Topic: The PlayStation Fan Thread

@Zeldafan79 Depends. If they are ranking ''exclusives'', then it doesn't really make sense to include a remaster. But if they're just talking about ''best PS5 games'', I don't see the issue. Can't Assassin's Creed: Valhalla be on that list because it's also on PS4, Xbox, and PC?

@Octane Sony's regurgitating Spider-Man for $60, when there's far, far less call for it than Nintendo's Wii U ports.

Also, I don't think the power difference between PS5/XSeX is negligible, really, when you're paying the same price for the devices. It wasn't negligible this gen, with Xbox One games consistently seeing worse display resolutions than their PS4 versions, and, as far as I understand it, the power difference was less pronounced this gen. Of course, it remains to be seen how this actually stacks up, but it's more likely that XSeX runs third party games better more consistently than PS5.

Additionally, you have:

• A far better approach to backwards compatibility
• GamePass, which Sony doesn't really have a good answer to, will see releases of all Microsoft's first party stuff in addition to a ton of notable third party content
• Paid remasters of older first-party games on PS5 vs. free smart delivery upgrades for all Xbox first-party content

PS4 also had a virtual monopoly on a lot of big Japanese game releases at the beginning of the gen, but things are very different now. Final Fantasy, Yakuza, NieR, Ys, Trails, Dragon Quest, etc. all release on other platforms as well. Many of them are going to the Xbox, and nearly everything releases on PC now.

PS5 has also utterly lost out on a lot of smaller Japanese developers and titles with their weird embrace of censorship.

I think, by the end of the generation, PS5 will likely be the better console in terms of exclusives, but the price disparity between XSeX and PS5 if you want to keep current with their games is going to be huge.

So, PS5 is a better immediate buy if you care deeply about Sony's third party content, I guess. But that's true by default. I don't disagree that the PS5 has a better planned first-year lineup than PS4, although it hurts it for me that so many of its first-party games are cross-generation.

@Ralizah I'll have to see two games running side by side, but I don't think it's going to be a big difference.

Also, Spider-Man isn't really $60. Spider-Man: Miles Morales is $50, and if you get the ultimate edition, it comes with Spider-Man: Remastered for $70. Likewise, if you buy MM on PS4 and upgrade to PS5, you can buy Spider-Man: Remastered digitally for $20. So it's really a $20 remaster, and they've allegedly overhauled the map with better quality models, textures, new face models and a bunch of other stuff.

Now, I personally don't think this was the right choice, they should've only upped the resolution and offered it as a free upgrade, so they should've put less work into it in that case. But it's not $60. $20 at most. And it's more of a bonus to those who haven't played Spider-Man yet. I think I understand what they were going for, they just didn't get the reception as expected. It's probably the reason why they didn't lead their show with this, but was revealed later in a blog post.

I think Sony is dropping the ball a bit with PlayStation Now. Filthy casuals seem to think that it's just a streaming service. In actuality you have access to several hundred PS4 games you can download to your console, just like MS's Game Pass Ultimate. The problem is...I feel I see MS pimping GPU really hard while PS Now gets little to no mention from Sony, it's weird.

MS - "Gain access to over a hundred games day-one on Series X with Game Pass Ultimate."

Sony - "..." crickets (We give you access to several hundred games day-one on PS5 with PS Now but we don't like to point that out.)

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if part of the deal with Sony using MS's azure servers was for Sony to keep PS Now advertising to a minimum?
https://news.microsoft.com/2019/05/16/sony-and-microsoft-to-e...

@Octane If you have to spend $70 either way to gain access to it, then it's effectively a $70 remaster. Of a game that came out, like, two years ago. Which, you're right, is worse than $60.

Sony is making Nintendo look consumer-friendly by comparison.

@Octane In the mass market the power disparity doesn't matter (though the mass market will read the hype online to a degree, which did affect X1.) Personally the power difference mattered to me at least and was noticeable with X1 and PS4. Going back and playing BC games that were limited by OG X1 is painful compared to even their native PS4 output. The lower res is frustrating. And the gap is wider, or, at least, different, this time. I do realize there are more "tricks" to PS5 that it could even outperform in some areas. It also sounds a bit PS3 like where most of that benefit will be seen in first party games....but yeah, it could go either way, game depending, which I also addressed above.

I don't buy the "but it has that great SSD so it's worth more money." Bit though. That only matters if it's utilized and only 1st party games are going to leverage anything with it with any real meaning. Unless the game is designed around it it really doesn't offer much. They could mount a Rolex to the motherboard and it's suddenly "worth more" but it doesn't actually do much of value. The idea is cool. The idea is Nintendo-like. But most of what it offers is of a non-standard game so only games made specifically to take advantage of it will see much benefit. Not to say the benefit isn't there, but multiplats can't use it for much.

Same for the controller. I agree, XB is missing gyro and that frustrates me greatly. But the rest of the "Dual Sense" - really you think that's a meaningful addition? IF Nintendo's patent for an optical analogue stick verifies in a future controller, THAT is a controller enhancement. Not haptic triggers Sony will showcase in a few first party games and will go unused in 90% of games.

"BC for PS4 is there" - yes, but the point is it's an afterthought. Their own wording and lack of wording elsewhere, their lack of enhancement to it, it's very clear they don't really want you to play PS4 games anymore. They see it as little more than "we'll let you still run legacy in a bare minimum way and only from one platform." - There's no actual design intent in actually uniting your library. That's a fail across the board as far as I'm concerned. If you can buy a copy of, say, AC:Vikings today, and be assured that in 10, 15 years whatever hardware you own you can still play it and it will likely scale with your hardware......PS isn't the place you're going to buy it. They make clear they want to tie your games to hardware and then have you ditch it. PC, XB, even cloud services like Stadia make it more clear that your purchase is going to continue with you and scale with the hardware. I'd legit feel more assured of a long term purchase buying multiplats on Stadia than PS at this point.

The price point..."the industry" wanted to move to higher price points. They always tip toe with that. It was the platform holders that kept them in check. That happened last time. It was Sony saying "$59.99 1st party" on stage that kept the other publishers prices forced back down after the XBox disaster. They knew what they were doing. By announcing it directly, they were giving the stamp of approval, publicly, for the industry to go ahead and raise prices with the backing of the platform. It's a collusion job. That's what I want to see MS do the opposite. It will apply some amount of reverse pressure on the industry. If Halo were launching, we'd have been able to see where that went. I think you're missing that Sony's the enabler here right now.

As for the store....have you tried to use the Vita or PS3 store on the devices? I mean at all? It's a joke. And it's not "inevitable", that's my entire point. Not all content that was on the web store is even visible on the Vita's store. It's only inevitable in Sony and Nintendo-land where purchases are considered disposable to resell them to you.....

Honestly for the games, the lineup looks better than PS4, yes, but PS4 was as bad as bad gets. WiiU beat it easily for crying out loud. I'm really talking about multiplats though and how the policies make it a terrible place to choose to buy any of them if you have any other choice, not 1st party. I did already cover that. The lineup is OK, but Demons Souls is a PS remaster of a niche game I can't stand, Miles is a hot potato right now. It's enhanced DLC for too much money and after the whole "remastered" debacle most of the shine has warn off. I'll buy it later in the bargain bin. HzD and GoW are good (though honestly they're good games but I think they're overrated. HzD is a Ubi format game with better storytelling. I like it, but I'd like it as a Ubisoft game, too.... GoW is unique...but I wouldn't buy hardware for it. SotC's remake and the giraffe thing game was more of a "system seller" than either of them, IMO. The best part here is with the soso franchises out of the way, the new IPs and resurrected old IPs probably start getting announced 2022.

@Ralizah has a greaet point about the Japanese games as well. Honestly all those big Japanese games are the reason I've bought Playstations, and I like those games more than 85% of Sony's 1P. It was basically my FF/DQ machine primarily. I could take or leave HzD and GoW, same with Halo and Forza. But the big Japanese games I need hardware for. And I just can't get over that price disparity. It's the biggest reason to get both machines. IMO it's cheaper to buy a PS5 for those exclusives and an XSeX for everything else than it is to try to buy all the games on the PS5 alone, in the long term. Ironically that's a devatating view to have, financially, for Sony. They make money on games, not hardware. As an "exclusives box" it puts them in an odd position.

To an extent I think the problem lies most with the digital mindset. Since your'e physical you're missing that angle. And I think Sony's doing that too. As the meme has been "Nintendo doesn't "get" the Internet" I think the theme here is, "Sony doesn't "get" digital." When you have XB, PC, and now the rising tide of streaming services competing with it, it gets more stark. Nintendo does Nintendo and gets away with it because they're not playing in the same space as the rest. Sony is. All the benefits of digital seem to go over Sony's head, and therefore they don't offer any. As a disc reader their system doesn't look different from the past world. But as a digital device their policies make it feel like a device straight out of 2003.

@Grumblevolcano "With the Playstation web and mobile stores being just PS4 and PS5 games within weeks, I think Sony's going to shut down the PS3/PSP/Vita servers in 2021 and then release a load of PS3 remasters/remakes for PS5."

OMG, that's making the platform sound even worse.

If we're down to "we want to keep rebuying old games rather than playing the ones we have, and if we can't, there's no games!" I think I'm done with the gaming community....

@Ralizah Well sure, but you're getting a game with it for free it that case (Spider-Man: Miles Morales). If Pikmin 3 Deluxe was $70, but you'd get Pikmin 4 for free with it, I'd buy it instantly. And it's not like you can't play Spider-Man on PS5 if you wanted to, because you can play the PS4 version. Yes, the game being locked behind Miles Morales is a bit weird, ideally it should be available on the online store. But like I said, I think the better outcome would be if they hadn't remastered it in the first place, and just gave us a free higher resolution patch.

@Octane Fair enough.

I just genuinely don't understand why they wouldn't sell it separately as well if they insist on charging for it. Unless they're worried about it competing with Miles Morales in terms of launch sales or something.

@Octane It still doesn't really excuse not at least releasing the Spider-Man remaster standalone. Hell Nintendo did that with both the Wii U version of Bayonetta when it was released alongside Bayo 2 for 60 dollars, or with both Bayo 1 and 2 when the Switch versions released

Tying it to a specific edition of a game when they could've easily offered it up as a free upgrade like other PS4-PS5 conversions and not even bothering to offer alternative ways of buying it by itself for those who'd rather get MM by itself is pretty dumb. It may have all these fancy additions that distinguish it from the PS4 version, but at the end of the day, it's just the PS5 version of a PS4 game, and aside from the new face model, nothing really justifies slapping that "REMASTERED" moniker on the box like it's such a different and updated game compared to something that came out 2 years ago

@Ralizah I think Miles Morales will end up like the Halo Wars 2 situation.

• Halo Wars 2 Standard Edition - Halo Wars 2
• Halo Wars 2 Ultimate Edition - Halo Wars 2, Halo Wars 2 Season Pass, Halo Wars Definitive Edition

Halo Wars Definitive Edition was exclusive to Halo Wars 2 Ultimate Edition for 2 months (4 months when looking at digital preorder).

I think Spider-Man Remastered will be announced as a standalone release in 2021. Given Sony seems to like releasing games on PC nowadays maybe coincide with a PC release of both Spider-Man and Miles Morales.

@Octane Spiderman is $70 for a "remaster" of a "Complete Edition" of a 2 year old game with all DLC, including a large story DLC. That's it. Anything else is spin. You can say that last story DLC is $50 by itself, but that alone is a problem. The "remaster" was started 1 year after the game released.....and within months of the DLC being released. Who makes a game, wraps up the DLC and says "OK, time to remaster it for more than MSRP!"

Yeah, I see what they were trying to do for newcomers. And $70 for the total complete edition for totally new buyers is a great value.

But the problem is it was one of the 5 biggest showpiece games of the previous generation for the console that was the near monopoly winner of that generation. The overwhelming plurality of people buying the new hardware already bought that game. The idea there's a "remaster" at all for a 2 year old game started 1 year after launch is silly. The idea they're selling it for $20 atop a $50 overpriced DLC is absurd. The idea they're selling the updates of a brand new game at all is offensive.

I get that some of the devs on PS have said that the work for that would have happened anyway as a learning exercise in the company (which explains all the companies handing it out for free, it's good PR, goodwill generating, and is an expense they'd have had for new R&D regardless. I get that they said what they see indicates a lot of work went into it even if it's not very noticeable to the player. But that, again is the point, the consumer doesn't buy something "because it took a lot of work" they buy something because it has value to them. Instead of releasing an upres and fps enhancement, they're holding back the 60fps mode just to sell you the "lot of work but not terribly visible" graphics update, and only if you buy the overpriced DLC.

And now, I'm not buying Tsushima despite waiting 2 years for it. It's now inevitable they're going to sell the remaster later and/or withhold 60fps, so why buy it now when they're going to sell it to me later? I want the game, but I'll have to want it until the "remaster" inevitably exists. If I had any interest in TLoU or Stranding I'd be doing the same for them too. Thankfully I don't. I'd pay to not take those games. Meanwhile every other rational company except 505 is giving us uncapped fps and res bumps and/or other enhancements to their games.

Suck Fony. The whole thing is a cluster top to finish Miles would have been a launch day purchase, and now it's in the "wait for deep sales" bin. Along with "wait for remaster" of Tsushima. I was holding back on finishing GoW and HzD until PS5 came out assuming enhancements, but now I'm assuming remasters of them too. And if I'm waiting to finish those for the remasters I don't need to buy the sequels at launch either......so Sackboy, R&C.....and then I wait?

@Magician GP may have only "a hundred" games, but that includes brand new games. PS Now has hundreds of really old games nobody wants to play. I know this is true because Jim Ryan told me nobody wants to play old games. If Jim tells me nobody wants what PS Now offers......for once I'll believe what he says. Also, PS Now WAS a streaming-only service. They only added downloads of games in 2018/2019, and dropped the price for annual considerably after Game Pass started running circles around them. That was their way of competing. Kind of.

@TheFrenchiestFry Good point. I forgot completely Nintendo sold Baynetta Remaster for free with Bayo2. Heck, even NINTENDO freaking gets it.....

@Grumblevolcano a PC release of Spider-Man is probably a lot liklier than most PlayStation exclusives given it's based on an IP Sony does not have complete control over. The question is whether Sony would release the original game just to give PC players a taste of what they'll get if they support the series on their platform, or if it'll be the remaster

@Ralizah Good question. I think they may see it as a neat little bonus for those who buy the Ultimate edition? Maybe they will change their minds?

@TheFrenchiestFry @NEStalgia If I wanted to buy Super Mario Sunshine remastered, I'd have to buy the $60 bundle with 64 and Galaxy as well. Why aren't they offering it as a separate release? Same situation really. Except that you can still play Spider-Man on PS5 if you want to, it will just look a little less pretty.

Is it stupid? Yeah, kinda. Are there other ways of doing it? Yeah, probably. But at the end of the day it's not that big of a deal. Just don't buy it. I won't buy it until MM drops in price.

@Octane Super Mario All Stars is intended to be a collection of games. That was the purpose from the start. This isn't being sold to you as a Spider-Man collection. Remastered being tacked on to sell Miles Morales Ultimate Edition is more like a perk or a benefit, but it isn't the point the selling the Ultimate Edition at all.

And you just proved how redundant the idea of remastering a game on PS4 for PS5 is considering you can already play the original game on the console with enhancements to begin with. There is literally no point in this existing in the first place. PS3 remasters or ports made sense on PS4 because it wasn't natively backwards compatible with those games. This just muddles up messaging for the average consumer who doesn't follow gaming news whatsoever.

It hurts even more given Nintendo actually proved you can bundle older games with new releases correctly and fairly with how they treated Bayonetta on Wii U.

@Octane Because Super Mario Sunshine is a very old game written for a very old architecture that's not available digitally and has been out of print for over a decade. Super Mario 64 is an even old game for even older architecture that has been ported forward several times digitally-only for several consoles for a low, low price. Galaxy is a fairly old game, for not that old but different architecture that also has been out of print for many years. And you are getting 3 complete games for $60, or $20 each. I don't believe they are sufficiently "remastered" but at the end of the day they are still ports to new architecture of ancient games, or an emulator for which to run each.

Spiderman is a TWO YEAR OLD game. IT was remastered ONE year after the "complete" edition could exist. And it is bundled, not with another game, but with it's own newest DLC pack. For the SAME ARCHITECTURE - which is evidenced, as you say, by the fact the "old" game already runs on the new hardware natively!

The "reward" for buying the new hardware is to re-sell you the same games again rather than let your games run without being hardware limited. Which lends the question - why buy any current games when you already know that the "real" version of it won't be released until the following hardware? You should buy a PS5 to play PS4 remasters. You should buy a PS6 to play the PS5 games running properly remastered. :/

I know you covered that above by saying they simply shouldn't have remastered it at all and should have given an unlock patch. Which is kind of my point. But then, as those PS devs said it took a lot of work that would have been done internally anyway for learning purposes. So then the choice is: Do you A) Just hide that internal R&D away and not release it, B) Release it for free because you have it? Sony's option was "C: Slap NEW REMASTERED Featuring Peter Parker from Spiderman Series!" on the box and sell it as a new game.

The way they're handling Spider-Man Remastered's release is less like SM3D All Stars, and more like Activision with CoD MW Remastered or Atlus with keeping Persona 4 Dancing on PS4 exclusive to the Endless Night bundle for P3D/P5D

3D All Stars is a terrible comparison.

Not that I'm likely to get either one anytime soon, but I'm currently really torn between the 2 new consoles.

PS5 pros:

• PS4 back compat. Sure, it's lacking in comparison to what Microsoft is offering on Series S/X undoubtedly, but as someone who has a large PS4 library & no X1, that's a moot point in my situation. I only have a Slim, so even running in Pro mode would be an improvement for me.
• Japanese games. Xbox is doing tons better than they have done in the past, especially with the big names, but there's still a lot of that B-C grade stuff that's primarily PS. Yes, Sony's weird censorship policies are irksome & are chasing some of them off, but they're not exactly running to Xbox (moreso to Nintendo & PC). I imagine more of these kinds of games would rather "suck it up" and stick with PS than migrate to Xbox, though I'd love to be wrong.
• Apparently still courting VR. This is honestly the big one for me. Microsoft simply seems to have no interest in the field whatsoever (outside of maybe some PC support, as I know Flight Sim is getting VR compatibility), and as long as it's a no show on Xbox, PS is really my only choice.

Series S/X pros:

• Price. Having the absolute cutting edge performance isn't all that important to me, so the Series S is awfully tempting. I'm 99% digital on PS4 anyways, so the lack of a disc drive doesn't bother me as much as it would have in the past.
• Better legacy support. Yes, as mentioned before the PS5's support, while more limited, would be more of use in my specific case, however I can't deny the value MS is offering. While not as large as my PS4 library, I still have quite a few 360 discs lying around that it would be great to revisit spruced up if I ever found myself in possession of a Series X.

@RR529 That's a tough call. Since you have a large PS4 library, and since you would "upgrade" to PS4 Pro levels for the first time, my inclination was to say that's really the only way. But if you have a 360 collection too, that muddies that a lot. It's more reasonable to get an X|S and keep your PS4 connected with it than it is to get a PS5 and keep your 360 connected. Especially with the level of improvement S|X adds to those 360 games. it might come down to if you want significant improvements on old 360 games or modest improvements on PS4 games, there. The fact that PS5 doesn't really do much to enhance PS4 games technically makes it more viable to just use a PS4 for PS4 games. But since you don't have a Pro, you do get an update in there, and I'm not sure they're still selling Pros going forward.

The Japanese games....yeah. I think we'll see a shift of them to XBox, I think we'll see nearly all of them shift to Nintendo. There will be those stubborn few that want to stick with PS. But it's telling, Falcom, the company that said in January they're all in on Sony and not other consoles then by May, announced all their upcoming games are going to Nintendo.... IMO if you want Japanese games, Nintendo is the only real choice. PS will have its few, but it's going to thin out more and more. Doesn't mean XBox will do tremendously better there (but it's improving.) But if you're doing business in Japan, and aren't on Nintendo......you're not really doing business in Japan.

And VR, yeah, Phil Spencer said they're not interested until it goes wireless. Now...that said....we don't know what the future tech holds for PSVR2 or other VR in the next 7 years. With the bigger GPU, XB actually has an advantage for VR, should they ever actually do it. But they probably won't, honestly. So if you're really into VR, that's a plus. Then again PSVR2 will probably be another $500+ atop the console...

I think, especially since you're digital, you have to think of what you want your library to do and where your cutoffs are. You have a big (digital?) PS4 library and carrying that over to PS5 is meaningful. BUT, looking at Sony's policy, will your PS4 games likely carry over to PS6, and your PS5 games to PS7? 50/50 at best? So your old stuff moves forward this gen, but your new stuff then gets a timer on it.

With XB you're getting a lot more assurance that what you buy today will scale with you in the future. It's a "smarter" place to buy a digital library, by far. BUT nothing is truly guaranteed, and you still have that issue of your PS4 library needing to keep the PS4 going.

Since you're not buying soon, at least you can see the Japanese studio trends and see what direction that's all going for a while longer. I think Sony has totally flipped off Japanese studios, honestly. They've created a lot of bad blood which gives MS a lot of opportunity. The negative is that MS doesn't do a lot of business in Japan so it's a waste for them. But the money in J-content is really selling outside Japan, so targeting Switch and MS covers the main markets nicely without jumping through Sony's hoops. If MS is actively outreaching there (the TGS presence matters, while Sony was conspicuously missing) it could get interesting.

@RR529 Don't forget Game Pass. I feel like that shouldn't be slept on considering Sony and other developers are going all in on jacking up the price of AAA games, which makes stuff like the Bethesda acquisition even more valuable as an asset for Game Pass.