Paperclip1776

Premium Member
 PSN Profile
  • Content count

    207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

213 Excellent

1 Follower

About Paperclip1776

  • Rank
    Premium Member
  • Birthday 06/21/75

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Michigan

Recent Profile Visitors

1,916 profile views
  1. Great response and strong points, thank you. You definitely have a tenacious position on this topic, backed up with a lot of knowledge. It's clear you understand business, the need for profits, current trends and challenges, and the myriad of complexities running a large corporation. For me, I don't take a hard line on most of the accurate points you made. For instance, Shawn Layden. I agree with you on your points but I thought he did more good than bad. I thought his leadership for the very successful PS4 lineup was a game changer and made PS4 a must-buy system; games like GOW, Days Gone, Ghost of Tsushima, Spider-man and others were under his leadership. He was also the leader responsible for the acquisition for Insomniac, arguably the most successful Playstation Studio (in terms of game sales and system sellers) and one of the best in the world. Overall, I thought Shawn help change the culture during the PS4 generation where Playstation is now associated with AAA, blockbuster first party games. I don't think PS had that culture during the PS3 era, at least not yet. Because of the success of first party games, I think he also setup the PS5 to be the most desirable console on the market. Too bad semiconductors have been an issue or I think the PS5 would be breaking all kinds of records. Regarding GT7, old games comment, ending free upgrades, the initial PS3 store shutdown; I don't really take a passionate position on those because I look at them as the cost of doing business. Not every decision is going to be a home run, or good. Every company has major setbacks and fumbles because of bad decisions. GT7, I agree with you at this moment in time but I believe they will turn that game around. First time they are trying out GaaS for that series. As games evolve, so does business practices. As you know all companies, especially public, multi-billion dollar ones have thousands of shareholders that want bigger profits every year. If the current leadership doesn't improve profits/revenue, they replace them with leaders that will. I think Jim's position to go to PC and eventually mobile, is a good move to increase profits without damaging the brand. GaaS was absolutely going to happen, regardless of who was in charge because Sony feels like they are leaving money on the table. I think they are positioning 10 multiplayer/GaaS by 2026 because they know they only need 1 or 2 to hit. Right or wrong, every company is chasing Fortnite's success. I have never played, or will play, Fortnite but their success is undeniable. In the end, some of the decisions made by Sony and the evolution of the industry will leave some of us behind in the hopes that the next generation of gamers will be larger and more active in certain types of games that drive stronger profits. Thanks again for your response. You're someone I think I could probably talk to for hours on these topics.
  2. Not to agree or disagree with your comment, just looking for some additional info: what damage do you think Jim Ryan has done to the Playstation brand?
  3. Here's what I found regarding minimum number of players per game mode. Not all game modes are listed but it shows most game modes only require four team members to start a lobby. The good news is that Walker Assault usually has an active lobby going most of the time anyways as it's one of the most popular modes in the game. The bad news is that DLC modes are showing more than four players and those are more difficult to get an active lobby. Walker Assault: 20- Supremacy: 20- Dropzone: 4- Blast: 4- Cargo: 4- Fighter Squadron: 4- Hero Hunt: 4- Droid Run: 4- Heroes Vs Villains: 4- Turning Point: 20 (I don’t think there's a trophy tied to this mode) - Infiltration: 12 - Sabotage: 16
  4. I think Sony feels $120 for the Premium tier is a good value because it has 700+ games available across that tier. Now, whether you see a value in about 340 games for PS1, PS2, PSP, and PS3 (via cloud streaming only) and about 400 games downloadable for PS4/5 is a personal choice. Overall, I see a value in the number of titles but I'm personally disappointed that PS3 games are cloud streaming only. That might be a deterrent for me to get the Premium tier but if I'm looking at this objectively, I think it's a good value overall.
  5. Although I have a different angle on this topic, I see your point. Thanks for the clarification. I think the comment you made (referring to me) saying "...people pointlessly sharing their observation that other people are voicing displeasure..." was a bit unfair, though. For clarification, I was referring to the extreme position or lack of knowledge on a particular topic from some individuals that voice displeasure haphazardly. That's why I had a vague, one-liner as I wasn't referencing any specific comment per se, but one that indicated a 'here we go again with this BS' response to individuals commenting on a topic they either have no idea what they're talking about and/or any reasoning behind their comment. We all disagree with many things said on these forums but some of the 'Sony sucks' or Sony doesn't know what they're talking about' comments with no context need to be called out, imo. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and I respect that, I believe those rights apply to me as well.
  6. When you say Sony is a faceless corporation, what do you mean by that?
  7. The reaction to this news is about what was expected, imo. The many voices of displeasure of the new service offering and a few people sharing their brave, positive thoughts. Overall, I think it's a move in the right direction to make their growing online library more relevant but I think to compete with Game Pass they have to provide a stronger value, i.e. additional services like Crunchyroll, even potentially PS3 downloadable games (though I think it's very unlikely as this is the answer to PS3 games played on PS5). Game Pass is the service to beat in the industry. Also, Sony NEVER said this was a Game Pass competitor. Bloomberg and other sites reported this as a Game Pass competitor but never once did a Playstation executive communicate that this is the answer to Game Pass. The elephant in the room is first party games day one. That's not going to happen (at least right now) because Playstation first party games cost hundreds of millions of dollars per game to make.
  8. I understand if you haven't heard of Michael Pachter before but he's not some random guy on the internet posting comments. He's a video game analyst who works for Wedbush Securities that has relationships with top exec's within the industry. He's been around for many years, probably decades (pre-dates PS3). His comment makes the news because people in powerful, decision-making positions in the industry listen to him. If you or I posted something like this, it would be a 'throw away' comment and no one would care. But, people listen to this guy, even when he's wrong. And, yes, he's wrong in this article, again. Regarding the Game Pass description, where can I collect my ad revenue? Probably on the wrong site, huh?
  9. Game Pass is a Microsoft subscription model that allows gamers to play a large (and growing) catalog of games. Games are added and removed monthly but the catalog overall is growing in size. The most enticing feature is that all first party games are available to Game Pass subscribers day one. Games like Halo: Infinite, Forza Horizon and the upcoming Starfield will be available day one, among others. Game Pass brings a lot of value and is now the driving force for Microsoft's future success with Xbox. They would rather sell a Game Pass subscription than an Xbox Series X/S because of the ongoing revenue stream a subscription service will bring. If you've heard of a rumored Playstation service called Spartacus, the rumor from creditable sources say that it's planning to be a competitor to Microsoft's Game Pass and is expected to be announced spring 2022. I have my very strong doubts it will actually be a competitor because I don't believe Playstation will offer first party games day one, especially since they've already come out and said so to the contrary. Day one first party games is the number one selling point of Game Pass, that is why buying Activision and Bethesda is a big deal. All of those games, like CoD, Fallout, The Elder Scrolls, etc. will be available day one if you subscribe to the Game Pass service.
  10. I have followed Michael Pachter for years now. He's had his own show called Pachter Factor on a YT channel called SIFTD Games for years. I find him as a competent voice in the gaming industry and I'm always interested in listening to his opinion. That said, and as many above have commented on, he's been wrong with many of his bold predictions in the past. I'm rather surprised that he would make a comment like this because a statement saying Playstation is doomed and will cease to exist as we know them in 10 years seems to be pure speculation. Without substantial evidence and analysis such as declining sales/market share, poor decisions that has led to expected declining sales, lack of innovation, ignoring current trends, or even a huge spike in competitor sales or market share, there's no expert in any field that can accurately predict a business collapse of a very successful and profitable business in 10 years time. He uses the example of the quick expansion of Game Pass. I would agree that Game Pass has a lot of steam behind it and it's been extremely successful for Microsoft. And yes, Sony should pay serious attention and come up with a plan to counter it or at least make their offerings more attractive in the future. Absolutely. But to boldly predict that Playstation is doomed in 10 years, a business that has been incredibly successful for the past decade, has continued to release profitable and popular games on the regular, continue to innovate and upgrade at all levels (system UI, PS5 controller, new paths of revenue on PC and eventually mobile, etc.), and a company that consistently sits at number one over competitors in sales and profitability seems to be a major stretch and, in my opinion, irresponsible comment as he's a major voice in the industry. In most cases with any industry, it's extremely unlikely that 10 year predictions will be accurate by any expert analysis. I haven't seen this info myself other than the article posted by the OP so I want to look into this further to see if there's more to these comments than Game Pass. No matter the response, I stand by my comments above; 10 year predictions are pure speculation, at best.
  11. I do understand your position on this and the point you're making. For me, there's nostalgia games I really enjoyed; Metal Gear 2 and 3, even the older CoD games during the PS3 era like MW2 and BO1. I feel it comes down to personal preference and the evolution of the industry as a whole. Technology is absolutely reshaping the industry but I think what's happening, from my perspective, I think you and I are getting older and these games are no longer appealing to us as much as the younger crowd. I say this because the industry is financially in the best position it's ever been in. I used to play MW2 and BO1 multiplayer nearly everyday. I haven't touched a CoD game in many years, minus a few hours in BO4 with a buddy over the past year. That's because this game series doesn't appeal to me anymore. But, CoD still reigns # 1 every year in sales. I've heard every angle of why CoD is bad and it continues to be the worse CoD and it's the lowest selling CoD in the series....bottom line, # 1 game every year. Every year. They are not going to change that formula for me, or anyone else it left behind. Because they replaced me with someone else, maybe someone that spends more money too. You are right, you can't stop what's happening. Companies will continue to focus on their bottom line. Every company always focused on their bottom line, even during the early years of the industry but now you have these mega-corporations with a much larger audience and they found more revenue streams that millions of people are ok with (and millions not ok with). One things for certain, with consolidation in full swing, this industry is going to look much difference this time next year.
  12. Well said. Although I don't personally agree with all of your concerns listed, you make valid and debatable points that, in the right context, could pull me over to the other side, at least a little bit. Vote with your wallet! You are correct that decisions by these large corporations are all about data and numbers, and that's how they make decisions. These decisions are made based on consumer patterns. You and I may not like the latest Madden (which I also have significant reservations about) but with customers 'voting with their wallets', the data and numbers are telling EA that this is what the consumer wants. If only 10 percent (or even less) of the sales were to drop from one yearly version to the next, that's millions of dollars that EA is not getting and it would spark immediate change. 10 percent! I work for a large company, when you are looking at billions of dollars, a 10 percent drop, even during a fiscal quarter, is significant. In the end, the consumer truly holds all the power. Companies like EA would improve their single player experience immediately and continue to do so if we let them know we are unhappy. Too many consumers are purchasing Madden year after year, spending more money than the previous year. Negative press in the past would sway these companies, but nowadays there's too many individuals out there with a microphone, webcam, and strong opinion to worry about. Even large, social media sites with millions of followers/subs that provide feedback, real-time video responses, and hold active conversations (i.e. YT, Twitter, podcasts, Twitch, Forums like this) that vehemently repel the latest Madden won't discourage a company like EA to change their position because they follow the money. As long as people keep paying them, especially more money every year, that's the direction they will go. Personally, I feel like I'm just in the minority now. More people must like the latest Madden compared to the voices of opposition (even with millions of voices). The funny thing is, I'll hear people complain year after year about a Madden title, yet continue to purchase it and even spend money on microtransactions. They are telling the world on social media that they're unhappy with EA's current offering, but telling EA with their wallet the exact opposite. Companies will change immediately if we tell them we don't like something. We just need to tell them with our wallet more than our typing or video performance skills. Companies care about data, numbers, and consumer patterns, not popular Twitch or YT channels sharing strong, negative responses on their products.
  13. Part of me thinks that the next GTA will setup like a Destiny style game; online connectivity required, single player and multiplayer integrated into the same world with different objectives based on your current mission goals, and the ability to see active players running their own missions in both single and multiplayer. I think it's going to all be connected together instead of separate like GTA V. Now, I'm not expecting a Destiny-like game, but it's the closest thing I can compare an integration of a single player experience with a live service persistent online universe. Oh yes, we'll get microtransactions and if proven popular by launch, NFT's, but I'm in the camp that these don't impact my gaming fun. I think over the years I bought one shark card and I enjoyed the advantage it provided, but without purchasing more cards it really never impacted the fun I was having when playing online. I guess for me, the grind is part of the fun and rewarding when you finally accomplish what you're looking to achieve. Sure, nothings 100% and I don't like every type of microtransaction that has been implemented but overall they don't really affect me in most games, including GTA. I also think this game has a long ways to go, like 4-5 years (2026 or later). I read that they rebooted this game back in 2019 and with a massive game like GTA, it's going to take a long time to finish. The amount of visual details and complex systems used to create a game of this scale and to have it all work well (and be fun!) will take a long time. Another reason I think for the long delay is that they are updating and relaunching GTA V on current gen consoles in March...again for the 3rd generation! I just don't think they would launch another enhanced GTA V and then launch GTA 6 a year or two later. Time will tell if I'm correct or not, but even an enhanced version of an existing game, the shear size of GTA V will take a lot of developers a lot of time to complete when they could be working on the next GTA. That tells me the next GTA has a lot of time left in the oven.
  14. The specific terms of the incentive plan to Bungie employees was not super detailed, other than saying they have a retention plan to retain Bungie employees as the deferred payments are spread out over several years, with most of the payments coming in the first 2 years. There's an article embedded in the link above that is titled "Sony offers Bungie employees $1.2 billion retention incentive plan". Companies call it incentive plans, retention plans, or even performance plans that all mean the same thing. Although typically performance plans are based on, you know, employee performance, but the articles didn't read like that to me. Sounds like a retention/incentive/stay with us/don't leave plan to me. The way the numbers shake out, it could give each employee $1.3 million; however, that won't be the reality of the plan as mentioned in the article. Higher level execs will get a larger share of that money, with new hires or less tenure employees much less. The article states that some Bungie employees are celebrating their future bonuses as significant, sharing that they can use the money to put a down payment on a house or pay off student loans. The most interesting read here is that Sony appears to be less interested in the IP (i.e. Destiny) and more interested in the employees that make up Bungie. Bungie will retain complete creative freedom and all current and future content, including new IPs, will stay multiplatform. This tells me that Sony's strategy with this buyout is to take Bungie's expertise and use it to improve Playstation Studios live service games in development (read an article that they have 10 in development now), plus first person shooter experience. I believe this will prove to be a very lucrative purchase by Sony. Regarding the incentive plan to employees, win-win for Sony and Bungie. This looks to be a good story with a happy ending, rare in the business world.
  15. Agreed it's a win-win for both parties. But let's not fool ourselves that Sony did this from the goodness of their corporate hearts. No one spends over a billion dollars additional without getting something out of it. I'm not saying anything negative about the deal, in fact, I like the deal a lot. But, there's a need to keep the current staff in place and creating a retention bonus is a good way to incentivize the staff to not only stay, but stay motivated for some additional payments for the next couple of years. My over winded response is, I agree with you