystal clear that it wasn't sustainable from Day One, the egregious ways in which it's been worked in there really do boggle my mind. It's even worse when somehow Halo Infinite has managed to become an underdog when it's backed by a company which dwarfs both PlayStation and Nintendo in almost every tangible way. 

And re: games not having their best content at launch / not being frontloaded experiences, I suppose the other issue which could arise from it - and which we've seen a whole lot as of late - is games launching in unfinished states to "relaunch". They grab headlines by being broken (at launch or even in a trailer), in some cases become underdogs, and so can easily grab headlines again when they return because they already have mind share. It's becoming something we're seeing increasingly from AAA studios, which firstly shows that the AAA model (as I feel we all know) just isn't sustainable with things getting bigger and more detailed, and more importantly just completely buries smaller titles. Halo Infinite has been my example so far, so I'll use it again here: it's launching twice, in effect, which means smaller titles (and even some bigger ones) need to avoid an even bigger window for launch. 

And then there's also the fact that you literally can't make games fast enough to fill up a service like this, which causes the concerns over acquisitions potentially forcing the industry giants towards monopolisation, whether that's they're intention or not. 

2 hours ago, Ronnie said:

"But what will it mean to their bottom line!"

The beauty of Game Pass is that Xbox's first party line-up are all on there day 1. That surely won't be the case for Playstation, though I suppose maybe it doesn't need to be quite as good and enticing as GP, something that's 'good enough' might do for them.

PS Plus has been pretty terrible for a while now, so anything to make the service better would be welcome. The slow trickle of PS5 games doesn't help though tbf.

Yeah, I feel the only reason PlayStation are really doing this is to not fall too far behind Xbox so that if/when they do ever pivot to launching first party titles on Day One, the service is there and ready to go. PlayStation Plus and PlayStation Now being separate things means they're competing with themselves somewhat for mind share from a casual audience, and PlayStation Now is losing (and how), so making it one service - which they can charge more for - makes a lot of sense. 

Not that I think first party PlayStation titles need to come to a service like this in Day One any time soon, because those titles sell like crazy anyways. Their hardware and software sales are soaring, and Xbox not being in that position is why they needed to pivot towards Game Pass in the first place, and obviously having the backing to bring third party titles into that and acquiring a number of studios is what we saw come as a result of what for a very long time was a weak first party lineup. 

I think my biggest problem with PS+ is that, obviously, PSN used to be free. With more subscription services coming out, and the potential transition we'll see here in the next few months, it should be feasible for us to go back to PSN being free off the back of strong subscription attachment rates, yet it seems to be getting used as an opportunity to add even more tiers. 

26 minutes ago, S.C.G said:

Indeed, one side effect or unintended consequence if you like (though perhaps intentional?) of these monthly subscriptions is that the price of what used to be standard, boxed, physical games, do seem to be lowering at a significant rate, so if you've got any old PS4 or Xbox One games (soon to apply to PS5 and Xbox One X games possibly) that you don't play any more, then it might be worth considering selling them, while they are still worth even a few pounds.

Of course, if you don't subscribe to these services and still buy physical games, chances are games will be a lot cheaper, and become more affordable at a quicker rate, so if you intend to buy one or two games throughout the year and don't mind waiting, then you probably won't be paying much for them. Though I suppose if you only play one or two games a year, you could sign up for a trial of one of these services, play the games you wanted to check out, and then cancel.

Either way, modern physical games are seemingly becoming almost disposable on Xbox and Playstation platforms with the introduction of these services.

It's nice to have options, but at the rate things seem to be going, physical games could well be phased out, at least on Xbox and Playstation, with the only way to get them being limited print runs for those that still want them. Personally, I'm not too bothered any more, I've collected games for a while, and I've often advocated for physical games in the past but if you don't form that much of an attachment to modern games, in the same way as a lot of older games, then they might as well just be cheap and accesible. ::shrug:

Funnily enough, if I buy a Series X, I plan on doing the opposite: subscribing to Game Pass to experience a game, and then picking it up on the cheap when a few years have passed just to get it physically. It definitely seems to be needed in some cases due to licensing, such as with Forza. 

It is a scary thought that physical games could be phased out, the biggest reason for me obviously being accessibility to older titles. These subscriptions could be great for bringing back smaller titles which ended up costing a fortune physically - like the Suikoden games on PS1 - but for some reason I really doubt that we'll see them come, or if they do, it's going to be quite a ways into the catalogue. 

31 minutes ago, S.C.G said:

Thousands of digital distractions at your finger tips, all on a pay-monthly service... I can see the appeal, even if it's something I'm unlikely to invest in. :peace:

Right, I genuinely think this is the problem with subscription services above all else - for pretty much every form of entertainment. Not only does it cheapen some experiences, making them disposable as others have rightly said, but it lowers the standards of design for these AAA studios. It's not about quality, because it's no longer about physical sales or reviews, but it's about moving onto the next game swiftly to ensure that the quantity is there, because they're looking for engagement and to gain mind share. 

I'm sure some people will hiss and squeal at me for this, but I think that design philosophy - of short gameplay loops, in games with now thousands upon thousands of dopamine bursts - has even permeated Nintendo since the move to the Switch. I'm one of the ones on here who loves Breath of the Wild (even with its flaws), but it's undeniable I think that in a game of that size, the pick and play nature of it results in a design which can at times ring hollow, such as with the lack of enemy variety, or how the game's difficulty plateaus pretty quickly. This extends to what little I've experienced of Super Mario Odyssey, where there are moons lying around left and right, and up and down, and behind your ear; yes, it makes the game easy to pick up and play for shorter sessions on a console like the Switch, but it seems like they're competing with mobile games with these design philosophies - very highly rated games, at that - rather than trying to make the best experience the game can offer. We've seen this with Pokémon too over the years, with how linear the story path of each game and each region has become since kids got lost in Diamond & Pearl, or how the Battle Frontier was taken out because players get very easily bored and frustrated, or how the EXP Share has trivialised the games to an extent in a series not exactly renowned for its difficulty to begin with. 

This isn't me dunking on Nintendo, but I think it's a fair criticism to levy at a number of their games - even ones I've enjoyed immensely! - because they don't seem to realise that the last things we need from quality games are these short gameplay loops for pick up and play sessions akin to what we see in mobile games (this isn't me picking on mobile games either, by the way), or games made much easier to be considered more accessible. It's like they want to be addicting - and Nintendo is not at all the only one guilty of this. 

Like you said Sam, I think a lot of games today can feel like they're made to be distractions, in a time when they essentially serve as distractions from other distractions (the constant social media notifications, emails, alerts, etc.). I think it's part of a much wider societal issue where maintaining our attention is no longer the aim, simply distracting us and gaining mind share is, and the fastest way to do that is in constant and short bursts (i.e. with dopamine). Monkey lizard brains and all that. 

Obviously, there are going to be exceptions to the rule, and these come in companies serving some sort of niche in the industry - such as From Software's games - or in the booming indie scene. This isn't me saying that there aren't quality titles around, but AAA releases have by in large become risk averse and have been for a while, and I don't think we've quite crossed the threshold into subscriptions being the way to play games, but of course that's going to be down to only Xbox really putting everything behind the concept so far. I would argue that PlayStation first party titles not coming to the service Day One - and again, probably not any time soon either - is a bit of a relief because they do put out high quality first party titles, and have done consistently for years; for now, I think it's safe to say that that's the plan moving forwards, too. 

But I think the AAA space could get bumpy if in the next decade we see all three console manufacturers turn to subscription-based models. Not only is it overwhelming as a consumer, I personally don't think products designed with the philosophy of small hits of dopamine to keep you hooked is going to be good for the quality of the output we see. 

I say this, obviously, as someone who wants to play older games on modern systems, and that's really the main part of the story I want to see come to fruition. But for me, I don't think a subscription service for games - not exactly short-form entertainment based on my preferences - is going to be right for me in the long run, either, regardless of its price. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just sounds like a rebrand of Playstation Now but bundled into a new tier of PS Plus?

What’s all the hype about? It’s not like PS3 & PS2 games aren’t already available on PS Now… unless I’m missing something obvious, this doesn’t exactly strike me as a huge deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purely anecdotal, but I'm in the last quarter of Final Fantasy 13, and even on GamePass, it still holds no value.
Utterly awful game.
It can't be that bad if you got to the last quarter. I actually quite enjoyed it in the end, after it opens up more and the story comes to a conclusion. XIII-2 is even better, if you ever get that far.

I'm struggling to see what's new about this announcement. PS Now already exists, as does PS Plus. PS Plus is still going to be a solo offering if that's all you want, so that's all most people will continue to stick with. Sounds as though they're just making the PS Now offering an "upgrade" on top of regular Plus (and dropping the "PS Now" branding altogether), rather than offering it as a separate sub as it is now. Sounds more like a branding change, probably because PS Now never really took off to the same extent Game Pass did.

So yeah...what's new about this really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

This just sounds like a rebrand of Playstation Now but bundled into a new tier of PS Plus?

What’s all the hype about? It’s not like PS3 & PS2 games aren’t already available on PS Now… unless I’m missing something obvious, this doesn’t exactly strike me as a huge deal?

 

9 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

I'm struggling to see what's new about this announcement. PS Now already exists, as does PS Plus. PS Plus is still going to be a solo offering if that's all you want, so that's all most people will continue to stick with. Sounds as though they're just making the PS Now offering an "upgrade" on top of regular Plus (and dropping the "PS Now" branding altogether), rather than offering it as a separate sub as it is now. Sounds more like a branding change, probably because PS Now never really took off to the same extent Game Pass did.

So yeah...what's new about this really?

The third tier including PSP and PS1 games, as well as extended demos, would be new. 

I haven't looked at PS Now in a while, and have never used it myself, but looking at it now it seems like there are only ~20 titles playable on there from the PS2, which I think might be limited to the PS2 Classics that were released for PS4 anyways. Maybe I'm taking the ball and running with it a bit here, but I feel like the implication of it including a "classic library of PS2 games" is that there will be more games added to this than what's already on there. 

A whole lot of PS1, PS2, and PSP games haven't been made available on the PS4 or PS5, so seeing those come to a service like this would be nice, though obviously depending on how far this library would go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Julius said:

 

The third tier including PSP and PS1 games, as well as extended demos, would be new. 

But that’s not strictly new either.  PS3 already had emulated PS1 & PSP games, so presumably they would just be streamed PS3 emulations (ALA PS Now as it currently stands).

The rumour doesn’t specify that these releases are native PS5 releases; so I see no reason to not assume that it’s just an extension of the existing PS Now service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

But that’s not strictly new either.  PS3 already had emulated PS1 & PSP games, so presumably they would just be streamed PS3 emulations (ALA PS Now as it currently stands).

The rumour doesn’t specify that these releases are native PS5 releases; so I see no reason to not assume that it’s just an extension of the existing PS Now service.

I'm a bit confused by what we're debating here. 

Does PS Now currently include a library of PS1 and PSP games, outside of what is already included in PS3 collections available on the service? No -- so why wouldn't we consider a library of PS1 and PSP games coming to this PS Now/PS+ hybrid to be "new"? Even if it does utilise streaming of PS3 emulations of PS1 and PSP games, games not already available on a service being added is something I would consider to be "new", regardless of whether any additional work was put into bringing them to the service. 

How would an extension of the PS Now service with games and consoles not currently available on the service not be considered new? If the N64 catalogue on Switch only included ports of the Wii U versions, would we not consider those games coming to the service to be a new addition? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sheikah said:

It can't be that bad if you got to the last quarter. I actually quite enjoyed it in the end, after it opens up more and the story comes to a conclusion. XIII-2 is even better, if you ever get that far.

You're talking to the guy who got the true ending to Shadow the Hedgehog, I can be tenacious to a fault. I've gotten so far in my "Play every non-MMO Final Fantasy" quest, that I'm not gonna let this game stop me.

I mean, yeah, 40 hours in, it gets better. But going from "crap" to "meh" that far in isn't gonna save it.
Still, silver lining is that I no longer think FF8 is the worst entry.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're talking to the guy who got the true ending to Shadow the Hedgehog, I can be tenacious to a fault. I've gotten so far in my "Play every non-MMO Final Fantasy" quest, that I'm not gonna let this game stop me.
I mean, yeah, 40 hours in, it gets better. But going from "crap" to "meh" that far in isn't gonna save it.
Still, silver lining is that I no longer think FF8 is the worst entry.
Ah yes, forgot you hate FFVIII. I'm just gonna stop talking to you now. ;)
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sheikah said:

It can't be that bad if you got to the last quarter. I actually quite enjoyed it in the end, after it opens up more and the story comes to a conclusion. XIII-2 is even better, if you ever get that far.

He’s simply in it too deep to stop now.  He’s playing through every mainline game in the series, in order, from start to finish, God help his soul…

UOl6qJv_d.webp?maxwidth=760&fidelity=gra

He has literally become the meme

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Julius said:

How would an extension of the PS Now service with games and consoles not currently available on the service not be considered new? If the N64 catalogue on Switch only included ports of the Wii U versions, would we not consider those games coming to the service to be a new addition? 

Because they would be cloud streamed (from existing PS Now PS3s); not actual native releases.  Nobody cares about cloud streamed versions, they would have to be natively running on the hardware for them to actually have any importance/impact here.

Nobody gives a crap about PS Now because it is primarily a cloud streaming service (yes I am aware that it also has a semi-decent selection of native PS4 downloads too).  There’s no indication that this is going to be changing here though.

Edited by Dcubed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Because they would be cloud streamed (from existing PS Now PS3s); not actual native releases.  Nobody cares about cloud streamed versions, they would have to be natively running on the hardware for them to actually have any importance/impact here.

Nobody gives a crap about PS Now because it is primarily a cloud streaming service (yes I am aware that it also has a semi-decent selection of native PS4 downloads too).  There’s no indication that this is going to be changing here though.

See, this is where I'm confused. It's like we're having two different discussions here. 

I'm not asking who cares about these potential legacy libraries possibly being cloud streamed versions, nor am I asking if PS Now is a cloud streaming service, nor am I implying at all that anything in the Bloomberg article indicates that these versions will run natively (I mean, let's be fair, it also doesn't say they won't be - though I agree that they would most likely be cloud versions, at the very least for the PS3 titles). You clearly don't care about these changes, which is perfectly fine. 

But you asked "what's the deal with this?", to which I gave the answer that the article states games and libraries not currently available to play on current platforms - even through PS Now - are planned to come to this service. You mentioned PS2 games already being on PS Now, to which I said there are ~20 PS2 titles (it's actually 17) currently available through the service (again, all of which are PS2 Classics), so naturally if they expand the number of PS2 titles available on the service, the addition of these titles is something new. The addition of PS1 titles and PSP not currently available on PS Now is something new. The potential addition of more PS3 titles to the service is something new. The fact that they are rebranding and seemingly merging PS Now with PS Plus is something new. That the report says they plan for three different tiers would be something new

Now if we want to talk about the quality of how we're going to be playing these titles, and whether they are going to be native versions or streaming from a PS3, that's a whole other discussion, and whether this is a good idea at all is a whole other discussion. 

But that's not at all the question I was answering. Just because it's not a huge deal to you because it's not running natively and is a product from PlayStation is an opinion of yours I'll respect, and hey, naturally I would love for these to be native versions, but we just don't know. For all we know, Schreier is a hundred miles off and there's something totally different that they plan to implement instead, or not at all.

But when one of the platform holders is clearly positioning themselves - if a move like this really is happening - to be more nimble and ready for the future, for if they do truly want to offer something akin to Game Pass (which, in my opinion, is clearly the entire point in the reported rebrand and restructuring; it's foundational work), I'd say that's a pretty big deal. I'd say the same if it were Nintendo, and I said the same when it was Xbox. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2021 at 10:59 AM, Julius said:

Deep Rock Galactic is finally coming to PS4 and PS5 next month!

Never heard of it, but it does look awesome. :peace: Right up my alley.

On 12/2/2021 at 10:59 AM, Julius said:

already convinced my mates to hop in with me when it launches :D 

After the disastrous feedback I got from my mates when I told them to buy Tribes of Midgard...I doubt I'll get them to play this one with me :laughing: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites