That's an interesting take on the bit that I've put in bold (IMHO), from who's perspective are they not drastically different?lol no? I've worked on a game for Xbox and PC and I can assure you it's the same shit with PS4 and PS5 (as ManaByte says its all x86 likely in C++ or C# for 99% of games) and you basically only have a different #ifdef for the target platform to load/use certain APIs...
You think a game built in UE4 or Unity are drastically different "coding methods" or products? You just package it for the target platform and that's basically it.
Its really freaking obvious. People are conflating two different things.I'm confused where your issue is. No where in the article is it implied the PS5 cannot run PS4 games without an extra fee.
People who buy “Stardew Valley” for their iPhone X don’t have to repurchase another “iPhone 12” version of the game when upgrading to an iPhone 12. You just get the same game on a different device. That’s the kind of cross-gen capability Xbox is shooting for
Contrast all of the above with the upgrade path on Xbox’s latest series of consoles: Simply hit the “update” option of the game you already own, and, presto, you have the next-gen, Xbox Series X or Series S version of the game via the Microsoft-coined “Smart Delivery” system. The option isn’t available for every game on the Xbox platforms, but many of the biggest multiplatform titles offer free upgrade paths on Xbox, as do all of Microsoft’s exclusives.
Didn't know this.
Guess it doesn't 'just work'.
Yep but they aren't still trying to fully cash in AGAIN. They are merely just trying to fully cash in.They're still trying to fully cash in again on many of the WiiU titles. Many of the games that have been ported forward sold in the multi-millions on WiiU. Although the WiiU hardware didn't do all of that well the attach rates for many first party games were still really high. Nintendo could have let the millions of people who bought a digital version of a WiiU game play the ported version on Switch but Nintendo chose to not allow that and instead had people pay again.
This is EXACTLY how Sony does it though....
It's not the same case, a game developed on PC doesn't need to be recompiled or updated if you get a new graphics card/cpu, it's the windows platform. PS4 and PS5 are different platforms, of course that if people have to go and retool and create a native PS5 version of the product, that that work has to be paid for.
I honestly don't understand the furore. I get it from shills like @DarkMage619 , who I hope gets paid for his nonsense, but not from a lot of other posters, there's been a big influx of Xbox fanboys lately, which make this place less pleasant to be around.
If they're making people who already bought the game buy it again instead of letting them play the copy they already bought then they are looking to cash in again. Whether it's "fully" or not is just semantics, really. The bottom line is they're making people rebuy something they already bought if they want to play it on the new console.Yep but they aren't still trying to fully cash in AGAIN. They are merely just trying to fully cash in.
You might think MK8 sold great on the Wii U with ~8.5 million copies sold but NIntendo doesn't think that because they know they sold 20-30 million copies of MK on past systems. They also know the game was well received on the Wii U.
That's why we saw a rerelease. Without the relatively low sales but otherwise good reception it wouldn't have happened. That high attach rate on a low install base led to rereleases. It also helps that the Switch is the first time MK8 and other Wii U games are playable on a true handheld and in many cases they include the DLC with the Switch version.
I've seen 3rd party games released on one system and then, a few years later, ported to other systems because the publishers feels they left sales on the table. I guess usually that is part of being an exclusive. But the reasons for later porting to other systems is still to fully realize the game's potential sales.
Also have seen plenty of full priced X1/Ps4 ports to the Switch. I don't think the leap from Wii U to Switch was really any easier than X1/PS4 to Switch. Did those developers offer any discount of any kind to owners of the game on the X1 or PS4?
Yes it would have been nice to get some discount on Switch versions of a game that you bought digitally on the Wii U. I don't think Nintendo is setup to do that and I think just made the call to not to do the work to make that happen. They aren't against doing nice things for their customers. CAse in point, some of the Wii U games ported to the Switch were given away for free on the Wii U as rewards to (iirc) early Wii U adopters. I received at least 4 $50 digital Wii U games for free including Pikmin 3 and Donkey Kong. Also got a bunch of VC games for free.
No that's called backwards compatibility, you're still playing the same game you paid for, nothing has been alteredIn the iphone example, is the same game sold for more if you have the iphone 12?
DLSS and RT is a new thing lately for PC gaming. When a dev does an update giving PC gamers new graphics settings, do they charge PC gamers an extra $10 for the download?No that's called backwards compatibility, you're still playing the same game you paid for, nothing has been altered
If it's better on that hardware it's because it was always capable of being played at the spec.
But what people are comparing it to is like the free Next-Gen BC updates.
But they're applying that free privilege to a complete recode of a game for a new platform.
Something that requires the development team going back into development and rebuilding the game for a different system.
And obviously they need to be paid for that.
Well in reality they do, some people think they should do it for free
You know the saying
"give them an inch, and they'll take a mile"
Well said.Doesn't really mean much when they're both raking in record profits and fighting it out for number 1 selling console does it?
Consumers have shown that they'll make excuses for their favourite plastic toy company not doing things it should or charging for things it shouldn't, and that's all that matters unfortunately. Why would Sony or Nintendo change to follow the software industry when they make far more money doing what they do? They'd be stupid to. They're not your friends, they're for profit companies.
Unbelievably I agree.Doesn't really mean much when they're both raking in record profits and fighting it out for number 1 selling console does it?
Consumers have shown that they'll make excuses for their favourite plastic toy company not doing things it should or charging for things it shouldn't, and that's all that matters unfortunately. Why would Sony or Nintendo change to follow the software industry when they make far more money doing what they do? They'd be stupid to. They're not your friends, they're for profit companies.
Pricing their games higher, after so many years were they stayed the same
And that's the thing. It's easy to see value when you aren't buying games. On the same coin you see less value in the individual games because for that $15/m you have access to a buffet of sorts.After recently getting a deal on PS NOW and signing up for a year I understand why Sony would not want to put their 150 Million dollar budget games on a service. Their games are quality, so its going to be up to the audience to decide if its worth $70 on launch or they wait for a sale?
The only thing Microsoft has been able to show is that people see value in gamepass. Until they show a breakdown of how they gauge success's on gamepass with game interactivity or game time played or metrics they use right now all we have is subscriber numbers. ANd they have not updated in a while, so either they are waiting to hit a specific number or they have plateaued.
Not to mention the marketing behind it. "We have a limited number of copies!" Triggering that FOMO lolI think Nintendo is way worse than Sony with their $10 upgrade fee. That compilation of ROMS called Super Mario 3D All Stars that Nintendo charged full price for was the most blatant cash grab in the history of video gaming.
That's because of sony's price structure. They have also upped license fees, so selling a PS5 game is more expensive because of that. But with the "free upgrade" they sell you the PS4 game (less fees) and also give you the PS5 game "for free" (no fees).In the iphone example, is the same game sold for more if you have the iphone 12?
I don't like the 2 tier pricing, but logic is simple, if the ps5 version costs 10 bucks more, but they offer a free upgrade, it undermines the entire price structure. Why buy the ps5 version at all when you can get it 10 bucks cheaper. If the games cost the same, charging would be insane, but with the 2 tier price it only makes sense.
Cerny already said during the PS5 presentation that the PS4 logic on the chip. There's no dropping PS4 compatability. It's not separate hardware like how the PS2/OG PS3 BC worked.Both things have advantages and disadvantages.
E.g. it would be no problem for MS to introduce new hardware (from a compatibility perspective) while sony than (with the next gen) might just drop PS4 compatibility.
I am with you, I don't think they will drop BC support.Cerny already said during the PS5 presentation that the PS4 logic on the chip. There's no dropping PS4 compatability. It's not separate hardware like how the PS2/OG PS3 BC worked.
Is everyone going to be OK spending $80 on PS6 titles? If not, you have to nip this in the bud now.
That's the "issue" currently that game development is still based on last gen hardware which is why you keep seeing the "looks like an upscaled PS4/XB1 game" narrative. Engines need to be updated and all that jazz. So yeah I agree with you and based on previous gens years 2-3 are where it gets interesting.I am with you, I don't think they will drop BC support.
I think that you will start seeing some bigger differences in the uplifts between the ps4 and ps6 and xbox one and the xbox series x (2023/4). I don't know if anyone cares though.
Support in hardware is one thing. But it is another thing to support the APIs/SDKs. E.g. PS4 games use specific libraries to access playstation network. Those must be maintained (bugfixes, security, ...). And at some point they might even use a whole other infrastructure with a new api. So at some point they will drop the support because they don't want to maintain different libraries for different APIs. Backwardscompatibility can get really tricky over time, especially in a fast changing business (cloud-services).Cerny already said during the PS5 presentation that the PS4 logic on the chip. There's no dropping PS4 compatability. It's not separate hardware like how the PS2/OG PS3 BC worked.
I was there paying it. The prices were set in a time we're cartridges had to be accounted for which ate into half of the profits. The market is also 3 times as big today as it was in the past. I have no sympathy for the trials and tribulations of Sony/activivision/EA and their profit margins.Pray silence for all those in the 80s and 90s who paid $50 -$60 or the equivalent of $100+ today for each videogame....those were hard and unforgiving times.
Is everyone going to be OK spending $80 on PS6 titles? If not, you have to nip this in the bud now.
On PC it's the same copy of the game, requiring nothing from the developers.
This is a PS4 SKU of a game, completely different coding method and product than the PS5 version. Your argument doesn't make sense.
Doesn't really mean much when they're both raking in record profits and fighting it out for number 1 selling console does it?
This is the single most baffling pic I've seen in this site
That’s one of the main issues…covid has created a perfect storm of need for electronics and entertainment to keep people excited and if we were in normal times people would probably stand back and look and say …hey…..this is pretty shitty of a company I supported for so longI mean, the market has shown they’re willing to bite since they keep doing it
the game is still in development for both platforms. Its really not
Different "coding method"? Uh...
Come on. It's all the exact same code with some graphics sliders moved and maybe a less compressed texture pack. In other words, taking what Smart Delivery does automatically and packaging it as a specific version.
If you played Witcher 3 on a 1060 in your bedroom and a 2060 in your living room, and manually set different graphics profiles for both, with a different set of OS tweaks and settings, you've just done all a dev would need to do to make a Smart Delivery profile or a PS5 version of a game. No one is going to bother re-coding anything, in fact the platforms were designed so you don't have to, with the same architecture, and 100% native BC for PS4.
What you said about different coding methods would be 100% right if we were talking about porting PS3 and 360 games to each other. These days if you made a PS4 game, you could click an option to export it as an Xbox One version instead lol.
Most actual work is done by taking an older game and updating its assets to modern standards (it was too much work to be done for Sonic Colors Ultimate to be good) or taking a high fidelity game and stripping it down to somehow work on something weaker (Switch). For the same game played on good to great hardware on x86, no actual work is done. It's just a bunch of optimized settings and sliders.
You're missing the point that Sony has already told us they make the games as PS4 games, then add things to the PS5 versions. But structurally and tech-wise, they are PS4 games through and through.
All in all it doesn't matter: the industry is going to die with those practices for a simple reason: there will always be more offer than demand.
I'm having trouble finding someone who has a PS5 when almost everybody either had a PS4, more rarely a XBO, or more recently a switch. The few who do have a PS5 or a Switch are not using it anymore, both because there aren't many new games worth it but also because it's way too fucking expensive to invest in secondary products.
Yet whether they have a PC, a Mac or a mobile they're regularly playing video games, lots of them "hacking" them. So yes prices and practices do matter, and if they want to continue resting on the fewer and fewer people who will rack-in 70€ for an MLB or multiplatform FPS game, they'll end-up losing period.
That’s one of the main issues…covid has created a perfect storm of need for electronics and entertainment to keep people excited and if we were in normal times people would probably stand back and look and say …hey…..this is pretty shitty of a company I supported for so long
But instead the hype and need for consoles which probably should of been released 1 year later is at fever pitch
Support in hardware is one thing. But it is another thing to support the APIs/SDKs. E.g. PS4 games use specific libraries to access playstation network. Those must be maintained (bugfixes, security, ...). And at some point they might even use a whole other infrastructure with a new api. So at some point they will drop the support because they don't want to maintain different libraries for different APIs. Backwardscompatibility can get really tricky over time, especially in a fast changing business (cloud-services).
Rather, they crafted their policy to offset the lack of enthusiasm for their first party games compared to their competition / make gamepass more enticing imo.
So what if they mention it or not? Doesn't change my view, which is that they are technically correct that Sony / Nintendo are approaching things differently, but only because they have never needed to change course.Again, the article literally never mentions GamePass once. If anything he's comparing it more to how things work with PC/Mobile which is a much bigger software market than consoles.