Paperclip1776

Premium Member
 PSN Profile
  • Content count

    230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Paperclip1776

  1. I also got my PS3 in February 2010. My first Platinum was Modern Warfare 2 on October 6, 2010.
  2. I got my PS4 on launch day and I played the following games day one (1): - Call of Duty: Ghosts - Battlefield 4 - Resogun (I think this was day one but if not it was close)
  3. Hi @Beyondthegrave07. The following games have been published and could be removed from the "Currently in Progress" list: CoD Infinite Warfare (7 down from the top) Atelier Sophie (This is next to Atelier Firis in the list, which has not yet been published) Kholat RE8 NieR Replicant ver...(two published now!) SaGa Frontier Remastered TG SaGa Frontier Remastered Misc. Guide Thank you for maintaining this list!
  4. Unfortunately, the link you provided doesn't mention anything about multiplayer coming to the Crysis Remastered Trilogy. It's definitely a recent trend for remastered games to omit the multiplayer. Remastered games like Hitman: Absolution, Uncharted 2 and 3, CoD MW2, Assassin's Creed III, and Bioshock 2 all had their multiplayer component omitted. There are, however, remasters that have retained multiplayer including The Last of Us, Burnout Paradise, Saints Row: The Third, and CoD MW1. My guess: Crysis Remastered Trilogy will NOT have multiplayer since it wasn't included in the announcement. Quote from article in attached link above: "The Crysis Remastered Trilogy features the single-player remasters of Crysis, Crysis 2, and Crysis 3, optimized in partnership with Saber Interactive for today's consoles and PC hardware."
  5. Good point. Not really much time to prepare, that's for sure. There was a good response made in the Server Shutdown and Delisting thread that I wanted to share that I think is relevant. This quote from @Lord_Bane999 was responding about a comment similar to yours above, about giving less than 24 hour notice. From @Lord_Bane999: Eh I think Shift 2 was the only one of the lot with a dedicated online community still anyways. But with how quickly it all was pulled I imagine the delistings could've been part of an expired license for either cars or companies represented in them. I hadn't thought about expiring licenses for cars or companies represented in games but I think that's a real possibility since it was so sudden and that it fell on the last day of the month. My guess, if this is correct, the licenses for the cars, music, and/or companies in the game may have had an expiration starting June 1. Speculation on my part, but it's possible. It was almost like they forgot about the communication until the last minute, although past delistings from EA certainly don't help justify this since communications on delistings/shutdowns for other games have been less than stellar at times.
  6. It's true Hot Pursuit (released in 2010) wasn't mentioned in their Twitter message about the NFS games still online beyond August 31 but checking the EA Online Services Update website, only the listed games (Undercover, Shift, Shift 2: Unleashed, The Run, and Carbon) were listed for shutdown on Aug. 31. I agree, though, Hot Pursuit would likely be a good candidate for server shutdown sooner rather than later since it's about 11 years old, NFS titles newer than it are shutting down sooner, and it has a PS4 remaster version. What I'm saying is, I don't think they missed it in the message and that NFS: HP is still online...for now. My guess is NFS: HP is popular enough to stay online at the moment, but encouraging NFS gamers to look at the newer titles instead.
  7. Another one is Destiny. Never owned Destiny on PS3 but I know you can do at least 4 players for some of the activities like Crucible (multiplayer mode), playing through the campaign, and even more players (6) when doing Raids. Destiny is a game that blurs the lines between single and multiplayer as it's a game where doing many single player activities will show other players doing their own single player activities. The game requires you connect online to play even when you're doing solo activities because the game world is always alive with real players all around you.
  8. NAILED IT! EA confirmed today during an investors call that the 2021 Battlefield will be coming to PS4/PS5, Xbox One/X/S, and PC.
  9. I can see your point here: Jack Trenton, Shawn Layden, both charismatic leaders for Playstation prior to Jim Ryan and both propelled PS to a better position in the market in terms of quality games and return to market share after X360 took a lot of that away from the PS2 era. I think Jim Ryan gets a tougher rap sheet because he doesn't come off as likable. To me, he comes off direct and 'as-a-matter-of-fact' type attitude, maybe a little over confident. Not terrible qualities in a leader but again, my perception of the man and why he might not be liked as much as the previous PS division leaders. What I will defend Jim Ryan on is the current PS plan. He's definitely going all in on AAA, blockbuster games. No doubt about it. And that makes a lot of sense to me because he knows that's what brought PS the competitive edge during the PS4 era. I agree you don't want to put all of your eggs in one basket but if you're making a killing off of a specific type of product, doubling or tripling down on it in the next generation seems like a good idea. While he's doing that, he's also not shutting the door on smaller titles, or maybe more accurately, experimental titles. Examples include Destruction AllStars (not all of them will be home runs, this is one of them), Returnal (good reviews so far), Forespoken (Square Enix PS exclusive), and there's a couple of smaller developers receiving PS funding, like Firewalk Studios and Haven Entertainment that will likely be smaller titles, at least the initial offering. There's also a lot of smaller titles announced back in September 2020 during the PS5 presentation coming too. PS has not abandoned Indie games, look at how many new titles hit PSN weekly. The door is open for all games but there's definitely a huge push for the internal studios to put out quality, AAA games. You brought up PS Now. I personally think they've squandered PS Now. It's not available in many regions and overall they haven't done enough to compete with Microsoft and other subscription services available in the industry. PS Now has improved over the years: (1) stronger titles hitting the service, albeit temporarily, (2) reduced the price a few years ago by 50% which was a good move, (3) able to download PS4 titles. But, the value proposition isn't in-line with their competition and it's the reason we don't see PS Now numbers at the quarterly investor calls - they're embarrassed to show them. To compete, they need to find a way to add all or most of the PS3 games to the service. The PS brand games would be unique to the service and allow them to be more competitive in this space. Regarding the PS3/PS Vita stores closing down, I didn't like the short timeframe to close the stores nor how quickly it took Sony to determine they didn't need them anymore. Yes, they made the right decision to keep the stores open for now but I agree that they will eventually close. So will the PS4 store, so will the PS5 store. For me, it's doing it at the right time. There's always going to be critics even if they announced closure of the PS3/PS Vita stores in 2050 but they wouldn't get the backlash that they got this time around. Closure timing and giving players enough time to prepare for the closure is important and should be for Sony to demonstrate good will to their customers. A walk down memory lane: dominant PS2 era, terrible launch of PS3 (overpriced console, 1 year behind Xbox, lack of strong games at launch), PSN outage of 2011. All past mistakes for sure. I would disagree with the poor handling of the PS5 though. The PS5 had one of the strongest launches in history, sales wise as well as game wise. Spiderman: Miles Morales, Demon Souls, Sackboy and all of the 3rd party games. Not to mention, all of the PS4 backward compatible games you can play on PS5, most of them with some type of enhancement or game improvement even if the games weren't specifically enhanced for the PS5, including shorter load times, improved visuals, and better frame rates. Of course, this was on a title-by-title basis but the improvements were real and noticeable. If you go back 30 years of gaming history for any new console launch for any system, nearly none of them had an abundance of new 1st or 3rd party games to play. I thought the lineup was really good considering what most consoles launched with over the years. The issue, or perception of a console launch lineup that gives customers a bad taste is that these companies initially oversell their launch lineup. They set an expectation that more games will launch day one with the console and the reality is a bunch of them get pushed out. These examples include Gran Turismo, Destruction AllStars, maybe Returnal and I'm sure there's more I'm not thinking of. This causes customers to say the launch lineup was terrible because X,Y, and Z never launched as promised. If they never promised these titles, I think the perception would be much improved. In closing, I hope the PS5 lives up to the reputation it has: to deliver quality, AAA blockbuster titles throughout the lifecycle of the console while continuing to improve our overall PS5 gaming experience. I believe they will continue to deliver new experimental experiences in this generation and hopefully at a higher rate than ever before. I like that you know your stuff about PS, even if we can agree to disagree at times. Plus your, you know, flashy comments too.
  10. I'm currently going for the Platinum. This game is one of my favorite of all time. This game was created with high detail from the locations, to the tracks, to the car mechanics, and to the weather mechanics. The best part of DriveClub; it's fun to play.
  11. LOL. Based on your responses above and the overall amount of reputation and posts you have cumulated over the years on PSNP, it's clear to me that you have a lot of flash and no substance. Comments like the ones above bring nothing to the conversation but are designed to get an emotional response. Sure, we all post stuff to get a reaction from time to time but your posts sure do have a similar theme in that manner. Back on the topic, with the announcement that Playstation is partnering with Discord (highly improved service offering compared to what Playstation currently has) and the fact that he correctly reversed a big decision to close the PS Vita/PS3 stores, my question to you is: Why do you think Jim Ryan doesn't deserve some praise here? Keep in mind, I'm no Jim Ryan fanboy but, he does seem to be saying the right things and recently his actions are matching what he's saying (i.e. enhancing the PS experience). Oh, and by the way, Playstation had a record year in both revenue and profits, with a PS5 console losing money on every sale. This is on Jim Ryan's watch. Of course, there's that thing called the pandemic that helped Playstation and the entire industry but Playstation has been on an upward trajectory for many years now and there's no reason to think that good decisions he made/approved are paying off for the company, decisions that culminated over the past 2 years since he's been CEO of the PS division. I will be interested to see if you respond at all, and if you do, what type of an emotional attack I should expect to see.
  12. I'm not familiar with the connectivity on the other platforms that you're referring to but I get your context now, thanks for the clarification. Hopefully I was right that you're on the "inside".
  13. Weird it took so long. LOL. What timeframe were you expecting to see Discord integrated into the Playstation Network? A week ago we all thought Microsoft was purchasing Discord. You must be on the "inside".
  14. Thanks for responding. Your Quote: but i dont see how me paying $400 to play one game is to my advantage. there is plenty of other great games that came out that arent exclusives. and plenty of exclusives i have no interest in. My Response: As we all know, video games is a hobby, not a necessity. If you really want to play an exclusive game, you either need to know someone that has the game or buy the hardware to play it. Exclusives are an advantage to gamers because it drives competition. More competition = better quality games. If you buy an exclusive, there's a strong likelihood you will also purchase other things on that platform, such as accessories, other software purchases, subscriptions, and the dreaded micro transactions. It's fair to say you won't like or purchase all exclusives that come out, most people fall into that reality. However, most people also like some of the exclusives and that adds up to millions and millions of purchases for a quality AAA exclusive. Your Quote: i dont know how a game company is making more money by sticking to only one console. its not from game sales so it has to be the company throwing boatloads of money at them. they could make it for both platforms and have twice the sales and the user doesnt have to buy a whole new consoles for it. My Response: Two words: attach rate. When a customer purchases an exclusive game like The Last of Us Part II, they don't just purchase the game, they purchase an extra controller, they purchase Playstation Plus subscription, they purchase other interesting games on the Playstation store, etc. Of course, this doesn't apply to every customer but more times than not, a customer will purchase more products from that platform when they've invested in the expensive hardware. The reason you seen every platform have exclusives (Playstation, Xbox, Switch, Stadia, Apple Arcade, Steam, Epic Games Store) is because the attach rate of other items far exceed the sales of the game being purchased on other platforms. Every generation, there's more and more exclusives between platforms because that's a way for the company to get you into their ecosystem. Look at Epic Games Store: there was an article recently that confirmed they lost around $300 million dollars to exclusives and the company was ok with it. Why? Because in the long-term, they are creating new customers that will purchase future content on their store, not the competitions store. Here's the article: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/epic-games-is-losing-an-absurd-amount-of-money-on-exclusive-games/1100-6490008/ Concluding this, if game companies thought making a game and releasing it multi-platform was more profitable, they would do it. There's a reason every game company is not only selling exclusive games to their platform, they're also increasing them. Look at Xbox with all of their acquisitions in the past couple of years and how Sony is reinvesting in their 1st party software. It all equals more money in future content than releasing it multi-platform.
  15. Not sure what your point is? Yes, I've been on the site since 2012. Yes, "point taken" was when someone made a good point on my comment that was difficult to return a reply to. What's the difference if I had 4,000 posts or 2 posts, do I have wait to have the perfect number of posts to become active in a thread regarding how the CRT hands disputes? Better yet, how many posts should I have had before I commented on a dispute with the CRT? Regarding your last comment ("Makes me wonder how you guys handle day to day life if this is enough to have you all overly sensitive.") If you read my original post, you'll see I was defending the CRT. Maybe I should just criticize posts with no logical counter points in either direction like your post and wonder why the CRT's didn't step down a long time ago because they have to deal with crap like "point taken"?
  16. I get your position on this. I don't have evidence either to counter this argument or agree with it. Sounds like you've put some time into this topic so I'll listen and make my own conclusions. Good conversation.
  17. Point taken. I don't have a counter argument to this at the moment. I appreciate the additional info shared.
  18. There's been no evidence that: 1. The CRT only reviews Exophase data and uses the results as gold to determine if a person cheats 2. Other data/research is not being used to determine if a person cheats Certainly, looking at how fast a trophy is earned does make sense to help determine if a user cheated. I'm sure in many disputes it's blatantly obvious and you don't need to look into the issue further while other disputes aren't as obvious and other research needs to go into it. I don't understand how everyone jumping onboard with the OP in this thread is using the quote from the CRT member as something negative. The CRT member appears to have done a huge amount of research on this one trophy dispute and based on the results they concluded it's likely caused by cheating. Most of us don't know all the effort and time spent on going through these disputes. I've read through a bunch of disputes in the past and of course, everyone's innocent (even the most obvious disputes where the person cheated). I'm sure out of all the disputes the CRT gets daily, that a few of them were considered cheating but were legitimately completed. I get members being angry over that. It's totally a human response. I feel, however, that the OP of this topic is either passionate that they didn't cheat or pissed they were caught and using a quote as retaliation. I actually get the quote of "...but when a player's time is ONLY messed up on the hardest games in existence, they've cheated." This is a quote, IMO, might be out of frustration that most of the time, is likely correct that the person cheated. This CRT member did 50 tests. That's a lot of effort to determine results.
  19. Congratulations to all three of you! I appreciate your time and effort approving guides ready to be published as well as continuing to write your own outstanding guides. Good luck with your continued success on the Guide Team!
  20. 50 games for a system over 20 years ago can't possibly be compared to Naughty Dog's 2 games during a whole generation. The games aren't comparable. Play The Last of Us and then go and play 5 games from Squaresoft and see if you notice a difference. Production values, game assets, art direction, storytelling; hundreds of people working on these games compared to maybe dozens of people working on games from the PSOne era. And games these days take an average of 4-5 years to make. It was an average of a 1 year turnaround in the PSOne era. Apples to oranges, there's absolutely no comparison. Calling out the studios that closed is accurate but you didn't mention that Sony has the largest lineup of 1st party developers ever in 2021. And these are studios that can work on multiple AAA projects at the same time. Santa Monica Studios, Bend Studio, Naughty Dog, Guerrilla Games, Sucker Punch, Media Molecule, Polyphony Digital, San Mateo Studio, London Studio, San Diego Studio, Pixelopus, Insomniac Games. Not to mention, they do 2nd party deals all the time. There's multiple 2nd party deals going on that were announced, i.e. Firewalk Studios (former Bungie/Activision employees), Square Enix, Haven (Jade Raymond), Housemarque (Returnal), Lucid Games (Destruction AllStars). Studios will get closed for different reasons but you can't say for a fact that Sony is in a worse place with studios in 2021 than they were at any other time in history. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. Thanks!
  21. Respectfully disagree. Exclusives do benefit gamers with quality games that we want to play and they help the industry provide stronger competition with other platform exclusives as well as 3rd party games made by publishers like Activision, Ubisoft, EA, and Take-Two Interactive. Look at The Last of Us series, Uncharted series, Horizon Zero Dawn, Halo, Forza, Gears, Gran Turismo, Mario (wholly crap ton of successful games): all of these games are exclusive to one console platform and all are AAA, high quality, high production value games that drive billions of dollars in sales and tens of millions of gamers. How does this not benefit gamers? We're getting amazing quality games. Are companies making games solely to benefit the gamer? Absolutely not. These companies are in business to make money, especially these large, public companies that have thousands of shareholders that want more money than they did the year before. Exclusives drive sales of their consoles and it gives you a reason to buy their console. You may personally never buy a console because of an exclusive game on that platform but millions of other people do buy consoles specifically for the games on their platform. I would say that's probably a top reason on how customers choose a certain system to buy. Company marketing techniques are designed to try and appeal to your desires so of course they're going to do what they can to drive you to buy their latest console. Exclusives are done by every platform in the industry (Sony, Microsoft, Valve, Nintendo, Stadia, Epic Games) and there's a big reason why: they drive future sales on other things like accessories, other games, and yes, even micro transactions.
  22. I'm relaxed , thanks. I'm just responding cordially to your comments is all. You make a good point that the industry would probably figure itself out. I agree with that. You spoke on a couple of topics: 1. Alternative to exclusivity; gaming platforms creatively figuring out another way to make profits through better service, prices, accessories or something else. 2. Quality of games can exist without 1st party games. 1. Alternative to exclusivity. I suppose it's possible that there's other alternatives to exclusivity. IMO, the flaw in this argument is that these companies would be doing something else if they thought it would make them more money. Look at the format at Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. All of them have exclusivity, subscription models, and blockbuster 1st party games (Xbox is working on a better lineup with their recent acquisitions). In 2021, the current exclusivity format works best for these companies and an alternative method would set them back. Gaming industry will continue to evolve, gaming happens continue to evolve, and the age of gamers continue to evolve. An alternative method in 2028 might make sense for better prices, better services, better accessories but they don't make sense in 2021. I would invite anyone to provide any hard facts to the contrary. My hard facts is the current format. These companies continue to make record profits. Yes, COVID helped a lot with current profits but video games was on an upward trajectory years before COVID reared its ugly head. 2. Quality of games can exist without 1st party games. IMO, not in 2021 they can't. Less competition always equals less motivation to innovate and provide the best value (price) to their consumers. 3rd party games won't go to crap, but it doesn't mean the overall quality will continue to climb either. To use your example, Naughty Dog on its own could continue to create amazing works of art. But would they? Maybe. History in any industry would dictate that less competition ultimately equals less quality. Any industry. These companies have less motivation to deliver outstanding quality because you can't get that brand anywhere else now. Who's Naughty Dog's competition today? Mainly, itself. Its got such a high reputation to improve upon the last game that they really do everything they can to deliver the best experience possible. If in your world 1st party doesn't exist and Naughty Dog exists as it does today with amazing talent as a standalone company, I would bet the farm you won't see the creativity it has under Sony because they won't take as many risks. One bad risk can sink a studio and that alone would deter them from innovating outside their comfort zone. Look at Visceral Games under EA. They were dismantled after their in-progress Star Wars game was taken from a linear, single player type game and sent to another studio with more experience delivering multiplayer games. Why? Because EA believes multiplayer games makes them more money. Are they wrong? I'll say no based on EA's quarterly financial results recently. My point is, it's not short-sighted in 2021 to think that quality games as they look today won't exist without 1st party developers. There's a ton of 1st party developers across the industry so we aren't talking about 1, 2, or even 15. There's a lot more than that. I don't believe the industry would go into a tailspin and every game would be bargain bin fodder but I think it would take some time before games would come back to the quality that we see today. Exclusivity is the current format and looks to be the format in the near future. Time will tell if it evolves into more subscription models as internet access becomes more available and stable around the world, or if we're even going to see another console generation; the PS6. I wasn't sure 8 years ago when the PS4 launched if there would be a PS5 but after the initial reception to the PS4, it was easy to see a PS5 in the future. If I were to guess, PS6 and Xbox Z/Y is almost a done deal based on the current sales and excitement for both Xbox X/S and PS5. In the end, there's no way to know for sure if I'm wrong and you're right or vis versa on this topic, but we both have our arguments; one a little more wordy than the other.
  23. Hi @Beyondthegrave07. Thank you for continually updating this list, much appreciated! FYI on game entries in list: There's two (2): COD Infinite Warfare entries listed - one at the top (7 down) and the last entry in the list Yakuza Kiwami 2: Published Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutants in Manhattan: Published Atari Flashback games listed covers four (4) games. Two (2) have been completed and published: Atari Flashback Classics Volume 1 and Atari Flashback Classics Volume 2. Two have not been published: Atari Flashback Classics and Atari Flashback Classics Volume 3. If you're wanting this entry to be more specific toward a single game it could be removed if there's no others guides in queue or being created. Or, to list the ones in queue/being created separately.
  24. Agree with you on Game Pass and Phil Spencer's tenure. Regarding exclusives, I know you know this but the point of exclusives is to get customers attracted to their system. By having it available for everyone, there would be little to distinguish between one product over the other. Sure, there's UI preference and even how the console looks vs the competition, but it's all about the games to drive sales of both the game and consoles. As I mentioned, I know you know this info. I bring this up because commenting that 'everyone can enjoy games if there were no exclusives' would ultimately be bad for games in general. Games would no longer be the driving force to get people on your platform if they were available everywhere, so games would very likely reduce in quality, at least from the 1st party developers. I would suspect you wouldn't see blockbuster games like Uncharted, The Last of Us, Ghost of Tsushima, and Horizon simply because Sony wouldn't see a return on their investment since it would be available anywhere. I've heard the argument that if it's available on every platform, they would sell more games. Ok, I agree with you. But, there's a reason why all gaming companies have exclusives and strive to increase exclusivity every generation. The attach rate for customers that purchase a Playstation or Xbox or Switch is much more valuable than selling more games. It's a fact. If selling more games was more profitable, that's what everyone would be doing. Game companies that sell exclusives will very likely sell more products to those customers on their platform, so even those Sony wants to sell millions and millions of copies of The Last of Us Part II, it's a "system seller" that will drive sales on accessories, other software and even more microtransactions. Saying "system seller" is not a bad thing, it's what keeps the quality of our games strong. Final point, if all games were available to everyone, gamers would heavily rely on 3rd party developers. With less competition in the market (1st party games would be scaled back or eliminated altogether), that means less incentive to make quality games even from 3rd party. Sure, they would still be competing with each other, but Ubisoft's lineup (more open world games) is very different than Activision's lineup (more FPS games, run and gun), which is very different than EA's lineup (more sports, team-based) which is very different from Take-Two's lineup (games-as-a-service, i.e. GTA V and RDR 2). I'm with everyone that wants to play all games. I would love to play Halo games and Forza and likely some of the cool, future games that will come from Bethesda that will be exclusive to Xbox. If I really want them, I'll have to save up and buy their system to get it. Exclusivity drives quality and competition, which is more important than having every game available on all platforms.
  25. Great points about Microsoft playing catch up related to Game Pass. That's what successful companies do: they find something that their competition doesn't have or can't do or both and bring it to market. Regarding backwards compatibility, again, I agree it doesn't really make Microsoft much money, if any. It is a PR move, no doubt about it. But that's how you draw new customers into your ecosystem. You draw in the customer for little to no profit and open them up to your community where you can sell them other things that are more profitable. I'm in Michigan so I can equate this to buying a car: you get a customer to buy a Ford Focus, the next time they might by the Ford Fusion, then the Ford Explorer (very profitable for Ford), etc. Maybe the initial investment is low but their playing the long game. In the end, I agree with your points. It will be interesting to see what happens during this generation. Microsoft is definitely playing catch up while Sony needs to stay on the gas. Less activity in the major news stories, I think, are causing the perception that Sony is resting on their laurels but I think they have a good strategy. Although, I would be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed they they haven't made more acquisitions knowing their direct competition is doing it at a significant pace.