• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Next-Gen PS5 & XSX |OT| Console tEch threaD

Status
Not open for further replies.

kyliethicc

Member
I thought Elden Ring and Crossfire (Remedy's new game) both have marketing deals with Microsoft.

I think its Cod or ass of can's prediction Elder scrolls. GTA6 is ways out and if this was true, its GG (and the internet would burn)
Yeah Elder Scrolls 6 would be crazy, but I doubt that game comes out before GTA 6 (both are so far away.) I feel like it’s either CoD, GTA 5, or FF16.

I don’t think this game is what the rumors are, but I still think Sony is having Remedy make them a PS5 exclusive. Like they paid From Soft to make Bloodborne. Remedy has several teams and there’s plenty of evidence to this idea. Like a lot I could list. Even the other day a Remedy dev said on Twitter how E3 was important for them “to convince Sony” and then never said what that meant. I assume it’ll be on PC too, but not Xbox. I dont think they’ll stop making other multiplats though.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
I doubt. There's no precedence and exclusivity deals are for the most part safe under antitrust laws

I'd imagine its easy to argue this as pro-competitive

On a small scale, sure. If it became a widespread case of keep-away, the process would start without any action on MS's part at all. Similar to music when artist X signs a deal to premier something on platform x for so many weeks, in isolation that is harmless. However, if that same platform decided to play keep-away with every major release, the anti-competitive nature of that will be handled swiftly. The more dominate the player playing this game, the less they can get away with.
 
Last edited:
On a small scale, sure. If it became a widespread case of keep-away, the process would start without any action on MS's part at all. Similar to music when artist X signs a deal to premier something on platform x for so many weeks, in isolation that is harmless. However, if that same platform decided to play keep-away with every major release, the anti-competitive nature will be handled swiftly. The more dominate the player playing this game, the less they can get away with.

They're joint agreements between both parties. It happens in every industry and on large scales, and they all basically get away with it. Plus people aren't entitled to the products. Devs/pubs can put their games anywhere they choose.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
They're joint agreements between both parties. It happens in every industry and on large scales, and they all basically get away with it. Plus people aren't entitled to the products. Devs/pubs can put their games anywhere they choose.

Possibly, it would be interesting to see.

You could basically make that argument for any anti-trust case. Intel could have easily said, OEMs are free to make whatever arrangements with suppliers they want. Microsoft themselves could have argued that they were free to preinstall whatever browsers they wanted, OEMs were free to add any additional software they wanted as were users. Not the way it works, however.
 
Last edited:

PaintTinJr

Member
In the US, Sony could quickly find themselves with anti-trust issues if they money-hat too many games at once. When a market leader is actively paying devs to cripple a competitor that will bring issues along with it. Similar to Intel offering deals only to OEMs that did not purchase AMD chips.
How would you make that argument, exactly - in a world of millions of game developers that aren't excluded ?
The courts would have to place additional weight on the production level of the games with timed-exclusion for anyone to successfully make that argument (IMO), and with massive F2P games like Fornite, or games like Minecraft being way below that production level, but arguably just as important to a platform holder saying it is available on their platform, I don't see how anyone could highlight the merits of the timed exclusive games to convince anyone that it was going to "cripple a competitor".
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Possibly, it would be interesting to see.

You could basically make that argument for any anti-trust case. Intel could have easily said, OEMs are free to make whatever arrangements with suppliers they want. Microsoft themselves could have argued that they were free to preinstall whatever browsers they wanted, OEMs were free to add any additional software they wanted as were users. Not the way it works, however.
It's not an anti-trust issue. Sony isn't telling devs they can't do business if they also do business with Microsoft, nor is Microsoft doing that when they do the same thing.

It's anti-competitive behavior but it's likely far from illegal ore anything Sony or MS could get sued over.
 
I just noticed something, EA and Activision are denouncing MTX and Gaas. They decided to face thier enemies and fight with honor like a true samurai. 🤣

Microsoft, on the other hand, are doubling down on Gaas. Too late to the finished party.
 
Possibly, it would be interesting to see.

You could basically make that argument for any anti-trust case. Intel could have easily said, OEMs are free to make whatever arrangements with suppliers they want. Microsoft themselves could have argued that they were free to preinstall whatever browsers they wanted, OEMs were free to add any additional software they wanted as were users. Not the way it works, however.

Not even comparable in the slightest.

Sony would need a monopolistic hold on the industry. Sony isn't stopping competition by getting more games on their platform.
 
Last edited:

PaintTinJr

Member
^ The practice would need to be very extreme, to be sure. A AAA or two wouldn't cause a stir.
But surely your premise is that the courts would side with MS because you believe they would deem that every platform holder (middle man) should have equal access to 3rd party games on their platform.

I personally think that games are a creative endeavour and that the courts would be more interested in protecting the ability of content to succeed. Games are a risky business and if a 3rd party believes alignment to a platform - that pushes that creativity more than any other platform holder - is better optics for their game to be successful, I think the courts wouldn't want to deny a 3rd party that choice.- because if they did, then publishers could rightfully expect the courts/gov to underwrite losses for their games that failed under a block on timed-exclusive deals.
 
Not even comparable in the slightest.

Sony would need a monopolistic hold on the industry. Sony isn't stopping competition by getting more games on their platform.

Honestly it's not like Sony is putting a gun to their heads or anything. They could equally have chosen Microsoft but they have reasons not to.

You certainly don't see supermarket brands of cola suing coke because they are outselling them by a vast amount.
 
Jesus.

These consoles are launching in like 3 months and there is fuck all information on pricing, launch games, nothing.

Its really frustrating.
If I were them, I would shy from asking people to pay $500 for these consoles. Neither console can convince people to buy them. Only core gamers who knows what to expect based on developers track record are excited about the consoles.

Honestly, my wife questioned me about buying ps5 after seeing the Bugsnux and the bathless today. 🤣🤣🤣. The marketting guy at Sony need to find another job. How could you show ps5 games that look inferior to crash bandicoot 4 on PS4😭. Casual gamers are confused.
 

onQ123

Member

Sony will basically have to convince companies to make PS5 games over making PS4/Xbox One games with enhancements.

giphy.gif
 



giphy.gif

You don't think this SoP reinforces your claim do you?

Oh the stupidity
 

onQ123

Member
You don't think this SoP reinforces your claim do you?

Oh the stupidity

I clearly does because if given the choice publishers would make the games that play on the bigger install base that include PS4 & Xbox One & just have enhancements for PS5 & Xbox Series X but Sony is probably helping to fund some games so they will be Next Gen games that take advantage of the PS5 specs & they will get ported later.

Edit: my post isn't about State of Play it was about Sony getting 3rd party exclusives

around the 22:25 mark


 
Last edited:

Darklor01

Might need to stop sniffing glue
If I were them, I would shy from asking people to pay $500 for these consoles. Neither console can convince people to buy them. Only core gamers who knows what to expect based on developers track record are excited about the consoles.

Honestly, my wife questioned me about buying ps5 after seeing the Bugsnux and the bathless today. 🤣🤣🤣. The marketting guy at Sony need to find another job. How could you show ps5 games that look inferior to crash bandicoot 4 on PS4😭. Casual gamers are confused.

Just to be sure, you do know that design aesthetic is that of the game developer. In this case, they previously made Abzu. It’s a cross gen title which is in line with what that developer created before in terms of style. Not every game dev will be AAA game makers or with massive budgets. Sony just simply uses SoP to show it.. which.. is normally used to show games like that.
 
I clearly does because if given the choice publishers would make the games that play on the bigger install base that include PS4 & Xbox One & just have enhancements for PS5 & Xbox Series X but Sony is probably helping to fund some games so they will be Next Gen games that take advantage of the PS5 specs & they will get ported later.

And you took that from an indie showcase of ps4 scraps 🤦‍♂️

We've been through these phases in orevious gens. We'll see cross gen games for the first year or two, and next gen games will follow.
 
Just to be sure, you do know that design aesthetic is that of the game developer. In this case, they previously made Abzu. It’s a cross gen title which is in line with what that developer created before in terms of style. Not every game dev will be AAA game makers or with massive budgets. Sony just simply uses SoP to show it.. which.. is normally used to show games like that.
It is not time to show it when first you didn't show a deep look of a game representative of next gen prior to it and you don't show it at the same show were games on your older console are better looking. Also sony did not market it as cross gen, they presented it as next gen.
This confuses those gamers who are not Era/ Gaf/N4g. Those people don't understand SSD, 10 segaflops and likely never seen UE5 demo. They will think PS5 is something like the Switch.
 

onQ123

Member
And you took that from an indie showcase of ps4 scraps 🤦‍♂️

We've been through these phases in orevious gens. We'll see cross gen games for the first year or two, and next gen games will follow.

No my post isn't about SoP it was about this

Imran Khan: "Sony has locked timed exclusivity for some huge and widely known multiplatform games"

 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
If I were them, I would shy from asking people to pay $500 for these consoles. Neither console can convince people to buy them. Only core gamers who knows what to expect based on developers track record are excited about the consoles.

Honestly, my wife questioned me about buying ps5 after seeing the Bugsnux and the bathless today. 🤣🤣🤣. The marketting guy at Sony need to find another job. How could you show ps5 games that look inferior to crash bandicoot 4 on PS4😭. Casual gamers are confused.
No one gives a shit about indies. No one. People like to pretend they do to appear enlightened and elite but they don't.

No one watches these shows to get a glimpse of fucking bugsnax.
 

kyliethicc

Member
Imran Khan: "Sony has locked timed exclusivity for some huge and widely known multiplatform games"
Gotta be either Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto. Those are the huge multi platform games. (Other than Minecraft and sports games.)

What else could it be? Edit, let’s think.. big multiplats...

Minecraft? Nope Xbox owns it.
Sports games? No point.

Call of Duty? Huge game, possible. Sony and Activision are close.
GTA 5 + Online? Very huge, possible. Sony and Rockstar are close.

GTA 6 ? Seems like it would cost too much, and too far away. But huge. A dream.

Final Fantasy 16? Definitely possible. Square and Sony seem close.
Resident Evil 8 / RE4 remake? Maybe. Capcom and Sony do deals.

Elden Ring? Possible. Sony and From Software have a relationship.

Fortnite? No point. Huge but it’s on everything iOS etc. Why buy that?
Rocket League? Destiny? Apex? Same. Unlikely.
Other ongoing GaaS games? I doubt it.

Battlefield? Perhaps, but Sony and EA don’t seem that close currently.
Elder Scrolls 6 / Starfield? Maybe, Sony already did lock up 2 Bethesda games...
 
Last edited:

onQ123

Member
And think big!!


Can't be Call of Duty so maybe Resident Evil

Edit: RockStar wouldn't dare make GTA 6 PS5 time exclusive would they?

PS2 is kinda responsible for GTA becoming a mainstream success but this would flip the industry upside down right now.
 
Last edited:
Think big, huh?

Resident Evil has gone exclusive for a time before, so that's a likely candidate.

Some predictions: Resident Evil 8, Silent Hill, Final Fantasy XVI, Final Fantasy VII Part 2.

I don't really know any other major multiplats that could be a knockout. The aforementioned are fairly big, but none of them I'd classify as unexpected. And one of them is still strictly rumor.

The only big time I could think going console exclusive for a time would be Blizzard timing out Diablo IV or Overwatch 2, which seems unlikely.

Tomb Raider? Something Tom Clancy like Splinter Cell?
 
No my post isn't about SoP it was about this

Imran Khan: "Sony has locked timed exclusivity for some huge and widely known multiplatform games"



From the sounds of the rumor it's going to be something that will really piss people off.

I think GTAVI as a timed exclusive could do the trick. Also could be COD but I don't think it would piss off that many people.

Whatever it is it's going to be really unexpected.

On a side note I wouldn't be Surprised if Epic also releases a timed exclusive on the PS5 due to the relationship that they have with Sony.
 

Thirty7ven

Banned
It’s gotta be Silent Hill/Metal Gear/Final Fantasy.

Anything from Bethesda/Rockstar/EA/Ubisoft would be extremely expensive.

Simply put, the industry has grown really small lately. There’s not a whole lot to choose from.
 
Last edited:
Probably Guerrilla just do what they can with budget assigned, forcing many things and ends
with bad port but hey optimizations for consoles doesn't exists right, everything is right with brute force.

Even when this not forgive a bad port also the PC community are many armchair devs with for them
always is bad port because its PC should be able to do the the same as any console multiply per 8.

Everytime you asked to them about a good PC game with graphics AAA in the last years they only mention Battlefield, Doom,
Forza Horizon, Gears and now DS , is just ridiculous think they only think in few titles.

I mean probably the reason of why the ports are "bad" is because basically they refuse to pay a complete price for a game
because Steam has badly gotten used to the PC users to pay a fraction of the original price even the indies now get
more money from Switch than PC for the love of God combine with the huge spectrum of configurations, so for the studios
is not worth it many times.
I don't think Guerrilla sat on a tight budget for this project as Hulst is the head of WWS himself... Let that sink in. But, again, this is a PS4 game that was meant to run only on PS4 and PS4 Pro. I seriously doubt that back in development in 2014~2016 they were thinking "Hm, yeah, we are definitely porting this Sony 1st party game to PC because we want to please Alex from DF", and this has NOTHING to do with them having Decima running on PC. They develop games on PC, but again, their target is the devkit and not a fucking workstation.

They already talked about the animations being locked at 30fps, etc. This is the kind of things you can do when you have a fixed hardware, you are allowed to have things fixed and even make use of some custom hardware inside the console. FFS. It's a PS4 game that was never supposed to run on PC, give them a break. They won't rebuild an entire game for PCMR, they are a Sony studio.
 
Last edited:
Michael Huber "They ended it on a soggy-taco"

Started off strong, Crash looked good, the game from Giant Squid should be good off back of Abzu. Not really interested in the rest. GodFall is proof, no matter how much money Sony throw at the marketing or put it at the center of attention, if the core game from aesthetics/combat doesn't hook the players, then it won't matter. Being a launch title, it should make enough money but god damn if it doesn't look uninspired. I was half-tempted when they were mimicking God of War combat with shield and blades, but everything looked so stiff.
Please Layden, give Hulst some advice on that matter.
We miss you.
 
Last edited:

Neo Blaster

Member
If I were them, I would shy from asking people to pay $500 for these consoles. Neither console can convince people to buy them. Only core gamers who knows what to expect based on developers track record are excited about the consoles.

Honestly, my wife questioned me about buying ps5 after seeing the Bugsnux and the bathless today. 🤣🤣🤣. The marketting guy at Sony need to find another job. How could you show ps5 games that look inferior to crash bandicoot 4 on PS4😭. Casual gamers are confused.
Casual gamers were never the first to buy next gen consoles anyway, like you said it's the core gamers who will plunge at the holidays. But I have to agree, I'm a core gamer and I'm not enticed enough so far, need more big gameplays.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
But surely your premise is that the courts would side with MS because you believe they would deem that every platform holder (middle man) should have equal access to 3rd party games on their platform.

I personally think that games are a creative endeavour and that the courts would be more interested in protecting the ability of content to succeed. Games are a risky business and if a 3rd party believes alignment to a platform - that pushes that creativity more than any other platform holder - is better optics for their game to be successful, I think the courts wouldn't want to deny a 3rd party that choice.- because if they did, then publishers could rightfully expect the courts/gov to underwrite losses for their games that failed under a block on timed-exclusive deals.

There is a certain point where you could make a credible claim that the anti-competitive behavior was monopolistic. If they money-hatted every game by EA, Ubi, Activision, SE, etc., they would quickly reach a point where only they could afford to make the offers. Basically eliminating the competition in the space, wouldn't be a smart move for devs in the slightest though (I have a feeling that Sony's cut would grow larger with no direct competition).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom