• Announcements

TJ_Solo

Member
 PSN Profile
  • Content count

    1,074
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,107 Excellent

3 Followers

About TJ_Solo

  • Rank
    Pro

Recent Profile Visitors

3,290 profile views
  1. PS5 does have emojis. The emoji menu is on the keyboard to the left with a smiley face. You can bring it up with L3 Been there for at least along as PS5 has been out. Might have even been on one of the last PS4 firmware updates
  2. Months in advance? Source? I recall issues with FIFA and some other games that cause Sony to delay their normal announcements. Then there was the brief time that Sony let us vote on what games to add into PS+. That lasted maybe 3 months. and money grab from who exactly? Who really signs up to PS+ on a month to month basis just for the PS+ titles?
  3. Shame how Sony just decided to give away free games instead of capitalize on a world wide global crisis. There was one dev complaining about normal industry wide practices but solely aiming at Sony. This for some reason overshadows all of Shuei Yoshida and Adam Boyes have done for the Indiestation(a fun moniker people on social media made for Sony when indie games weren't viewed as a positive)
  4. Possible? Maybe. However, it isn't something that any company has bothered with since the inceptions of digital media. Why would a digital storefront want to have competition with its users for the selling of digital items? They would need monetary incentive to offer such a service. Just as ebay doesn't let people sell stuff on that site for free or when a pawnshop buys trade-in items at steep discount them marks them up. You can't really expect to be able to reduce a storefront's selling margins and also not pay a selling fee. Selling also comes with the dilemma of pricing or accepting bids. Then I'd wager that publishers would be able to opt-in or out of such a feature or place limitations on the number of "used" licenses that can be sold in comparison to their own new licenses. The technical issues are probably not all that hard but we can't ignore the business aspects or users that will try to abuse the system by looking for ways to manipulate their saves or app data in order to sell a license but still retain access to that content. Why do have people waste time on that when the blockchain platform exists and performs all that any more? Why try invoking extra security and validation measures when the answer has already been given? NFTs or rather the blockchain answers exactly what you want but for some strange reason people see "NFT" and go completely dumb on the matter. You have 0 information on how NFTs will work in games. You can say people are posting stolen content online(this is real world theft not unique to NFTs. We called it copyright infringement 10 years ago) now but do you think that any random person will be creating NFTs within a video game? How would it be just for one user when any user can sell the item to other users? One person at a time can use it....MAYBE if being unique means there is only 1 of it. What game company has told you that their NFTs will all be single, unique items? I get the implied argument. It means that everyone won't have equal access at all times. But we have that now in games that use RNG and rarity systems. Even there's no hard cap on an item if the devs set the rarity low enough they can limit how many of that super rare item can ever be found over time. Just look at Genshin Impact or Overwatch. Getting a maxxed out character with all items/skills will likely cost 1000s of dollars and massive luck.
  5. Put your crypto into? If by "into" you mean "purchase". Most exchanges use crypto as the currency for buying/trading NFTs. There are some sites that use regular money. What value does an apple or a pear have? Whatever is assigned to it by the demand of the market. Yes, digital goods have 0 value for people that have no interest. I don't really understand what you are even saying bout celebrities. NFTs use the blockchain. However the environmental issues you want to discuss is a problem of miners, mostly bitcoin. No one mines NFTs. Yeah, they are called card packs. Fifa, Madden, and 2k are loaded with them. However, despite costing you 100s of dollars to obtain something rare you'd have no way of selling the rare items with NFT technology. If would just be EA making money off you as normal instead of you being able to make money from your luck/investment.
  6. I think NFTs would have more of a use in gaming than all the weird crap I see happening online and in the news. Letting be re-sell DLC to other people is better than keeping it forever even after quitting a game. What would even be better is if the NFTs in one game could work in other games/central hub. I never used it but PlayStation Home would have been perfect for digital collections and trading.
  7. Sony has lost some unimportant news battle. Nothing has technically changed yet. Sony has more content and hardware due out this year to sell while Xbox is struggling to give out release dates and gameplay updates on anything. Global issue not a Sony issue. All producers are in a bind and Sony isn't experiencing this issue better or worse than other tech companies. I gave him credit for the topics he talks about. He talks about software and hardware that mostly have release dates. As CEO, he rarely drools on about gaming ethics, personal opinion in gaming, and he doesn't make promises. He states what will or won't be done if it is in his/Sony's control. It is still real products for the company that are coming out instead of being stuck in the cloud or concept table. Sure, if we can also blame Phil for the Xbox's dips in the Japanese market, NA market, EU market, and the dozens of smaller markets that Xbox doesn't enter. I don't invest time into researching these people beyond their offcial comments and public appearances. The worst statement I am aware of Ryan saying was a comment him not understanding why gamers would want to play retro games due to outdated graphics and controls. He wasn't CEO then but what he said also wasn't incorrect as he'd have access to the numbers of people retro gaming on the PS ecosystem. I don't need an endearing CEO but clearly, some people on social media like to pretend these talking heads are their buddies. Yet that isn't the case in respect to the PlayStation and Xbox brands. PS has been on an incline. Consistantly breaking sales records and pacing from their previous record breaking gens. The Xbox content and services have been in decline mostly and was briefly puffed up by the last few stay-at-home orders. I'd love to comment about hardware sales of the Xbox Series but there are no numbers. The only sites talking about it tend to use the terms "shipped" , "sold", "sell-thru", "estimate", "guess", and "imagine" interchangeably. The rather secretive way Spencer runs Xbox doesn't exactly ring of confidence.
  8. Has PlayStation lost its momentum? Sure the current MS news is massive but that is MS news and not Sony lacking or doing something that hurt itself. Has this MS news hurt Horizon Forbidden West, GT7, the new console covers, PSVR2, or God of War: Ragnarok? These are things I could slightly attribute to Jim Ryan in his leadership position due to these things being the topics that he speaks on when he speaks now. Compared to Phil Spencer, Jim Ryan mostly talks about tangible products instead of emotion or personal goals that get confused as business plans. Half of Spencer's interviews are him talking about what he enjoys about gaming, how much of a nonpartisan he is, and how great the idea of communities can be. He is charismatic but says so much nothing for people that are looking to play games. Without the charisma Jim Ryan just gets the work done. He was told that the EU sucked as a Playstation market and he needed to fix it. Without starting Twitter campaigns or getting buckets of cash from Sony he went to make the EU the top territory for PS2. To me, Ryan is a proper businessman with effective leadership skills and productive when it comes to releasing content. Phil is a silver tongued snake with access to the Microsoft trust fund that relies on promises and pretenious goals.
  9. Dealing with another company's debt depends on the company and the debt. Unknown variables that can't be used to limit or restrict Sony without actual examples to be considered. Who here is saying spend 70 billion? Is there even another publisher left that is valued the highly? People want big news and aren't caught up in the dollars. Big to many gamers would be another company with games they like. Names like Capcom, Square, and Konami are thrown around more than saying Sony should spend 70+ billion on Netease. Sony, is fine. This MS news hurt every gaming company because of the sheer size of it. Consolidation is not viewed as a positive. Sony can continue on their path putting out great games and picking up the odd developer that fits perfectly into the puzzle. Sony has still managed to release more games than MS even after all these goliath level acquistions. Sony will keep getting games sales while MS "number crunches" their development schedules and budgets to a slow death. Speaking of anti-trust. The deal isn't closed. MS has not received government approval or even a government reveiw of the proposal yet.
  10. lol 2ch being cited as news worthy.
  11. Businesses keep their debt managed and cash on hand is a completely different matter. it is like you talking about student loans then expecting the $300 in your wallet to cover your bills. Sure they pay on it but it doesn't stop them from funding projects or investing money into various ventures. There is an acceptable debt ratio. You can look up how to figure that out for each business instead of using your own opinion about it. Purchasing anything for these companies comes down to how much money they can use either from their own pockets or even from loans. Saying that Sony can't do anything is really short-sighted. You don't need to be a trillion dollar company in order to find options for a merger and acquistion.
  12. https://www.alltopeverything.com/top-10-biggest-video-game-companies/ SONY. Gaming Revenue: $25.0 billion. TENCENT. Gaming Revenue: $13.9 billion. NINTENDO. Gaming Revenue: $12.1 billion. MICROSOFT. Gaming Revenue: $11.6 billion. MICROSOFT. Gaming Revenue: $11.6 billion. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD Gaming Revenue: $8.1 billion. EA. Gaming Revenue: $5.5 billion. EPIC Gaming Revenue: $4.2 billion. Your question is pretty interesting. We can't just add Activision and MS's revenue together to get the new amount. A percent of Activision's revenue came from Sony and a percent of Sony's revenue came from Activision. Will Sony's be lower? Probably. Will MS's be higher? Surely. However, the increase will be less than what Activision makes now.
  13. People that sell their Playstation then buy an Xbox now because of any Activision game would also be brand loyalty. One could argue that MS is betting on the brand loyaly these games have in order to justify the acquisition. Saying that it sounds like brand loyalty isn't an offense even if you think the concept is negative. The concern says more about you.
  14. You mean Diablo V? Because DIV has already been confirmed for Playstation.
  15. Sorry, I read something about streaming PS3 games and didn't notice that you also said all PS3 games you already have. Streaming PS3 games look like PSNow to me. Never really came across any information about playing all the PS3 games you already own though.