It's really hard to take one seriously after a comment this absurd.
It still proves they're following the AAA trend that leads to a cliff.
It's always "somewhere else".The "data" has been provided through multiple threads and i've been quoting you on every single one when they come up
Like your every thread basically. Insomniac literally says exactly what i said and you're still insisting on interpreting another.
Multiplayer. Single player gamers resent the rise of multiplayer.
Shrinking so much that Sony/Insomniac basically doubled down on it by by their roadmap that got leaked lol. I don't see SP games going anywhere for a LONG time and actually feel like it's a safer bet, at least for Sony, than GaAS.
when someone says out loud what i've been thinking...
The only fucking sensible take.
What Nintendo does will never be tolerated by critics, fans or customers if done by anyone else in the industry. Nintendo's position is unique and impossible to replicate without letting the bottom fall out of demand for PlayStation consoles.
They did exactly that, and everything you mentioned in your first paragraph with Spider-Man 2, and the game cost more than either of those.
I’m not sure if it’s late considering the market is in constant flux. New measurements should always be considered to gauge the ever changing trends. Plus, let’s be real…a lot of people have been in denial wanting the market to be what it was in 2007 forever.
Creating a successful car is much harder than creating a successful horse. Cars are the dominant form of transportation because the benefits of creating a successful car vastly outweigh the benefits of creating a successful horse. This mirrors the gaming industry perfectly.
The great thing about GAAS is that it’s multiplayer centric (humans are the most social animal in earths history), and it’s far more nimble than the traditional model, meaning that if the market shifts overnight it’s far easier to due so in the GAAS model than it is using the traditional P2P model. This suggests it’s the most forward facing model in the business.
AA games have all but vanished for a reason. The market has consistently moved away from AA for the last 20 years. If you pay attention to the NPD charts it’s loaded with the most expensive games in the industry. GTAV still charting high today should tell you how difficult AA efforts have it now.
Nintendo and Xbox both have AA games. Sony is pushing AAA only harder than anyone.
You know that's not what I'm talking about.
Sincerely, no I dont understand your response. Sony had AA games last gen but not this gen other than AstroBot. I liked a lot of those, like Gravity Rush, Puppeteer, Tokyo Jungle, Echochrime. I dont think they play better than Nintendo games which are usually acknowledged as having top tier controls almost all the time.
It might be a win for Sony but would it be a win for there players?
While I appreciate your response, it sounds more corporate than user.
I put over 400 + hours in to game like Elden Ring without EVER touching PVP or co-op, same with Armored Core VI.....I dont need to have GaaS and live service crap to have "high engagement" in my games.
In your post you said why SP players dont complain about "low engagement" in SP games and I said we dont need GaaS crap to have high engagement in our SP games.....Elden Ring is perfect example.
I’m talking about overall engagement/completion rates among the entire player base.
There are still LOT OF people playing Elden Ring and finishing it and playing NG+ and even NG+++.....and the first expansion hasn't released yet.
Nothing that refutes your points are ever relevant in your threads
That's what I'm talking about. Your views seems to stem decisively from a publisher/developer perspective instead of that of a gamer.
In theory this is what should happen but it often doesn't. Activision have made more money over the years while releasing less as have rockstar.
