Uncharted Uncharted 4: A Thief's End

[psylockolussus]

eXclusivity eXists since the beginning of the entertainment industry. And porting games to several platforms also adds time and money whereas Sony could just prioritize making their games for their platform that would help sell whatever hardware they are selling. Those who really want to play the game, can either buy the console or not. Its been like that since ps1.

Does eXclusivity has given us better games? Hmm I honestly don't think Sony's output would be the same if selling ps consoles isn't one of their main priorities. A lot of their big games are made also to entice people to buy their hardware. Or else, they would have just relied on third party studios that are also releasing games to other platforms or release games like GT to other platforms back in the 90s.

Time will tell, if this would impact PlayStation. But XboX owners and Pc players have just 1 more reason to not pick up a PlayStation.

 

[psylockolussus]

And a platform like the Switch probably doesn't have the capability of running games like Ghost of Tsushima, The Last of Us Part 2, Horizon and God of War 2018? So even if we are against "eXclusivity", some games are just impossible to port. Games like those wouldn't have eXisted if Sony was also thinking of porting/launchig their every game to Nintendo/Switch.

 

[Gee]

well what does sell hardware then?

The hardware itself? If you have a fantastic controller like the DualSense with its haptic feedback, I'd market the hell out of it by showing gameplay that best utilizes it. Blazing fast storage? No more loading times! After all, Sony paid Epic to sell their SSD tech in that Unreal Engine 5 demo...

Competitive pricing sounds good to me, too. OS-specific features that will give the best user experience and convenience are nice as well. If nothing else, then brand recognition. When it comes to hardware in general, would someone trust Microsoft, the maker of the failed Zune music player and Windows Phone, over Sony, one of the most popular manufacturers of consumer electronics?

also, you are entitled to your opinion, but as others have pointed out Nintendo's software stays exclusive to the Switch and it's currently on pace to outsell the Ps4 at over 100 million consoles sold

Unlike Sony, Nintendo doesn't have the luxury to port their games to other platforms. Sony at least still have TV and movies, music and other electronic products beside their gaming box to make them financially viable when porting their first parties.

Also, with the rise of mobile gaming popularity these past years, the Switch is very appealing.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

The hardware itself? If you have a fantastic controller like the DualSense with its haptic feedback, I'd market the hell out of it by showing gameplay that best utilizes it. Blazing fast storage? No more loading times! After all, Sony paid Epic to sell their SSD tech in that Unreal Engine 5 demo...

This doesn't make sense. @I Am The Knight and @Jick explain this to you too. The hardware is useless unless it applies software. You don't get to take advantage of the DualSense or the SSD without running software to see why they're so innovative and advantageous.

Competitive pricing sounds good to me, too. OS-specific features that will give the best user experience and convenience are nice as well. If nothing else, then brand recognition. When it comes to hardware in general, would someone trust Microsoft, the maker of the failed Zune music player and Windows Phone, over Sony, one of the most popular manufacturers of consumer electronics?

People navigate the OS to get to the software. Everything comes down to software. How can you explain otherwise?

Price is also the bigger matter here, but it looks like the Ps5 is selling better than the Series S right now.

Unlike Sony, Nintendo doesn't have the luxury to port their games to other platforms. Sony at least still have TV and movies, music and other electronic products beside their gaming box to make them financially viable when porting their first parties.

Also, with the rise of mobile gaming popularity these past years, the Switch is very appealing.

What does that have to do with anything? Nintendo doesn't port to other platforms because they don't want to. It isn't about luxury.

 

[psylockolussus]

Part of Nintendo's success especially with the switch are their eXclusives. Can you imagine if games like Pokemon, Zelda, Animals Crossing, Metroid and Mario are suddenly ported to the ps, XboX, Pc. I don't see how beneficial would that be for Nintendo's consoles long term.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I should have been more clear. I mean it benefits 'no-one' as in none of us people. It does benefit the giant companies who are selling the hardware, but I don't care about them.

most consumers per generation usually own one console, and access to exclusive games add value to that console. the more enticing exclusive games, the more value added to the console purchase.

exclusives on other consoles gives incentive to the consumer for purchasing the other platform. it makes the consumer decide whether it is worth purchasing other hardware for their software. that is the opportunity cost.

 

[henzINNIT]

most consumers per generation usually own one console, and access to exclusive games add value to that console.

the more enticing exclusive games, the more value added to the console purchase.

How is this a good thing? Customers who only buy one console have to choose between which exclusive titles they'll access and which ones they can't. It adds value to the console, not the customer's purchase.

exclusives on other consoles gives incentive to the consumer for purchasing the other platform. it makes the consumer decide whether it is worth purchasing other hardware for their software. that is the opportunity cost.

And how exactly is buying several pieces of expensive hardware a good thing?

eXclusivity eXists since the beginning of the entertainment industry. And porting games to several platforms also adds time and money whereas Sony could just prioritize making their games for their platform that would help sell whatever hardware they are selling. Those who really want to play the game, can either buy the console or not. Its been like that since ps1.

Appealing to tradition isn't a strong argument. It's a bad tradition. By your own words the exclusives are bait to sell hardware. I don't see why any customer would defend them.

Does eXclusivity has given us better games? Hmm I honestly don't think Sony's output would be the same if selling ps consoles isn't one of their main priorities. A lot of their big games are made also to entice people to buy their hardware. Or else, they would have just relied on third party studios that are also releasing games to other platforms or release games like GT to other platforms back in the 90s.

Time will tell, if this would impact PlayStation. But XboX owners and Pc players have just 1 more reason to not pick up a PlayStation.

Some of the greatest games of all time were not console exclusive. It's not the reason the games were good.

And a platform like the Switch probably doesn't have the capability of running games like Ghost of Tsushima, The Last of Us Part 2, Horizon and God of War 2018? So even if we are against "eXclusivity", some games are just impossible to port. Games like those wouldn't have eXisted if Sony was also thinking of porting/launchig their every game to Nintendo/Switch.

The Switch can't run high-end games because Nintendo's design requires a much less powerful machine. They're effectively ineligible by their own making. But they love porting over what they can, and the titles they make for Switch could run on anything. Not being able to play Nintendo games anywhere else is good for Nintendo, not you or I.

 

[psylockolussus]

I don't see whats the bad tradition when Sony/Microsoft launched their own consoles with their own games? You just didn't eXpect these companies to be making games for Nintendo and Sega and even those companies have/had eXclusives before Sony/Microsoft entered the gaming industry.

Its only bad if you are the customer and you need to own plenty of consoles just to play a game. But even if "eXclusives" don't eXist, you will need to upgrade and buy newer consoles or a gaming pc to play the latest games.

Also having "eXclusives" that will sell the consoles better could help their respective companies to be more creative or competitive with the games that they put out out there in the market. So I don't think we would have gotten the same PlayStation games if Sony's games were on every platform.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

How is this a good thing?

Are you asking how is it a good thing that most consumers buy one platform per generation or how is it a good thing that exclusive games add value to a console?

Customers who only buy one console have to choose between which exclusive titles they'll access and which ones they can't. It adds value to the console, not the customer's purchase.

well, in this case the product that the customer purchased is the console. that is the product that's getting value added to it by having exclusive software. that's their choice to purchase it and it would also be their choice to purchase another console for its exclusive software.

And how exactly is buying several pieces of expensive hardware a good thing?

how is it a good thing for the consumer? you get what you pay for. you have access to the libraries of both platforms. like I said, that is the opportunity cost of buying or not buying an additional platform. it depends on what the consumer wants.

 

[henzINNIT]

I don't see whats the bad tradition when Sony/Microsoft launched their own consoles with their own games? You just didn't eXpect these companies to be making games for Nintendo and Sega and even those companies have/had eXclusives before Sony/Microsoft entered the gaming industry.

Its only bad if you are the customer and you need to own plenty of consoles just to play a game. But even if "eXclusives" don't eXist, you will need to upgrade and buy newer consoles or a gaming pc to play the latest games.

Also having "eXclusives" that will sell the consoles better could help their respective companies to be more creative or competitive with the games that they put out out there in the market. So I don't think we would have gotten the same PlayStation games if Sony's games were on every platform.

That's the point. We are the customers. Why are even talking about what benefits the companies involved?

Are you asking how is it a good thing that most consumers buy one platform per generation or how is it a good thing that exclusive games add value to a console?

I'm asking how it is a good thing for customers who only buy one console a generation to have to chose which games they can't play because certain titles are console exclusive.

well, in this case the product that the customer purchased is the console. that is the product that's getting value added to it by having exclusive software. that's their choice to purchase it and it would also be their choice to purchase another console for its exclusive software.

It adds no value for the customer. We lose out on the exclusives for other systems. We gain nothing for having titles others can't play.

how is it a good thing for the consumer? you get what you pay for. you have access to the libraries of both platforms. like I said, that is the opportunity cost of buying or not buying an additional platform. it depends on what the consumer wants.

We don't get what we pay for. We get what is offered. We could play many more games on one system if not for these decisions, and your solution is to simply do what the games companies want and buy more consoles.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I'm asking how it is a good thing for customers who only buy one console a generation to have to chose which games they can't play because certain titles are console exclusive.

My answer is that I don't think it is a matter of it being a good thing or a bad thing. All of these platforms cost money. If you have none and want to buy one, you'll be spending anywhere from $300-$500. If the consumer wants the benefit of other video game consoles, then they have to pay the opportunity cost and purchase those as well. But that's their choice, just like buying their first option was their choice as well.

It adds no value for the customer.

What's getting added value is the product the consumer purchased, which is the video game console. I don't know what you mean when you say it adds no value for the customer, when the customer just spent hundreds of dollars on the video game console for their choice which will sure enough have exclusive software that the other hardware options don't have. that's value the purchase had that can't be found in a different purchase.

We lose out on the exclusives for other systems. We gain nothing for having titles others can't play.

Well if it means that much to the consumer, then they should purchase the other systems too. I don't see it as gaining something others can't play, I see it as gaining something by having the console that you otherwise wouldn't have gained by not having it.

We don't get what we pay for. We get what is offered. We could play many more games on one system if not for these decisions, and your solution is to simply do what the games companies want and buy more consoles.

What you pay for is the video game console which grants you the ability to play the console's software, so yes, you do get what you pay for unless the damn thing is broken and doesn't work.

I don't see a problem here, so I wasn't offering a solution to anything. The platform holders don't want you to buy more consoles, they want you to buy their consoles. Having exclusive software only makes for incentive.

 

[psylockolussus]

I am the customer but I don't necessarily think its bad that I can't play XboX games and Nintendo with the PlayStation. Its been like this since Nintendo vs sega days. There isn't going to 1 platform where you can play all the games. Even if Sony continues to port, my ps4 disc of Uncharted will not work in any pc.

Having eXclusive games helps me a customer choose which is The 1 console should I buy. The ps4 is known for its great eXclusives which you can't say to XboX One and look at the difference of their sales.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

the only time I really don't like exclusivity is when a publisher or studio that has predominantly been multiplatform becomes acquired to not be anymore, like Zenimax. Skyrim and Fallout have always been multiplatform but now they won't be.

people say it's no different than Sony acquiring Insomniac, but it is different. Insomniac has predominantly worked with playstation the most, so that acquisition makes sense. what mS did with Zenimax will turn previous multiplatform franchises exclusive

 

[Jick]

I disagree that exclusivity has given us better games. Better funding and resources gave us those great console exclusives.

The thing is...they got better funding and resources BECAUSE they are exclusives. The company needs a high caliber and enticing game to bring players in, so they're gonna invest more time and money on those.

For comparison's sake, you have The Amazing Spider-Man (2014) that's on all platforms by a third party, and then you have Marvel's Spider-Man, which is an exclusive and made to be a killer. The difference in quality should tell you the whole story.
If Spider-Man (2018) wasn't an exclusive, it would've been like most other SM games before it.
It is because of its exclusivity that it got all of the funding, time, resources and best talent in the market that it did .

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

The thing is...they got better funding and resources BECAUSE they are exclusives. The company needs a high caliber and enticing game to bring players in, so they're gonna invest more time and money on those.

For comparison's sake, you have The Amazing Spider-Man (2014) that's on all platforms by a third party, and then you have Marvel's Spider-Man, which is an exclusive and made to be a killer. The difference in quality should tell you the whole story.
If Spider-Man (2018) wasn't an exclusive, it would've been like most other SM games before it.
It is because of its exclusivity that it got all of the funding, time, resources and best talent in the market that it did .

good point. not every publisher is Take Two, Activision, Ubisoft, EA, Bethesda, Bandai Namco or Square Enix

 

[Iceman]

When is that Uncharted collection due out for pc?

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

When is that Uncharted collection due out for pc?

it's not confirmed yet just a rumor

 

[Iceman]

it's not confirmed yet just a rumor

Oh ok, thanks.

 

[Gee]

UC4 + LL.

Uncharted: Legacy of Thieves Collection coming to PS5 and PC

 

[Marvolo]

They should have had a new uncharted game to announce. Not just another port and re-remaster.

 

[Drizzle]

I just replayed them last year and I don't really feel the urge to revisit them on PS5 so this is an easy pass for me.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I haven't played UC4 since 2017 so that one I will be checking out. LL I played earlier this year.

 

[Iceman]

Shame no new Uncharted game at the PS showcase. The release of main titles in the series has really slowed down.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Well to be fair, the series "ended" with A Thief's End. Lost Legacy was supposed to be DLC but got bumped to a full separate release.

A few months ago there were talks of another Uncharted game by a different studio but it seems that got canned?

 

[Drizzle]

I'm like 90% convinced there won't be another Nathan Drake game. Maybe a prequel if anything, but there's always room for more Chloe and Nadine. But you know what they should have done? If they really want to stick with remastering, why don't they just remake that Uncharted game that came out for the PSVita that I'm sure not a lot of people played?