PlayStation 5, what are your expectations for the next generation?

[Dav9834]

On 3/14/2018 at 8:45 PM, Spaz said:

 

Have you seen the Playstation VR?

 

The masses haven’t exactly been clamoring all over it. 

 

So I think you’re pretty safe.

 

43 minutes ago, Dr_Shaneman said:

I have, but Kinect had the same bashing and Microsoft tried to push it again before finally giving up.

 

What I tend to see is people waiting for a higher resolution version. Those who have it seem on average to love it, while those that don't on average (for any reason) are waiting. Something I noticed as a psvr owner. 

 

And considering it's outsold all other vr headsets(besides the mobile ones(but they give them out for free so it's kinda skewed numbers)), I would most definitely expect a psvr2 with ps5 having a more deeper integration(though it's pretty damn deep integration as it is now(except Netflix STILL hasn't ported over its vr app version >< ) 

 

However I do NOT believe it will be pushed with the console like Kinect was. I think it will stay in its market area. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by Dav9834

[AJ_Radio]

On 3/10/2018 at 5:57 PM, Dav9834 said:

I'm just saying what those in the gaming industry have echoed based on information we aren't privy to because of contracts. 

If ps5 games have been in development for a few years, 2019 Fall, or 2020 Spring release isn't that far fetched at all. 

 

That would make the ps4 ~7 years old depending. Everyone makes it seem the ps4 came out like a year or 2 ago. Maybe we got used to that long ps3 cycle, which Sony has already said the ps4 cycle will be shorter. 

 

Though I wonder if the gpu shortage from crypto miners will have an effect on gpu manufacturers ability to even have manufacturing capability for the ps5... Pushing the release

Food for thought :/

 

It already sounds like you can't wait to buy the Playstation 5.

 

But then there is a plateau and I think as far as gameplay is concerned we have reached that point.

 

I don't want to play a realistic looking video game if it plays like shit.

 

Besides graphics aren't what got me into gaming. Graphics are what AAA games are all too focused on, while the actual gameplay suffers or is bogged down by microtransactions and loads of DLC.

 

If you can't wait to buy the Playstation 5 and are oozing over it's capabilities, you are free to buy it on release. I'm just stating my opinion on where AAA games have been going the past couple years. I for one am not buying the Playstation 5 until it has seen some improvements to the system and has some games worth buying.

 

We got a PS4 Pro and that has been pretty successful for a mid console. For now, that's good enough for most of us.

[WatashiHyp3r]

In my honest opinion, It's WAY to early to release the PS5! I reckon 2023 would be good. The PS4 still has so much life in it!

 

But what I want is the as the majority, Backwords compatibility all the way back to the PS1. Knowing Sony it's very unlikely though!

[Zircon_Lotus]

That the PS5 dont come anytime soon, preferably after 2020

[GravityQueeen]

I would only ask Sony to make a silent console! Please? ?

[Dav9834]

2 hours ago, Spaz said:

 

It already sounds like you can't wait to buy the Playstation 5.

 

But then there is a plateau and I think as far as gameplay is concerned we have reached that point.

 

I don't want to play a realistic looking video game if it plays like shit.

 

Besides graphics aren't what got me into gaming. Graphics are what AAA games are all too focused on, while the actual gameplay suffers or is bogged down by microtransactions and loads of DLC.

 

If you can't wait to buy the Playstation 5 and are oozing over it's capabilities, you are free to buy it on release. I'm just stating my opinion on where AAA games have been going the past couple years. I for one am not buying the Playstation 5 until it has seen some improvements to the system and has some games worth buying.

 

We got a PS4 Pro and that has been pretty successful for a mid console. For now, that's good enough for most of us.

Dude enough with the harassment!

 

I never said any of what your presuming(yeah you're not even assuming!). 

 

I have a huge backlog. With some on ps3 still, and vita. I don't need a ps5 in 2019/2020.

As I said I'm only saying what insiders are talking about. So you can ignore that and put your head in the sand, but ps5 games ARE in development. 

Thats it!

[BeastMcMercenary]

On 15/01/2018 at 1:11 PM, DARKB1KE said:

You're asking for quite a lot for wanting it under $500.  It's unrealistic... but hey, fantasy thread right?  I'd like to win a million dollars and finish every game in my backlog.   

Glad someone pointed it out 

I wanna see mods support systems officially made by sony so we can do whatever we like in our games without any restrictions but the way they reacted to skyrim and fallout 4 thats never gonna happen so i think its gonna be another shit money grabbing console 

[Lillia]

Wouldn't want a PS5 now, PS4 is doing just great so far 

[Darling Baphomet]

On 3/15/2018 at 5:19 PM, Spaz said:

 

It already sounds like you can't wait to buy the Playstation 5.

 

But then there is a plateau and I think as far as gameplay is concerned we have reached that point.

 

I don't want to play a realistic looking video game if it plays like shit.

 

Besides graphics aren't what got me into gaming. Graphics are what AAA games are all too focused on, while the actual gameplay suffers or is bogged down by microtransactions and loads of DLC.

 

Have you even played old games? Trying to pretend that new games aren't vastly improved in terms of gameplay quality indicates a humorous amount of ignorance. Games are continuously improving, as they will continue to do so. If a game came out now that played like the average game from a decade ago, it would be discarded like hot garbage. We've already seen how well games that play like they're from the 90s do, when not shielded by nostalgia goggles - Yooka Laylee and Mighty No. 9, for instance, bombed. Hard. 

 

Take any of the classic 90s shooters - Half-Life 1, Unreal Tournament 99, Quake 2, whatever, and then compare their blocky, uninituitive movement to the free-flowing parkour you see in games like Titanfall 2 and Dying Light. And then tell me that these games don't give a half shit about their gameplay. 

 

Also, neither microtransactions nor DLC bog down gameplay. They provide additional content to be paid for. At worst, they hurt your feelings of entitlement towards said content. 

 

On 3/15/2018 at 7:26 PM, Dav9834 said:

Dude enough with the harassment!

 

I'm pretty sure like half the time I see this guy he's arguing about stupid shit.

[AJ_Radio]

1 hour ago, regularegg said:

 

Have you even played old games? Trying to pretend that new games aren't vastly improved in terms of gameplay quality indicates a humorous amount of ignorance. Games are continuously improving, as they will continue to do so. If a game came out now that played like the average game from a decade ago, it would be discarded like hot garbage. We've already seen how well games that play like they're from the 90s do, when not shielded by nostalgia goggles - Yooka Laylee and Mighty No. 9, for instance, bombed. Hard. 

 

Take any of the classic 90s shooters - Half-Life 1, Unreal Tournament 99, Quake 2, whatever, and then compare their blocky, uninituitive movement to the free-flowing parkour you see in games like Titanfall 2 and Dying Light. And then tell me that these games don't give a half shit about their gameplay. 

 

Also, neither microtransactions nor DLC bog down gameplay. They provide additional content to be paid for. At worst, they hurt your feelings of entitlement towards said content. 

 

And I’m going to ask you this. Did you bother to look at my trophy list?

 

I play a good variety of games. Old, new, retro, etc. I’ve already played plenty of games from 2015 - 2017. And I’ve also played games that were originally released in the 1980s - 1990s.

 

Just because it’s new doesn’t mean it’s good. And just because it’s old, doesn’t mean it’s bad. I still consider Super Mario 64 to be one of the pinnacle titles in 3-D platformers. It still plays great. But there are obviously games they don’t play so well, that may of been popular for their time. 

 

Microtransactions do boggle gameplay if you are forced to use them or they greatly reduce the time it takes to reach a certain level. Middle Earth: Shadow of War has done this. Star Wars Battlefront II has also done this to a much worse extent. It generated one of the biggest controversies we’ve seen in a long time. People were even questioning whether microtransactions could be seen as gambling and whether the people at ESRB should implicate gambling as a factor for the ratings. 

 

A lot of people gave a big stink about DLC because they argued that it should be in the base game. AAA games have gotten so big now that it’s literally impossible to release a full game that runs perfectly fine without the need for patches. These days you can expect most AAA games to have 5 - 10 patches, at least two DLC packs, and a hoard of additional content to pad the entire package. 

 

For $59.99 you are getting the base game. But for the full package you can pay as much as $100 or more due to the Season Pass which guarantees you access to digital DLC that adds onto the game. Far and beyond the old SNES/Genesis games I grew up playing where the only thing you needed to worry about was how good the games were going to play. 

 

There was crap back then too. But I personally think people are being too quick to put most of their concerns for the next console generation. I can definitely see that the PS4 today is a different beast from how it was in November 2013 when it launched. Tons of new additions among other changes Sony makes on an almost daily basis to their console. 

 

I can see the Playstation 5 having native 4K with realistic looking graphics for a good portion of it’s AAA game library. I’m just saying that bigger is not always better. That’s the mentality Activision and EA seem to have as of late, and lots of people are upset with them. 

 

I’m just speaking my mind. If you think I’m harassing, then just ignore what I’m saying and just carry on. 

 

1 hour ago, regularegg said:

I'm pretty sure like half the time I see this guy he's arguing about stupid shit.

 

You seem to go out of your way to find rants I post.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Spaz

[Darling Baphomet]

1 minute ago, Spaz said:

Just because it’s new doesn’t mean it’s good. And just because it’s old, doesn’t mean it’s bad. I still consider Super Mario 64 to be one of the pinnacle titles in 3-D platformers. It still plays great. But there are obviously games they don’t play so well, that may of been popular for their time. 

 

Nobody's saying that new games have to be good. But pretending that AAA games don't give a shit about gameplay implies that you're completely ignoring all of the progress made in terms of gameplay. For example, the emphasis on minimizing cheap deaths, which has led to ultra-hard but ultra-satisfying games like the Souls games.

 

7 minutes ago, Spaz said:

Microtransactions do boggle gameplay if you are forced to use them or greatly reduce the time it takes to reach a certain level. Middle Earth: Shadow of War has done this. Star Wars Battlefront II has also done this to a much worse extent. It generated one of the biggest controversies we’ve seen in a long time. People were even questioning whether microtransactions could be seen as gambling and whether the people at ESRB should implicate gambling as a factor for the ratings. 

 

Games wherein microtransactions affect more than cosmetics are exceedingly rare and met with harsh criticism whenever they do show up. And even then, pay to win / pay to progress mechanics aren't at all new. Developers have been trying to force microtransactions down players' throats for decades - just look at all the games like Maplestory. 

 

The difference is that only recently have we started to factor in the herd mentality that social media platforms (ie Reddit, Twitter) produce, which lead to massive outcries about sometimes extremely miniscule things.

 

Also, why the fuck are you trying to equate microtransactions to lootboxes? The Battlefront 2 controversy had nothing to do with "microtransactions", and nobody was accusing microtransactions of being gambling. The issue was loot boxes. Are you really this ignorant, or are you simply overstating things to make your flimsy argument sound sturdier?

 

14 minutes ago, Spaz said:

A lot of people gave a big stink about DLC because they argued that it should be in the base game. AAA games have gotten so big now that it’s literally impossible to release a full game that runs perfectly fine without the need for patches. These days you can expect most AAA games to have 5 - 10 patches, at least two DLC packs, and a hoard of additional content to pad the entire package. 

 

The size of the game has nothing to do with it. Developers are given a strict sell-by date, and in the time between when the game is getting ready to be sold, and when it's actually sold, the developers have already had at least a few months to work on patches and DLC. 

 

Also, the DLC is created to be sold as DLC. In very few circumstances is content actually cut out of the base game to be resold. If you don't like additional content, then fine, don't pay for it - but don't suggest the devs should be slaving away for free.

 

16 minutes ago, Spaz said:

For $59.99 you are getting the base game. But for the full package you can pay as much as $100 or more due to the Season Pass which guarantees you access to digital DLC that adds onto the game. Far and beyond the old SNES/Genesis games I grew up playing where the only thing you needed to worry about was how good the games were going to play. 

 

Funny thing - with inflation factored in, 100$ was about what you were paying for your old Nintendo games. If anything, games are not only cheaper than they ever were, but also much more immersive and in-depth than they've ever been. 

 

I mean, would you rather pay 100$ for a NES sidescroller, or 60$ for the Witcher 3?

 

21 minutes ago, Spaz said:

I can see the Playstation 5 having native 4K with realistic looking graphics for a good portion of it’s AAA game library. I’m just saying that bigger is not always better. That’s the mentality Activision and EA seem to have as of late, and lots of people are upset with them. 

 

Performance is always going to matter. Games are going to keep advancing in terms of graphics - they're not going to regress to PS3-tier visuals just from some more view distance. But once hardware does get to the point where realism is the standard, extra processing power is going to be shovelled directly towards gameplay. Higher frame rates, infinite view distance, more enemies on the screen at once - whatever.

[AJ_Radio]

3 hours ago, regularegg said:

Nobody's saying that new games have to be good. But pretending that AAA games don't give a shit about gameplay implies that you're completely ignoring all of the progress made in terms of gameplay. For example, the emphasis on minimizing cheap deaths, which has led to ultra-hard but ultra-satisfying games like the Souls games.

 

I don't think I said anywhere that AAA games don't give a shit about gameplay. I simply said that they have gotten so big now that it's literally impossible to just release a game on release day without having people report some sort of glitch or problem. AAA games have really scaled in depth since the mid - late PS3/360 life cycle.

 

There are still plenty of AAA games with cheap deaths. The Souls games minimized that because the developers were aware of what they were doing. Demon's Souls started an entire line of games that still maintains a giant following, and games like Lords of the Fallen were clearly inspired by it's formula.

 

3 hours ago, regularegg said:

Games wherein microtransactions affect more than cosmetics are exceedingly rare and met with harsh criticism whenever they do show up. And even then, pay to win / pay to progress mechanics aren't at all new. Developers have been trying to force microtransactions down players' throats for decades - just look at all the games like Maplestory. 

 

The difference is that only recently have we started to factor in the herd mentality that social media platforms (ie Reddit, Twitter) produce, which lead to massive outcries about sometimes extremely miniscule things.

 

Also, why the fuck are you trying to equate microtransactions to lootboxes? The Battlefront 2 controversy had nothing to do with "microtransactions", and nobody was accusing microtransactions of being gambling. The issue was loot boxes. Are you really this ignorant, or are you simply overstating things to make your flimsy argument sound sturdier?

 

This is still true, but they have become more common place. In the early PS3/360 days you barely heard of anything regarding microtransactions or DLC because well, you mostly got the game and that was it. Today you can expect AAA games to have some sort of DLC or microtransaction.

 

Microtransactions became popular with the rise of smartphone games. EA and Activision started picking up on those microtransactions because they knew people were going to buy into them. There are plenty of cases where people have spent absurd amounts of money in mobile games, but I will never settle with pay to win.

 

Runescape started shoving microtransactions on people in around 2010 - 2011. I was an avid player of that game for several years, then when microtransactions hit the scene to where anybody could buy experience lamps if they were lucky, I decided to quit.

 

But you saying microtransactions being around for decades is simply not true. I can't think of any game from the 1980s, 1990s or even the early - mid 2000s that had microtransactions.

 

I lump microtransactions with lootboxes because to me, you are paying for both in-game. Lootboxes to me are just a different form of microtransaction where you are deliberately paying to try to get something. Maybe other peoples perspective of lootboxes is different and thus they have to be completely separate. Lootboxes have come around because microtransactions have proven time and time again that they are popular.

 

In Free to Play games there are plenty of microtransactions and lootboxes. I just don't want them in games I already paid full price for to where people can just use them to make the game go by quicker. EA is already heading in that direction and I couldn't be more disappointed and upset with them.

 

3 hours ago, regularegg said:

The size of the game has nothing to do with it. Developers are given a strict sell-by date, and in the time between when the game is getting ready to be sold, and when it's actually sold, the developers have already had at least a few months to work on patches and DLC. 

 

Also, the DLC is created to be sold as DLC. In very few circumstances is content actually cut out of the base game to be resold. If you don't like additional content, then fine, don't pay for it - but don't suggest the devs should be slaving away for free.

 

The people calling the shots and the publishers aren't always fair. There are plenty of examples where developers were forced to make cuts and hurry up on a game that was rushed in order to meet a certain time period. I see a lot of publishers caring mostly for the sales.

 

These days most of these modern AAA games have hundreds if not thousands of people behind them. A good majority of them aren't directly involved with the games in any way but they are listed in the credits because they are with the publishing companies. There are the developers and then there are the graphical artists, the website owners, the managers, etc etc. Mainstream gaming is no longer just a few talented developers doing their best to make a game in someone's garage. Entire corporations fund these games and they are generally the ones who give the strict sell-by date to the developers. The developers don't have as much power as one might think. Sure they make the games, but there is much more to it than that.

 

Maxis Studios made The Sims. But do you think EA, who published the game, had little to do with it? They were in charge of the production, like they were over Westwood Studios, Bullfrog Studios, and several other companies they ended up gobbling up. It's a shame, because a lot of talented people worked in those studios.

 

I simply said that a lot of people complained about DLC because they have to pay for it. A lot of people still don't bother with DLC, which is understandable because you have to pay more to have content in a game you already paid for. I generally pay for DLC since I consider myself a bit of a completionist, but I understand why a lot of people outright skip DLC.

 

3 hours ago, regularegg said:

Funny thing - with inflation factored in, 100$ was about what you were paying for your old Nintendo games. If anything, games are not only cheaper than they ever were, but also much more immersive and in-depth than they've ever been. 

 

I mean, would you rather pay 100$ for a NES sidescroller, or 60$ for the Witcher 3?

 

Comparing a NES sidescroller from the late 1980s - early 1990s to The Witcher 3 is asinine.

 

The $60 standard wasn't put in place. People accepted games like Super Mario Bros 3 and Megaman 2 for what they were. Paying $100 for a NES sidescroller was more than acceptable.

 

People can't vision anything like that today because we have been cuddled with numerous Flash Sales, PS Plus offerings and a plethora of $1 - 4 games like My Name is Mayo and Orc Slayer.

 

This is like me saying to you, "Would you rather pay this much for an old black and white television set, or this much for a 2018 Ultra 4K TV for your living room?"

 

Obviously I would go and fucking pay for the Ultra 4K TV. You're comparing one type of game to The Witcher 3 that are decades apart from each other, so paying $100 for a game may have been seen as good. The technology wasn't there, and gaming was mostly seen as a niche hobby. Certainly not like today.

 

3 hours ago, regularegg said:

Performance is always going to matter. Games are going to keep advancing in terms of graphics - they're not going to regress to PS3-tier visuals just from some more view distance. But once hardware does get to the point where realism is the standard, extra processing power is going to be shovelled directly towards gameplay. Higher frame rates, infinite view distance, more enemies on the screen at once - whatever.

 

You have to ask whether gaming will reach a plateau. We have already seen some pretty impressive visuals with Horizon Zero Dawn and this year's God of War will expand on that even further.

 

Even more intriguing is Hideo Kojima's upcoming game which looks almost life like.

 

But photorealistic graphics aren't what got me into gaming.

 

As much as everybody likes to brag how powerful games have gotten to be and how godly the new consoles are, we have to stop and think on how long that is going to continue.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Spaz

[Dr_Shaneman]

On 3/16/2018 at 4:54 AM, GravityQueeen said:

I would only ask Sony to make a silent console! Please? 

Silent fans need to be invented first.

[Zenpai]

[Edit: never mind, post became irrelevant]

Edited March 20, 2018 by jrdemr