Next-Gen PS5 & XSX |OT| Console tEch threaD

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wasn't Zenimax Market Cap 2.5B?
Why was it bought for 7.5B? It's not just market cap that needs to be considered.
IP wise alone sega is a lot more expensive than Zenimax.

People really need to do the math properly. Sammy revenue comes mostly from SEGA games division.

We are not talking pachinko businesses here.


If Zenimax market cap was "only" 2.5 billion why do you think MS paid 7.5 for them? Outbid others I guess? And if a huge company with zenimax is only valued at 2.5 billion then why are Sqaure and capcom near the 8 billions? Thanks.
 
I see nothing wrong with this tbh.
The developers had to work to produce the remastered version and Sony have to pay them.
You can't call a Contactor to renovate your home and expect to upgrade to be free.
Sony ain't Microsoft that can throw away money willingly.

There are two major problems:
1) You can't upgrade PS4 version to remaster. Remaster is gated behind Miles Morales. I don't see the reason why I can't pay $20 and get remaster if I own original version. I need to spend $70 to get it with MM.
2) You don't know how bc will work. I don't care about remaster as long as I get 60FPS/4k (or 1440p) mode via BC. If 60fps will be gated behind remaster then it will be a big fuck you for PS4 version owners.
 
Spider-Man gets the Remaster treatment (and if it's coming to PC it's work they get paid twice for), TLOU2 (and be "remastered") will add a MP mode to justify an upgrade price, GoT will most likely get a Remaster version (and again double income if it goes to PC), GoW Remaster (PC work possibly again). I don't see Sony giving any upgrades for free because they'll have that remaster reasoning along with extra modes for some.

We'll have to wait and see what they do now with other games but this is basically setting themselves down the path of never being able to win now. If they do similar to this for other games the complaints will continue to grow and get louder. If they do them differently (more inline with customer expectations) people will point to Spider-Man again.

Fortunately I couldn't give a flying f about Spiderman ergo this sort of crap means nothing to me. I still believe Sony has a better "launch window" line-up with with Demon Souls taking the prize as a "must have" (& the Oddworld remake game looking very interesting). With regards to backwards compatibility, I only want ps4 games with a pro-patch to have that on ps5 & also run better when possible (more stable framerate etc.).

Xbox has the killer title this gen IMO (Elder Scrolls VI), but until then, the ps5 seems like a more interesting short-term proposition. Which is fine with me because I always eventually get both.

I'm more surprised that Sony would go ahead on this sort of release strategy for such a big game knowing it would lead to this kind of backlash.

Right now they seem to be providing Microsoft with a tonne of free ammo that they will use against them! Sure they have a huge lead going into next-gen but we're already seeing signs on the gaming forums some are getting tetchy with Sony. Microsoft are also courting the game media and YouTube influencers hard while in the meantime Sony have almost completely retracted from engaging with them so far.

In any case it looks like even if I want PS5 I probably won't get one until after launch as it stands so I'll just observe how this plays out for the next few weeks.
 
Last edited:
With the recent reveal of Demons Souls remaster by Bluepoint, then the recent rumours of Silent Hills and also then Metal Gear Solid, this cryptic tweet by BluePoint from last year seems all the more plausible........
Bluepoint Tweet from 2019
I think its gonna be MGS1. But who knows. In that tweet they tease Ico, MGS, Silent Hills, Symphony of the Night, Resistance, and Syphon Filter. They are just fuckin with us until they reveal it.
 
I agree 100%

Demon Souls was my PS3 game of the generation. Groundbreaking, better than Dark Souls, stunning in its scope and uniqueness. But it's still a PS3 title being repackaged, recolored and sold to us. And I'm buying it. But it's nothing new.

I think Sony's (and the industry in general but Sony specifically) recent obsession with remakes is very sad. Everybody clamoring for Mass Effect 1-3 remastered. Why? I played those games, I had those experiences. And yes, having them again at an increased fidelity would be fun but not as fun as a NEW experience, a NEW Mass Effect WOW moment. Recycling old ideas to me is a sign of a lack of new ideas. Especially in games that are primarily singleplayer. It's one thing if the game has a beloved and successful multiplayer component. That changes it a BIT for me but not a lot.

We'll see going forward.

Well, it's kind of like the movie scene that way, isn't it? Hollywood seems obsessed with just remaking old movies or 'rebooting' them. Seems like the focus is there more than it is to make NEW stories and movies. At least with the 'blockbuster' type.
 
I think its gonna be MGS1. But who knows. In that tweet they tease Ico, MGS, Silent Hills, Symphony of the Night, Resistance, and Syphon Filter. They are just fuckin with us until they reveal it.
True but so far 2 have come true, Shadow Of the Colossus and Demons Souls, MGS and SIlent Hill are also being heavily rumoured adding more weight to the claim
 
Yeah but thats dumb. Its like how Smash bros was in 2019 and technically Jedi Fallen Order is eligible for this years GOTY award.

They should change the rules so the game has to be nominated for the same year as it releases. And CyberPunk, Demon's Souls, Spider-Man, Assassin's Creed, etc... all those games should be eligible this year if they are releasing 1 month before the award show. Plenty of time for a review and the voting.
Cyberpunk coming 19.11. it is 3 weeks til show. it is obvious too little time. no one going to rush just for the sake of the rush.
 
I think its gonna be MGS1. But who knows. In that tweet they tease Ico, MGS, Silent Hills, Symphony of the Night, Resistance, and Syphon Filter. They are just fuckin with us until they reveal it.

More likely to be a remake of Silent Hill 1 rather than Silent Hills (a new game), no? A graphical remake of that might bring a lot of people to the series.
 
Last edited:
Market Cap is just the perceived value in the world of publicly traded corporations. More people buy into a corporation's share mostly based on the forecast on the future growth of the company. Real properties, Intellectual Properties, Brand, and mindshare are also taken into account on the real value of the company.
If Zenimax market cap was "only" 2.5 billion why do you think MS paid 7.5 for them? Outbid others I guess? And if a huge company with zenimax is only valued at 2.5 billion then why are Sqaure and capcom near the 8 billions? Thanks.

I understand that and it's exactly why I'm saying it doesn't make sense when people say Sega is "cheap".
 
True but so far 2 have come true, Shadow Of the Colossus and Demons Souls, MGS and SIlent Hill are also being heavily rumoured adding more weight to the claim

But SOTC remake came out almost two years before that tweet. Shadow must be a reference to something else.
 
Just scroll a bit.. it's a reference to a sign being taken down:


Some are saying Sega will be better with the financial backing of MS. But money is not really what makes the games. It's the talents of the people that are working there.

How many studios does Sega have? They really can't do anything with the IPs without the studios and the people who understand the IPs. And knowing Sega hasn't published much games lately, I don't think they still have the talents and working force to make use of the IPs anymore. Those people may have left and the remaining ones can always apply to a different company and make another game.
 
I dont know if Konami would be willing to part with the silent hill, MGS, and castlevania franchises, but purchasing those three from them plus blue point games would probably go along ways with pacifying sonys base and adding some strength to their first party. Most importantly, assuming konami was willing to deal, would be alot cheaper than 7.5 billion.
 
Last edited:
More likely to be a remake of Silent Hill 1 rather than Silent Hills (a new game), no? A graphical remake of that might bring a lot of people to the series.

If they did remake it they'd have to be sooooo sooo careful with translating the art style and aesthetic of the original because fans would be really upset if it didn't have the same look.
 
If Game Pass is the future the world can look forward to games like Halo Infinite releasing in its current form. Studios have no incentive to listen to consumer demand. The days of polishing a game before release will end.
Yeah man, I agree with you a 100%

I just don't understand why so many defend and celebrate this shit, it's really annoying and a sad state of gaming that we're heading towards, Microsoft buying all of Bethesda and putting their games on Game Pass is a huge industrial move that I don't think many people comprehend, imagine releasing:

- Next-gen DOOM.
- The Evil WIthin 3.
- The Elder Scrolls 6.
- Star Field.
- Wolfenstein 3.
- Dishonored.
...and many many more!!

On Game Pass for $10 a month while on PS5, they'll be for $70, that's a huge incentive for people to go to Game Pass instead of buying the games, this will result in, like you said, developers not listening to consumer demand and no ambition from developers, you'll just asset flipping, new games using same old assets, no art, no ambition, they'll be small and agile.
 
Last edited:
But SOTC remake came out almost two years before that tweet. Shadow must be a reference to something else.
I don't see any reference for SotC in that tweet... Demon's Souls, Syphon filter, Castlevania, Metal Gear Solid, Twisted Metal , Legend of Dragoon, Resistance Fall Of Man are referenced thought.
 
Last edited:
I dont know if Konami would be willing to part with the silent hill, MGS, and castlevania franchises,

Who'd be making them games though? I don't think it's wise for Sony to spend so much money for the IPs if they don't have a studio to work on them. Well, they could also start a hiring spree of the old talents from Konami and expand their Japan Studio.
 
Yeah man, I agree with you a 100%

I just don't understand why so many defend and celebrate this shit, it's really annoying and sad state of gaming that we're heading in, Microsoft buying all of Bethesda and putting their games on Game Pass is a huge industrial move that I don't think many people comprehend, imagine releasing:

- Next-gen DOOM.
- The Evil WIthin 3.
- The Elder Scrolls 6.
- Star Field.
- Wolfenstein 3.
- Dishonored.
...and many many more!!

On Game Pass for $10 a month while on PS5, they'll be for $70, that's a huge incentive for people to go to Game Pass instead of buying the games, this will result in, like you said, developers not listening to consumer demand and no ambition from developers, you'll just asset flipping, new games using same old assets, no art, no ambition, they'll be small and agile.


i don't think it's going to be that bad. Like how Nintendo gets its own market. Sony's premium gaming experience also will. But mainstream IS going towards gamepass for sure. i don't have any doubt about it. Here is my prediction. Sony will repurpose PSNow to match gamepass before it's too late. but Sony will still keep their premium games, but not all first party, off game pass-like service, just as how Disney handled Mulan but not just 4 months. If Jim is not treating gamepass seriously, it will be a huge mistake.

edit: in the short term, Sony is fine. but that's the danger of it. Sony fans won't jump the ship immediately. but after 2023, oh boi.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't Zenimax Market Cap 2.5B?
Why was it bought for 7.5B? It's not just market cap that needs to be considered.
Zenimax didn't have a market cap as it was not traded in market, it was a private company. 2.5B is the latest evaluation, which is quite old (2016) and is way further from indicating anything that market cap.
 
Yeah man, I agree with you a 100%

I just don't understand why so many defend and celebrate this shit, it's really annoying and sad state of gaming that we're heading in, Microsoft buying all of Bethesda and putting their games on Game Pass is a huge industrial move that I don't think many people comprehend, imagine releasing:

- Next-gen DOOM.
- The Evil WIthin 3.
- The Elder Scrolls 6.
- Star Field.
- Wolfenstein 3.
- Dishonored.
...and many many more!!

On Game Pass for $10 a month while on PS5, they'll be for $70, that's a huge incentive for people to go to Game Pass instead of buying the games, this will result in, like you said, developers not listening to consumer demand and no ambition from developers, you'll just asset flipping, new games using same old assets, no art, no ambition, they'll be small and agile.

Socialism often sounds good, and may be at the start, until unsustainability kicks in where someone has to pay up or the quality and system itself changes for the worse to seek higher profitability.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't Zenimax Market Cap 2.5B?
Why was it bought for 7.5B? It's not just market cap that needs to be considered.
IP wise alone sega is a lot more expensive than Zenimax.

People really need to do the math properly. Sammy revenue comes mostly from SEGA games division.

We are not talking pachinko businesses here.
Zenimax was not a publicly traded company and had no "market cap."

SEGA is owned by a publicly traded company, so you can look at that holding company to estimate it's worth, but I believe on it's own they could be sold like a private firm can (with only "private shareholders" voting).

Actual public traded companies at least in the US are not secretly "sold" like Zenimax was.
 
Last edited:
Who'd be making them games though? I don't think it's wise for Sony to spend so much money for the IPs if they don't have a studio to work on them. Well, they could also start a hiring spree of the old talents from Konami and expand their Japan Studio.

We dont know what konamis price would be but sony could easily let one of their studios make a new game from one of those franchises not to mention let blue point make a remake. They could also use their film division to make a movie from them or license out a netflix show. Again whatever theyd pay id assume itd be no where near 7.5 billion but would add alot to their already good portfolio.
 
Those who are saying that they will buy the xsx because it plays third party best, apart of the 18% superiority what are the other proofs? Me personally I didn't see anything mind blowing from the green other than PR PR PR. Hell we did not even see next gen games running on it in real time lol. and if you say true 4K vs fake 4K nah man we all saw true 4K/60 on the PS5 in real time with mind fucking blowing graphics.
We can't say there's an 18% gap in third party games. What happens when UE5 becomes the go to engine and developers start using streaming assets? The PS5 has a massive throughput advantage. I'm betting the PS5 outperforms the XSX as we get further into the generation.
 
Greedy way to push Miles Morales sales. It'll work for many people tho. I'm fine without the remaster because then I don't need to use the SSD to play that old game, can keep it on my external HDD. Save the SSD for PS5 games.

Shit, I'm not buying either. I have Demon's Souls as my launch title, and with Cyberpunk close as well, I have no desire to reward the greed coming from Sony for their Spider-Man games. I'll pick up MM when it goes on sale, or on eBay.
 
We can't say there's an 18% gap in third party games. What happens when UE5 becomes the go to engine and developers start using streaming assets? The PS5 has a massive throughput advantage. I'm betting the PS5 outperforms the XSX as we get further into the generation.

what are you blabbering about? This doesn't make any sense from a technical point of view.
 
If you look at things realistically, there are pros and cons to both models. If you look at only the good or bad of either you develop a warped view.

Sure, there can be in abstract. However, what happens in practice is a lot more situational, and dependant on a series of additional factors that are on top of the model itself, but that we must keep into consideration.

For example, monopolization is bad news for users, regardless of the model - both can be more or less monopolistic. However, the current paradigm is relatively dispersed as far as game production and publishing goes, because users disperse their expenses on a game-by-game basis, so the system allows for several independent publishers, and even self-published games, to exist. If you move towards a subscription based model in line with what Microsoft is planning, the user is put in front of a drastically reduced number of options on where to practically spend the money. There could exist a "softer" subscription-based model in theory, where individual publishers create mini-subscriptions for all of their products, but it's quite obvious that is not what we are looking at right now.

This centralization inevitably deals a blow to healthy competition, because now individual users cannot "punish" individual game makers for bad products or practices, they are forced to accept the whole package as it is, good and bad, because there is a new agent in the system that acts as a blurring screen between people paying and studios delivering the goods. And since this entity in the middle has agency of its own, and can direct or even dictate to game makers, there are even more chances of anti-consumer practices being pushed on the users via syndication.

There are absolutely some advantages of potentially raising the total spend per user for an entire generation. If MS can reach similar numbers with GP as they would with a middle of the road console generation (in unit sales, say maybe 50 or 60m), and those users are spending the equivalent of 2-3 $60 games per year, every year, for the generation, that can be a big net gain. The equivalent of a console with a 14-21 game attach rate of $60 games over 7 years, which I can all but guarantee is higher than the PS4 or X1 this generation. That means two things, the platform holder makes more money (not that important for end-users), but also that the total available to spend on development is also increased (whether that is realized directly via first-party or by financing/money-hating third-party efforts).

If we assume that your premise (total expenditure per user goes up), there are only two ways it can happen: either you up quality of games (and their budget) leading people to willingly dedicate more of their income into the hobby, or the extra money comes from the economic package being offered masking the real cost to the average user and leading them to spend more over time out of unawareness/apathy/habit.

What is preventing the first option to also happen right now, with the current model? It does happen already in fact, because certain platforms have overall attach rates higher than others, and it's usually those platform with a larger and better catalogue to offer. So, is this really an advantage of a subscription system, or just an external factor for which the model is irrelevant?

And in light of this, my next question is: if the subscription system by its very nature succeeds in increasing the per-user expenditure over a certain period of time... where is the incentive to re-invest the extra money into making better games exactly?

The door is also opened wider for new ideas, without question. The money is already stamped and printed so to speak, so a lot less risk with trying something new. Will everything be new ideas, absolutely not, the tried and true will obviously be represented, you have to keep the subs happy. There is also the importance of image, so a subscription definitely opens the door for the service operator to reach out to an acclaimed director/producer and say here's 300m go make us the artsiest GoTY baiting game you can, sales aren't a thing for us we want the accolades (this line is meant to be funny, but is a tactic utilized by Hulu/Netflix to great effect).

Is the door really more open though? It's a bit of a risky statement, because in this scenario the door for anything is exactly as open or close as Microsoft (or whoever manages the service) wants it to be, no more, no less. You assume Microsoft might want to go there. Remember that you moved from a mostly open market where by law of large numbers untapped demand will eventually receive offer, to one where a very limited amount of central entities hold unprecedented control over what is published and what isn't. Sure, in theory the same could be said for console makers right now as well, but remember that you are also moving towards a model where the effective "success" of any game goes through an opaque glass panel and it becomes a lot harder to outline failure and success regardless of what a platform holder could decide to promote right now.


But even if we completely disregard all of these specific considerations, my reasoning on why I don't want to see this is incredibly straightforward.

The gaming industry is a very simple market once you strip it down to the basics: products come from one single side, game publishers, and money comes from one single source, consumers. The goal of publishers is to end up with the highest possible amount of money, subtracting all they spent for game development and adding what users paid them for the products. The goal of consumers is to end up with the best possible product offering according to their standards for as cheap as possible. If the system moves too far in one of the two directions (which can happen on a company-by-company basis or on a wider level) either the customers stop playing games or the studios can't pay the bills anymore (and either one also leads in turns to the other).

This is an inescapable truth of the system, and a service-based model won't change that. Games will still come from a single direction, and money will still come from the other one. If the service will be too terrible people will stop paying, and if the offer will be too good for the customers studios will start closing down. You are shuffling the intermediate steps a bit, but neither of the two fundamental sides of the equations have changed.

Now, considering all this, ask yourself: since what is changing is the shape of the road, but neither the beginning or the end of the journey, why do you think Microsoft would want to pay billions to push for this change? Every last penny they spent to ensure games coming to Game Pass, or entire studios becoming dedicated to making games for it, is a penny they plan to recoup from you later down the line. And it's not money spent strictly speaking in game development, it's not you giving a company twice as much for a product that is twice as good, the games could have been developed even without all of this other money on top of it just to alter the product delivery method. If making Assassin's Creed 19 costs 100, why would Microsoft throwing Ubisoft an additional 20 just to guarantee the game comes to Game pass?

Microsoft is investing hard in a restructuring of the gaming economical system; and where do you think the point of balance of the new system they planned and paid for will lie? Will it be one where the user has it better than now, or where Microsoft does?
 
Last edited:
There are two major problems:
1) You can't upgrade PS4 version to remaster. Remaster is gated behind Miles Morales. I don't see the reason why I can't pay $20 and get remaster if I own original version. I need to spend $70 to get it with MM.
2) You don't know how bc will work. I don't care about remaster as long as I get 60FPS/4k (or 1440p) mode via BC. If 60fps will be gated behind remaster then it will be a big fuck you for PS4 version owners.
You know why you have to pay up to upgrade.
bbA8s8c.gif
 
SEGA is owned by a publicly traded company, so you can look at that holding company to estimate it's worth, but I believe on it's own they could be sold like a private firm can (with only "private shareholders" voting).
I doub't that it's possible to do it secretly.
You need shareholder approval in general shareholder meeting (it will leak from there almost certainly, given that there are a lot of minoritary shareholders) as Sega certainly above threshold of selling assets (20%). 2/3 required votes will be a problem in itself. And you need regulatory approval of foreign investments which itself takes around 3 months to finish if I understood properly.

Sega (entertainment content) actually about 2/3 of Sega Sammy revenue (of which games, packaged and digital are 50% and the rest heavily depends on IPs), selling it is like dissolving company.
 
Last edited:
Well it's obvious they have a second remake in the works. I just have no clue what it'll be.
Remember the original rumour for Bluepoint was MGS Remake, maybe it wasn't entirely untrue to begin with, just too soon to announce
 
At least they say/do something.

''We're very pleased to announce that Doom Eternal is coming to Game Pass soon!'' is 'something'.

It's also much more mature and doesn't feed into this overly intense game fan culture we have now where everyone has to be constantly trying to work out 'clues' and talking about 'hints' and everything is just hype hype hype.

Tired of it. It has infected everything. Everyone now expects every single announcement or event to contain 29 'megatonne' announcements. People treat a little Sony or Nintendo digital event as they're paying to see a highly anticipated movie they've paid money to see (rather than just a company showing its products) and they feel they can get bizarrely and inappropriately angry about it if it doesn't personally please and excite them enough.

Been a gamer for a long time and I find the modern culture around it really obnoxious personally. There's a lot of people confusing being spoiled and overly demanding (see people genuinely raging about an E3 showing, as it wasn't free) with being passionate. See also people doing companies marketing for them.
 
Last edited:
MS buying sega would do nothing but piss off the entire country of Japan along with any of their western fans, you can't just force people's hands into liking you lmao
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom