I think you were down voted by suggesting that your own personal experience is representative of all PlayStation owners.
I've waited patiently and now Spiderman will be on Steam.
Id say go PC and join us.
The best part is how these games all run great in Linux, so Microsoft doesn’t get your money.
Microsoft owns the game company. So unless you are pirating it....
Maybe it's the fact that Sony has a huge history of creating exclusives for its console, that people now don't give a fuck that Sony won't get a game. That's what it gets for crying wolf so long.
Sony has a twenty-plus year track record of buying studios and talent to produce IP and growing them. Microsoft buys studios for existing IP and doesn’t improve it. Their “exclusive” strategies are very different.
Microsoft passed on the Spider-Man IP luckily for everyone. They would have fucked it up.
I disagree with the "doesn't improve" statement. Starfield has launched in a much better state than most Bethesda Studios games due to the extra development time MS money gave them. Also Pentiment, a game Sawyer said he wouldn't have been able to do without MS support for Obsidian.
It's funny that the quality criteria for a Bethesda game is "not as buggy and unfinished as previous games". Which still means plenty of bugs, of course.
Well yea, it makes sense that you would compare a new game with previous games from the same studio in the context of a discussion asking "did the owner/publisher help improve the productions of said studio ?"
I've had one bug in Starfield so far, my right thumbstick stopped working. 😂 I had to restart the game
The size of the games they make with the amount of variables, I can understand how some stuff gets through QA. I'm not just talking about bugs though, stuff like touching up the graphics in the last year, getting ID to help tighten the gunplay, etc.
That’s not what I meant by not improving it. Take any Studio that Sony has purchased and compare the quality of their work before to after, and then ten years after. I’m not talking about bugs, I’m talking about visual fidelity, narrative, technological advancement, etc. Uncharted, Last of Us, God of War, Horizon, Spider-Man, Ratchet and Clank. Sony also gives these devs the freedom to stop making their successful IPs and move on to something else.
Sony has a twenty-plus year track record of buying studios and talent to produce IP and growing them.
Lol Sony propaganda right here.
The Elder Scrolls VI will skip PS5 and isn’t coming until at least 2026
So, it might be coming to PS6?
PS6, PS7 and maybe PS8.
The chart in the article doesn’t specify a generation, so I seriously doubt it’ll come out on Playstation at all if plans don’t change
No, it’s saying it won’t release (on Xbox and pc) until at least 2026
Honestly, the best platform to play Bethesda games is PC anyway. What makes Bethesda special is their embracing of modding, and PC being an open platform allows for much, much more in that respect. IIRC, on Playstation one couldn't even use custom assets in mods, and console makers will never allow script extenders, .NET frameworks and ENB series that allow for amazing stuff on PC.
I can't imagine playing any Bethesda game without mods.
They don't just make the game playable. They make them go from 8 to a perfect 10.
Sure, but I think most people would just like to play the game on the system they already have.
Not releasing on PlayStation solely because Bethesda is owned by Microsoft, and MS want to sell more Xboxs, is anti consumer.
Not releasing on PlayStation solely because Bethesda is owned by Microsoft, and MS want to sell more Xboxs, is anti consumer.
It's less that Microsoft wants to sell more Xboxes and more that they want to sell more Game Pass subscriptions. That's their primary model at this point. They even said a couple of years ago that their first-party games will be released on any platforms that support Game Pass. Basically, they were saying if Sony allowed Game Pass on PlayStation, Microsoft would release their first party games on PlayStation.
I first thought that this must be some illegal form of abuse of market power, but then I realised that consoles are purposefully made to run only the software specifically made for them. So they are kinda digging their own grave.
consoles are purposefully made to run only the software specifically made for them.
xbox and PS are basically mini PCs that can run the same stuff with relatively minimal tweaking. exclusive games of both platforms are pure anti-consumer bullshit.
Maybe Valve should take another crack at the console market.
Yeah it really is, I jump on protondb and read like 2-3 reviews to make sure the performance is adequate and there's no major game breaking bugs and it's fine.
Isn't this it? https://store.steampowered.com/...
I wonder how much sense that would actually make for them. All the major console makers subsidize their products through game sales and online subscriptions. Valve already does the former, but that’s because they’re a game marketplace and it’s how they make money to begin with. I’m not sure what a steam subscription service (that’s not a game pass) would look like, since Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo offer online play and cloud saves for the cost of a subscription, whereas Valve makes those available for free.
Maybe Valve should take another crack at the console market.
I mean, you can just plug a PC into your television. Flip on Steam's Big Picture Mode. It's pretty similar, just that you don't have to buy your hardware from Valve.
I don't think the point was ever to have to buy the hardware from valve, or that's not how I saw it anyway. They wanted other manufacturers in on the steam machines, I think there were even units produced. The idea (aside from more steam sales) was to standardise PCs around specific performance levels so developers could target them without the faff of having to know how a 12900K stacks up against a Ryzen 7 7800X3D or a 13700 with a 3080, 4070Ti or a 7800XTXxXTTX.
This game is certified steam medium tier, I have a steam high tier machine, I will get xyz performance.
So long as it's a standardisation process I think it's fine. Most are using prebuilt anyway so having a few standard levels SIs certify to makes it more consoley and anyone who's rolling their own can use it as a guide or not and it's exactly the same as the status quo.
Gabe is already the wealthiest in the video game industry. He’s good.
Buying companies to make them exclusive is anti-consumer. Starting first party studios to facilitate unique games being made on your platform is not anti-consumer. If anything, it should create competition for high quality exclusives by investing in unique game designers. When Microsoft just buys Rare, Mojang, Activision, Blizzard, King, Bethesda, Arkane, Alpha Dog, etc, it's not to create competition.
nope, both are anti consumer. If you want to make unique games, great. No need to restrict them only to your platform.
all it does is make people buy redundant hardware which obviously costs more money but also creates more e-waste.
also without exclusive games, consoles would have to compete on the actual hardware, price, etc rather than which games you want to play.
I don't think it's a fair comparison. I've never had a PC that has worked for 7 years without replacing significant parts. I've only had 5 PlayStations total since I was 5. I've had at least twenty computers during the same time frame.
There's investment made by Sony for games on their hardware. If the hardware were bad, developers wouldn't use it.
I work for a start up, and I loved getting the opportunity to build a tech platform while not having to build up the business from the ground up. I can't do human resources, marketing, sales, yaddah yaddah. I don't have any way of just getting my product into retail. Two years in, and we're about to land a $125M contact. It's green energy, so I feel like I'm saving the world.
Starting first party studios to facilitate unique games being made on your platform is not anti-consumer
I mean, it kinda is. The end result is the same: a product that can only be used in a closed ecosystem.
That's how anti-consumerism works. Corporations abuse their power to force consumers into buying more shit for no reason, and feel good while doing it.
That’s not even including the fact that companies pay extra to keep a game on a specific console with console exclusives.
When Oblivon was an Xbox exclusive, Sony turned to Fromsoft to create an RPG for Playstation to compete with ES4.
The whole project tanked, and from the ashes we go Demon's Souls. A whole new genre of gaming was born, and we're all better off for it.
Hopefully something similar will happen this gen.
I have always been a huge fan of Bethesda games, well, fallout and elder scrolls at least. I would love to play ES6.
That said, there is no way I'm but another game system just for a handful of games.
Honestly, considering that Skyrim has been ported to every single device w a processor in it, I'd be very surprised if we don't see a PS5 release of Starfield next xmass season. That is just way too much money to be left on the table.
Don't accept planned obsolescence.
There are probably interesting conversations to be had on it, and I think you've found one of the ones that aren't!
This isn't a case of planned obsolescence...The PS5 is 3 years old now and was designed to be as powerful as it could be while still hitting the price point. This game won't come out for another 3 years.
6 years is a long time and I really don't expect console manufacturers to plan their hardware for around it. They have price points to hit and consoles would cost twice as much
Am i missing something, I'm pretty sure PS3 and PS4 have same lifespan about 7 years, from release to next version release.
Half of new games also still released on PS4. Lies of P is the latest example. It's almost 10 years, I don't think 10 years old PC can still play that
It's a different thing IMO, futzing around with PC settings is a pain to a lot of people, which is where consoles lie. Also your 6 year old PC cost twice what your console did. It's not a like for like comparison.
Yeah your high end PC from 6 years ago will still run new games, but will your mid-tier laptop from 6 years ago?
I don't think you can fairly compare the two that way because PCs aren't built for mass market affordability.
The console wars are largely an outdated concept, and I contend that ever-increasing hardware specs for gaming isn't necessarily an evergreen paradigm.
I'm happy with my Switch, PS4, various gaming PCs and emulators, and even a PS2 emulator on my phone. I have more games than I will ever have time for. I buy new games too, but only if I can actually own them. Best value of ownership is Switch cartridges, but discs are fine too. The worst format that I am happy to pay for is GOG.com copies without DRM.
They should release it on PS3 then?
Please note that that this is a days-old comment where other people have said the same sort of things already.
I figure we all had to know this was coming.
Actually, Morrowind was an Xbox exclusive, and Oblivion was a launch game and since PS3 released a year later, it became a 360 exclusive. Bethesda also made Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo PS5 exclusive before being bought by Microsoft. So yeah, Bethesda has done such stuff in the past.
Oblivion came out almost a year after launch though
True. It was supposed to be a launch title but got delayed
That's great! I said that because PS3 didn't launch simultaneously, by effect Oblivion became an exclusive.
just be greatful there is a game
It's a major historically cross platform franchise, for one thing.
The Activision Blizzard merger and the UK's serious reservations about Microsoft's monopoly makes this news even more important.
Should this game be restricted to Microsoft platforms and not include the Sony platform , it would show that they are lying about being well intentioned and non monopolistic.
I thought the UK's reservations were more over the cloud streaming market than console exclusivity. It's hard to make a stink about market share when this acquisition will only make them #3 in total size.
But the reason I ask why this is "news" is because this little fact has been known for quite a while now.
I'm also a bit fuzzy on whether I would categorize The Elder Scrolls as a "historically cross-platform franchise" when most of it's numbered entries are not on anything other than PC or Xbox. Though to me these have always been PC games. Console versions of anything other than Skyrim felt like an afterthought.
Both Morrowind and Oblivion were released as Xbox exclusives, so it's definitely not a "major historically cross plattform franchise". Only Skyrim was released for both (though Oblivion did get ported to PS later).
Fallout is another matter though, since they've been released for both since Fallout 3.
It’s a major historically cross platform franchise, for one thing.
Also, there aren't a whole lot of game developers that do Bethesda-style games.
I haven't played any Mario games in a long time, and I don't know what they look like after consoles went 3d. But go back some decades, and they were side-scrolling platform games. There were lots of other side-scrolling platformers. The Mario series was a particularly good series, but it had lots of competition.
Well, there's that The Outer Worlds game that was billed as being kind of like Fallout. I was kind of disappointed with it, because some of what I'd call its weak points were really part of what make Bethesda's games for me. Bethesda has interesting perks that really alter gameplay, and The Outer Worlds has pretty bland perks that slightly bump stats. The Outer Worlds is, strictly-speaking, open-world, but there's no reason to really retrace steps, so it functionally feels a lot more linear. Bethesda focuses on you wandering around the world and just stumbling across interesting things, and The Outer Worlds has little to stumble across other than in cities. Bethesda has interesting weapons that operate significantly-differently, and The Outer Worlds has a few weapon classes that all operate in about the same way, including uniques, aside from several "science weapons".
However, it did get a good Metacritic score, so I expect that there were people who liked it. It was also pretty bug-free. And it is kind of in the same vein, but just didn't have what made me really enjoy Fallout titles.
More-broadly-speaking, I guess that you could call any open-world games a little like Bethesda's stuff. The Grand Theft Auto series, Saboteur, probably the Assassin's Creed series (though I've barely ever played those), the Mafia series.
EDIT: Hmm. Fallout: New Vegas and The Outer Worlds were both done by Obsidian, and Microsoft apparently acquired them as well five years back and rolled them into Xbox Game Studios, so from a standpoint of people on other platforms (well, I'm on Linux, but can run the Windows releases via compatibility software), I can imagine that The Outer Worlds doesn't make things less frustrating, even if one does really like it.
They're going to fuck it up anyway
And it's on Game Pass. In my friend group, 80% of us are playing it via Game Pass rather than on Steam. Obviously that's anecdotal, and other groups of people won't have any Game Pass subscribers among them, but I have to imagine the number of Game Pass players of Starfield is pretty damn high.
Looking at the Steam charts for Redfall is quite something. What a dumster-fire inside a train wreck.
Ok, but that's an Arkane Austin game who have nothing to do with Bethesda Studios, they just happen to be owned by Zenimax/Bethesda Softworks.
Starfield is a better comparison and while it has its detractors, sales and player number wise it's doing great.
It's Microsofts problem. Greedy fucking asshats bought Zenimax and therefore Bethesda and then said "Xbox exclusive only from now on." (Xbox and PC can be treated as the same for Microsoft)
I have a PC, but I still can't fucking stand this exclusive bullshit just to force people to buy their shit consoles. I loathe consoles for what they do to the potential games quality... so many sacrifices have to be made for shit hardware. :/
That's fine. It's still coming to PC. The threat of Sony making everything exclusive was too real
They take so long between entries that there'll be adults with a PS5 who don't even know what The Elder Scrolls is, let alone get excited for it.
We've had The Witcher 3. We've had Baldur's Gate 3. Another clunky Bethesda "RPG" isn't going to get the juices flowing like it did... fucking hell, 12 years ago.
Oh no, not another big empty I can't play.
I was looking forward to playing a game set in a gigantic, beautiful world where I have to spend hundreds of hours in identical dungeons killing draugr. /s
a lot of ps5 are will be traded in for an xbone the day that comes out lmao
As a PS5 owner... Bethesda games are better on a desktop than a console anyways. It might as well be PC only for all I care lol.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
I have a little bit of schadenfreude at the PS fan club moaning about exclusives, since their whole system is built around exclusives.
But in the end the point stands, exclusives (from anyone) are bad for consumers.
save