PSN Profile
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

887 Excellent

About jrdemr

  • Rank
    But then the Internet got fast... and ruined everything
  • Birthday 03/20/88

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Lisbon, Portugal
  • Interests
    Gaming, Comic books (namely manga), Television (namely anime).

Recent Profile Visitors

5,891 profile views
  1. No. It's too expensive and none of the experiences so far have captivated me to buy one. Besides, I live in a small house and have no space to even use the damn thing. Not to mention, I have a base PS4 and the thing would probably run like crap.
  2. Yeah, hi, I would pretty much like to enter. Favorite horror movie: I don't watch those. I like being able to sleep at night, thank you very much.
  3. No. For several reasons: The more you wait before buying, the more the price decreases. The more you wait before buying, the more chances you'll have that a Game of the Year edition will all the DLC will come along, making you save even more. The more you wait before buying, the more resources there are online for you to use whenever you're stuck or just want to know more effective ways of progressing. The more you wait before buying, the bigger the chance that all those nasty bugs and glitches will have been ironed out. Too many games in my backlog for me to care about the most recent thing on the shelves. There's no actual need for you to pre-order games. Maybe in the 90's, when gaming wasn't the huge craze it is today, but now, with digital distribution and tons of different online stores... stuff never actually goes out of print. It's just pointless.
  4. I have yet to know why people want even more powerful hardware. I mean... the PS4 is perfectly fine. I don't really see how gaming can improve significantly from here on out. If we get backwards compatibility with all previous consoles and a guaranteed butter-smooth 60 fps on every game (I don't even care about 4K, that's only for people with huge freaking TV sets), then I can see the use, but if we're not going to get any of that... then what's the point?
  5. I will... but only after making sure it doesn't mess with my old saves and trophies. I don't really care about multiplayer, since I already have all the online trophies for my games (and I hate online multiplayer anyway), so I'll be fine in that regard. Saves + Trophies > PSN Name. After making sure it's safe, then I'll change it.
  6. This is cool and all... but I will wait a while before doing absolutely anything. If this messes up my old saves or downloads... I mean, I don't really like my current username, but it sure beats losing everything you've done up to this point.
  7. I've used nearly everything other than actually modifying the game to get trophies. If you count boosting and using walkthroughs as cheating... well, you're hardnose as fuck. Other than that, I've used exploits and even asked people to get trophies for me, but even that's really rare. I've only used exploits with the Uncharted Remastered games, considering Brutal difficulty is hard to the point of being unfair. I've also only asked someone else for help with a trophy once. Since I don't have PS Plus, I've asked a friend of mine to get one of the online trophies on Dragon Ball FighterZ for me. But other than those specific cases, I'm pretty legit.
  8. I only give it out to people I actually know in real life or that I'm comfortable giving my real name to. Otherwise, I think it's even kinda rude to ask to be on a real name basis with people you barely even know.
  9. And yet it was renewed just this month. I also keep all of my old consoles (and would still keep them even if full BC came to PS5), but's still a hell of a lot more convenient to be able to play all your games on a single machine instead of having to keep them all plugged onto your TV. Unnecessary to you doesn't mean unnecessary to everyone.
  10. https://gearnuke.com/sony-planning-backward-compatibility-for-ps5-rumor/ If this is indeed true, then it's great news. Considering how Sony's realized with the PS4 that going with an easy-to-develop-for PC architecture was the way to go and that it's pretty much certain that the PS5 will use a very similar or even identical architecture, I would be extremely pissed if it didn't have backwards compatibility with at least the PS4. Then again, considering how much more powerful the PS5 will be in relation to all the other Playstation systems, backwards compatibility with all of them isn't a pipe dream, either. I think it makes sense for them to release it now as well, the remaster craze seems to have died down a little and I think people wouldn't have taken kindly to yet another generation of remasters. Just give us backwards compatibility already so we can look forward to the future! Personally, what do I want from BC on the PS5 if this rumor does indeed happen to be true? Disc-based backwards compatibility. Why have backwards compatibility if all of my old physical games are no good? Backwards compatibility with ALL previous Playstations. That would be the dream. And, as stated before, should be entirely within the realm of possibility if Sony were to put their minds to it. Backwards compatibility with our previous save data. Now THIS would be the icing on the cake. If I could just pick up right where I left off... now that would be the dream. I would like it if they at least have BC with saves from the PS3 and PS4. PS1 and PS2 might be a little harder considering they use a completely different system, but if they actually manage to have a memory card port, or at the very least sell a separate accessory... I'm probably going to get that bad boy day one. Free online play for PS3 titles. If it was free on the PS3, then we should have the same experience on the PS5. So, what do you guys think? Excited for the prospect of backwards compatibility (FINALLY)? And what do you personally want from it?
  11. You made a very interesting post but I just wanted to comment on this part right here. The solution to this is very simple: making games under a cheaper budget. The best-selling consoles of all-time, the Playstation 2 and the Nintendo DS, had nothing nowhere near HD graphics with ultra-realistic textures and models, and yet, they both sold by far more than any other console in existence. Hell, if you go down the list of best-selling consoles of all time, the first one to have any kind of HD capabilities is the Xbox 360, at #6, very closely followed by the Playstation 3 at #7. Hell, if Nintendo's good at something, it's showing us that you can make games a ground-breaking success with very simple but appealing graphics. And back in the days of the Playstation 2, even as graphically weak as the console was by today's standards, we had games that looked absolutely phenomenal - Square Enix's come to mind, as does Ookami. All you had to do is throw away the idea of an ultra-realistic style and make something simpler, just with some flair and personality. I just don't think all of these solutions are the way to go for gaming. If you need to announce season passes at the same time as the game itself or implement microtransactions, or, God forbid, loot boxes just because your game was insanely expensive to make... then just make a cheaper, more stylized game. I find these videos by Extra Credits to be particularly enlightening on the subject.
  12. More power to you. I could try and rebuke your arguments (yet again), but we can all see this would just go on forever.
  13. I don't really actively look for new things to play. I watch a lot of gaming trivia and news over on Youtube and Twitter, and if a game piques my interest, I'll pick it up. I have had to scale things back a little since my backlog was increasing at a much faster pace than I could clear it... so now I'm only getting games when I'm ready to play them... and at the pace I've been playing the ones I already have, by then, the price has lowered considerably - in some cases, a remastered version has even come out in the meantime. (And I don't even have Playstation Plus, imagine if I did...).
  14. I have a lot of trouble believing DLC is mere "supplemental material" when it is announced months before the game comes out or even alongside the game itself. If you know you're going to make that content that much in advance, then stick it in the main game. If you still have troubling believing that, here's a video showing not one, not two, but eight examples of games that had the gall to sell the true ending as DLC (and I'm pretty sure there's more - Dead Rising 4 comes to mind). You have also (repeatedly) ignored my point that if a game is designed around microtransactions, there is a very real possibility (not certainty) that it will be made much grindier than it would have had those microtransactions not been present. Companies don't generally put additional purchases into something and then expect you not to use them. I have no doubt that the game was sold to me the way it was meant to. That is not to say that it couldn't have been better. If there's a really stupid directorial decision in a game, whether it's designed to make you spend more money or otherwise (i.e. just a creative directorial decision) I will complain about it just the same. But unlike merely creative directorial decisions, microtransactions are, more often than not, borne of greedy publisher decisions that will never impact the game in a positive way. So they're giving us the option... to skip the normal progression of the game? By extension, that means the normal progression of the game is a grindy and boring experience. If the game was designed as it should have been, the progression would have been made fun and hence there would have been no need for us to skip it. That's why we hate the mere principle of microtransactions. Because they never bode anything positive. Their mere presence in a game strongly implies two things: the publisher is a greedy fuck who is not content simply charging us the base price of the game and the game is a grindy mess that requires you to pay extra to be made even remotely enjoyable. AGAIN, I'm not saying that will be the case in DMC5. The game could be just as enjoyable and balanced as every other game in the series. But that is the best case scenario (and the one I'm hoping for). Microtransactions never bring anything positive to a game. The best we can hope for is that they don't do any damage. To be honest, I don't think we will ever see eye-to-eye on this subject. You clearly want to view publishers as sensible companies that respect their customers and would do nothing to undermine their enjoyments of the base experience. I've just been around long enough that my confidence in the goodness of the suits behind the AAA industry has long been eroded. I'm even considered to be an extremely positive person, but regarding the AAA industry, to me, they're all guilty until proven innocent. I've seen too many negative news to believe otherwise.
  15. The backlash was just against the implementation of Loot Boxes, which people found crossed the line. There are even arguments that it might constitute gambling, hence why so many countries are moving towards officially considering Loot Boxes as such and consequently imposing on them all the regulations all other forms of gambling already have. Regarding why microtransactions are still present, as I said before, there's literally no downside - to publishers, that is - to including the option to purchase things through microtransactions. Even if no one actually buys them, it's no real skin off the developers' back. It's not like they wasted a whole lot of time and money just implementing the microtransaction system, should be a pretty simple thing. They have a whole lot more to win than they have to lose. Sadly (and as you can see by some of the answers in this thread), people don't seem to mind microtransactions as much as they do loot boxes. It's true that they don't provide as much room for exploitation as loot boxes do, and since they technically don't break any laws, I don't see them going away soon - unless, that is, publishers grow an actual pair and start valuing their respect for their customers more than their wallets.