All valid points if we're breaking down PlayStation from a business standpoint. As I said in another thread, Sony is very fortunate that MS has its own shares of issues this gen and therefore hasn't lost any market share.
With that said, I don't regret my PS5 purchase this gen. I have more games in my PS5 backlog than I'll ever get around to playing all of them. So just from a value standpoint, it's a device that I use almost every day and I've never not had games to play.
That's good to hear, you seeing the value in your PS5. I'll say, just because I feel there are several
strongly legitimate criticisms to levy against the platform to where I can easily see why some consider it the worst PS gen, doesn't mean I think PS5 is a bad system by any stretch. It is still an amazing platform looking at it from the customer POV, especially if you missed out on some of the big titles when they initially released.
However, by that notion I could say the Series S & X are great systems too, and from
that perspective I just outlined, they are. But personally, I'd say that's too easy a metric to measure a system. There's too much a recency bias and too much a micro perspective applied in that type of viewpoint IMO, but again that's just speaking to my tastes when it comes to analyzing a platform.
Cynicism of the present and romanticism of the past are taking root hard.
There is no way anyone with a straight face would compare first party output in the days of Rise of Honor and Mark of Kri to what we're getting from Sony now.
Even games like Syphon Filter are comparatively dogshit compared to the games we're getting now. I've been around every step of the way and I've played most of these games and they're largely unplayable today. There were a few gems like Legend of Dragoon, but there's a reason why most of these studios aren't around anymore, it's because their games weren't up to snuff.
This would be true if the market actually operated fully on principal of quality and sales being tied to the hip, but you and I both know that isn't true. COD is basically recycled content year over year, yet continues to sell millions annually. Many games that fail commercially don't do so because they're bad quality; it's usually because they don't have the marketing budgets to compete with the CODs, GTAs etc. in finding an audience.
Also while you may want to compare SIE's past content to current content objectively, that is not 100% possible. Even objectively, what you say about those games being unplayable now isn't completely true; you as a gamer have become de-acclimated to what those older titles provided, so you're just as responsible for them being "unplayable" in your eyes as the game is for being made during an earlier generation (thus not having modern QOL). If your take were objectively true, there wouldn't be a thriving retro community for many types of older games in the first place.
Even beyond that, you can't directly compare games then to games now when you ignore the subjective aspect of things. A lot of older games may not have the QOL polish of modern equivalents, or the visual fidelity, but they likely will have an artistic vision, style and quirkiness to them that for a subset of gamers, are infinitely more appealing than modern titles. I tend to think that gamers who are more nuanced in their tastes and see the medium more as an art form, tend to be the ones who can still appreciate & enjoy older games (yes even 5th-gen 3D titles) for what they are, and genuinely get into them, while still playing modern games as well.
Still better than anything offered by the competition.
MS? Lol
Nintendo? Kiddy toy stuck two generations behind.
And PC?
I agree, Nintendo needs to be grilled for their safe and lackluster efforts in creating new IPs.
Nintendo don't necessarily need to create new IP at the pace of SIE or Microsoft, because most of Nintendo's IP are evergreen and rather timeless. As in, they can exist for a long period of time and don't have a shelf life due to pursuing a story-heavy direction, or only appealing to older adult gamers (primarily).
When you've got an IP like TLOU, there's a natural limit to how much story you can due in that setting before it becomes a parody of itself. Even right now, I'm curious how exactly ND are going to take Part 3 story-wise in a way that feels organic and satisfying. Same can be said for several other major SIE and Microsoft IP, although I think both also have IP which are more "timeless" i.e Gran Turismo, Astro Bot, Flight Simulator, TES etc.
What Nintendo prefers to do, and it makes sense, is to expand mainstay IP into new sub-genre types. So you're still technically getting new IP, they're just wrapped up in an IP you're already familiar with like a Mario or Zelda. And honestly, if you have IP as universal, evergreen & timeless as those, it's the
preferable approach to take. I do wish Nintendo showed love to a few of their more niche IP though, like F-Zero or a new (3D) Mother.
