Billbill-kun: Horizon Lego is day 1 on PC and PS5

We are talking about two corporations engaging in a joint venture. Seems pretty obvious to me that they had to come to an agreement on many aspects of this thing, including what platforms would be supported. So Lego isn't telling Sony where to put Sony owned IP anymore than Sony is telling Lego where to put Lego IP. I think any collaboration like this is going to require some compromises.
Thats my only point is if Sony wanted to stop this from coming to PC they could have and no one here remotely has any clue if Sony wanted it on PC or not so thats not a debate I will entertain (Not by you btw)

My next question is can at least you think of another Sony IP like this that came to PC day one before this one?

I mean even you said early on this was a step in the right direction
 
Will this thread have more posts than concurrent Steam players on launch day?

3kbbh7.jpg
Looks like a photo of the average Horizon fan alright. Funny thing is, he's actually playing the PS5 version in that photo.
 
Last edited:
The inevitable sequel will be most interesting, Lego Forza Horizon. Then we will have to all come to an agreement that Microsoft is calling all the shots.
 
Sony could take on MS in court, they could form a nearly unshakable monopoly in consoles, but they couldn't out negotiate Lego. Practically helpless, crying, they reluctantly agreed to put it on PC only because Lego insisted. Let this be a lesson to everyone.

The inevitable sequel will be most interesting, Lego Forza Horizon. Then we will have to all come to an agreement that Microsoft is calling all the shots.
We already got that actually. It too also is on PC ....

chipmunk-dramatic.gif
 
Not competing the two on hypothetical dollar amount. Only comparing the two based on the pure fact that SIE is publishing the game exclusively on their console and PC. And the publisher decides what platforms the game goes on.



Ok. You can tell them that over social media when they start to market it as their game.
Whatever they do it's not their game.
 
Sony could take on MS in court, they could form a nearly unshakable monopoly in consoles, but they couldn't out negotiate Lego. Practically helpless, crying, they reluctantly agreed to put it on PC only because Lego insisted. Let this be a lesson to everyone.


We already got that actually. It too also is on PC ....

chipmunk-dramatic.gif

Ofc Lego is known to just want pc versions instead of full multiplatform. They have 10 times better ninja's than nintendo. No chance for sony but to do day one something they would have done anyway.


I actually think sony leaked this on purpose so look if there is a storm coming their way and if people accept it they will take the next step to all games day one.
 
Ofc Lego is known to just want pc versions instead of full multiplatform. They have 10 times better ninja's than nintendo. No chance for sony but to do day one something they would have done anyway.


I actually think sony leaked this on purpose so look if there is a storm coming their way and if people accept it they will take the next step to all games day one.
It's just crazy that it was Lego that brought down the strongest console of them all. To think, they spent all this time trying to prepare themselves to take on MS only to watch it all fall apart under the whims of those plastic bricks. I'm waiting for the Schreir inside info on this monumental negotiation.
 
It's just crazy that it was Lego that brought down the strongest console of them all. To think, they spent all this time trying to prepare themselves to take on MS only to watch it all fall apart under the whims of those plastic bricks. I'm waiting for the Schreir inside info on this monumental negotiation.

Did you ever step on a Lego brick with bare foot. It's the true endgame to have!
 
Thats my only point is if Sony wanted to stop this from coming to PC they could have and no one here remotely has any clue if Sony wanted it on PC or not so thats not a debate I will entertain (Not by you btw)

My next question is can at least you think of another Sony IP like this that came to PC day one before this one?

I mean even you said early on this was a step in the right direction

No idea if there was any push back on what platforms would be supported either way. Just no way to know.

I think this is the first Sony-Lego collaboration ever. So no....there has never been anything like this that I'm aware of. But yeah, I think it is a step in the right direction as it involves Sony IP even if it is just a Lego game. Will it go anywhere beyond Lego stuff? No idea. Like I said before, when I've argued in favor of Sony first party games day one on PC (which I have many many times) this was not what I was talking about.
 
You you have an inability to decipher bold lettering?

Are you a bot?
That's not funny.

Calling a human a bot can be seen as derogatory or insulting. Here's why it's considered bad:

1. Dehumanizing: Referring to a person as a bot implies that they lack emotions, intelligence, or individuality. It reduces their identity to that of a machine, disregarding their unique qualities and contributions.

2. Disrespectful: Calling someone a bot can be seen as disrespectful and dismissive. It implies that their thoughts, opinions, or actions are automated or insignificant.

3. Demeaning: Using the term "bot" to describe a person can be demeaning, as it suggests that they are not capable of independent thinking or decision-making. It undermines their abilities and undermines their worth.

4. Misrepresentation: Labeling someone as a bot can lead to misunderstandings or confusion. It may create false assumptions about their role, expertise, or intentions, which can hinder effective communication and collaboration.

5. Negative impact: Being called a bot can have a negative impact on a person's self-esteem and morale. It can make them feel devalued, unappreciated, or excluded from meaningful interactions.

It's important to treat others with respect and recognize their humanity. Using appropriate and inclusive language fosters a positive and respectful environment for communication and collaboration.
 
That's not funny.

Calling a human a bot can be seen as derogatory or insulting. Here's why it's considered bad:

1. Dehumanizing: Referring to a person as a bot implies that they lack emotions, intelligence, or individuality. It reduces their identity to that of a machine, disregarding their unique qualities and contributions.

2. Disrespectful: Calling someone a bot can be seen as disrespectful and dismissive. It implies that their thoughts, opinions, or actions are automated or insignificant.

3. Demeaning: Using the term "bot" to describe a person can be demeaning, as it suggests that they are not capable of independent thinking or decision-making. It undermines their abilities and undermines their worth.

4. Misrepresentation: Labeling someone as a bot can lead to misunderstandings or confusion. It may create false assumptions about their role, expertise, or intentions, which can hinder effective communication and collaboration.

5. Negative impact: Being called a bot can have a negative impact on a person's self-esteem and morale. It can make them feel devalued, unappreciated, or excluded from meaningful interactions.

It's important to treat others with respect and recognize their humanity. Using appropriate and inclusive language fosters a positive and respectful environment for communication and collaboration.

It's hilarious to see someone argue that calling a human a bot is inherently bad. Here's why that perspective is misguided:

1. Hyperbole and Humor: Satire often relies on exaggeration to make a point. Calling someone a bot can be a playful way to suggest they are overly logical, repetitive, or predictable, not an attack on their humanity.

2. Context Matters: In many online spaces, calling someone a bot is shorthand for noting repetitive or scripted behavior. It's often a critique of content or style, not a serious dehumanization.

3. Intent and Reception: The intent behind calling someone a bot and how it's received can vary. Among friends, it might be a lighthearted jab. In heated debates, it might point out perceived rigidity in argumentation. Context is crucial in determining if it's genuinely disrespectful.

4. Digital Age Realities: In an era where bots actually exist and interact online, the term has become part of the vernacular. It's a modern metaphor, reflecting how digital culture shapes our communication.

5. Exaggeration for Effect: The claim that calling someone a bot has serious negative impacts is overblown. People generally understand the difference between casual online banter and actual disrespect or dehumanization.

So, lighten up! Not every playful jab is a deep personal affront. In the right context, calling someone a bot can be a humorous way to critique behavior, not a denial of their humanity.
 
That's not funny.

Calling a human a bot can be seen as derogatory or insulting. Here's why it's considered bad:

1. Dehumanizing: Referring to a person as a bot implies that they lack emotions, intelligence, or individuality. It reduces their identity to that of a machine, disregarding their unique qualities and contributions.

2. Disrespectful: Calling someone a bot can be seen as disrespectful and dismissive. It implies that their thoughts, opinions, or actions are automated or insignificant.

3. Demeaning: Using the term "bot" to describe a person can be demeaning, as it suggests that they are not capable of independent thinking or decision-making. It undermines their abilities and undermines their worth.

4. Misrepresentation: Labeling someone as a bot can lead to misunderstandings or confusion. It may create false assumptions about their role, expertise, or intentions, which can hinder effective communication and collaboration.

5. Negative impact: Being called a bot can have a negative impact on a person's self-esteem and morale. It can make them feel devalued, unappreciated, or excluded from meaningful interactions.

It's important to treat others with respect and recognize their humanity. Using appropriate and inclusive language fosters a positive and respectful environment for communication and collaboration.

Ok, thanks chatgpt.

200.gif



your xbox profitable joke was unoriginal and bad, and you should feel bad.

Truth Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
 
It's hilarious to see someone argue that calling a human a bot is inherently bad. Here's why that perspective is misguided:

1. Hyperbole and Humor: Satire often relies on exaggeration to make a point. Calling someone a bot can be a playful way to suggest they are overly logical, repetitive, or predictable, not an attack on their humanity.

2. Context Matters: In many online spaces, calling someone a bot is shorthand for noting repetitive or scripted behavior. It's often a critique of content or style, not a serious dehumanization.

3. Intent and Reception: The intent behind calling someone a bot and how it's received can vary. Among friends, it might be a lighthearted jab. In heated debates, it might point out perceived rigidity in argumentation. Context is crucial in determining if it's genuinely disrespectful.

4. Digital Age Realities: In an era where bots actually exist and interact online, the term has become part of the vernacular. It's a modern metaphor, reflecting how digital culture shapes our communication.

5. Exaggeration for Effect: The claim that calling someone a bot has serious negative impacts is overblown. People generally understand the difference between casual online banter and actual disrespect or dehumanization.

So, lighten up! Not every playful jab is a deep personal affront. In the right context, calling someone a bot can be a humorous way to critique behavior, not a denial of their humanity.
While it's understandable that humor can be subjective and some may find amusement in calling a human a bot, it's important to consider the potential negative consequences and the underlying implications. Here's why the perspective that calling a human a bot is inherently hilarious may be misguided:

1. Lack of empathy: Labeling someone as a bot without considering their feelings or perspective lacks empathy. It disregards the impact it may have on their self-esteem, self-worth, and overall well-being.

2. Dehumanization: Referring to a person as a bot can dehumanize them, reducing their individuality and unique qualities. It promotes the notion that humans can be reduced to mere machines, disregarding their emotions, thoughts, and experiences.

3. Communication breakdown: Using derogatory terms like "bot" in conversations can lead to misunderstandings and breakdowns in communication. It can create a hostile or disrespectful environment, hindering effective dialogue and collaboration.

4. Negative social impact: Normalizing the use of derogatory terms like "bot" can perpetuate a culture of disrespect and devaluation, both online and offline. It can contribute to a toxic environment where individuals feel marginalized or excluded.

5. Professional implications: In professional settings, calling someone a bot can be seen as unprofessional and disrespectful. It can damage professional relationships, hinder teamwork, and negatively impact career prospects.

6. Ethical considerations: Treating others with respect, empathy, and dignity aligns with ethical principles. Using terms like "bot" to belittle or demean others goes against these principles and can lead to harmful consequences.

While humor is subjective, it's important to consider the potential harm and impact of our words on others. Respecting the feelings and dignity of individuals promotes positive and inclusive interactions, fostering a healthier and more compassionate society.
 
That's not funny.

Calling a human a bot can be seen as derogatory or insulting. Here's why it's considered bad:

1. Dehumanizing: Referring to a person as a bot implies that they lack emotions, intelligence, or individuality. It reduces their identity to that of a machine, disregarding their unique qualities and contributions.

2. Disrespectful: Calling someone a bot can be seen as disrespectful and dismissive. It implies that their thoughts, opinions, or actions are automated or insignificant.

3. Demeaning: Using the term "bot" to describe a person can be demeaning, as it suggests that they are not capable of independent thinking or decision-making. It undermines their abilities and undermines their worth.

4. Misrepresentation: Labeling someone as a bot can lead to misunderstandings or confusion. It may create false assumptions about their role, expertise, or intentions, which can hinder effective communication and collaboration.

5. Negative impact: Being called a bot can have a negative impact on a person's self-esteem and morale. It can make them feel devalued, unappreciated, or excluded from meaningful interactions.

It's important to treat others with respect and recognize their humanity. Using appropriate and inclusive language fosters a positive and respectful environment for communication and collaboration.
 
The amount of spin and denial let's you know there are 100% fans on all sides. People say xbox fans are crazy for believing Phils lies and then suck up the same shit from their almighty plastic box manufacturer.
 
No idea if there was any push back on what platforms would be supported either way. Just no way to know.

I think this is the first Sony-Lego collaboration ever. So no....there has never been anything like this that I'm aware of. But yeah, I think it is a step in the right direction as it involves Sony IP even if it is just a Lego game. Will it go anywhere beyond Lego stuff? No idea. Like I said before, when I've argued in favor of Sony first party games day one on PC (which I have many many times) this was not what I was talking about.
That's all I was getting at, no matter its a Lego game its trending in a way I like and no matter its a Lego game it doesn't happen without Sony's approval
 
The game is called LEGO Horizon Adventures. Lego is an IP my man. Don't know why you and others keep trying to pretend it isn't.
Lego is a format game.
There are a lot of games that have LEGO name. It's there to show you that the game is on the format of a lego.

Lego horizon is indication that the game would play as a Lego. It's not an IP thing, but a format indication.
 
Top Bottom