So it sounds like the developers had a better bead on why D2 has been losing numbers and there’s no way for them to provide feedback. And as a result, they were probably tied into the layoffs. Talk about some obvious mismanagement. The wrong person was laid off.
I get that things felt sparse but Starfield does have over 200 hours of content. That’s roughly how much went into my first playthrough and I never felt like it was repetitive. I also didn’t go for completion so there were likely another 100 hours I skipped.
Fucking flaming gasoline trails, vehicles actually running out of gas after having their tanks punctured, it seems like the ejection was really toned down in GTAO but you could really get out of the windshield in single player.
I did get ejected through an incoming car in cyberpunk recently and was like "wow been a while."
I haven’t played in a couple years. Are you still bombarded with texts and phone calls as soon as you load into the game? And is theininap barely visible because of all the mission/activity markers?
Because that’s how it was last time I got on there. And that was right after they added the demolition derby stuff.
Reading this comment makes me give kudos for letting GTA V (singleplayer) exist as its own thing. I haven’t played GTAO since probably 2015 and have no idea what it’s like because of how little Rockstar pushes it on Singleplayer players.
No, they’ve done a couple of really nice qol updates lately that got rid of most of those, or at least reduced the calls to texts. I mean there’s still some annoyances, but it is better than it was. At least, last time I was there. Only join in maybe once a month or so now.
Any chance of this being a flop? Years ago, we would have said no way, but we’ve seen some high-profile screwups before. It’s certainly at the time period where Rockstar might have brain drain on its better developers.
I agree with you and coming from a different perspective. I’ve tried the games and they just don’t do it for me for whatever reason. I don’t see this flopping at all. I also think recent launches will make sure they have things ready to go. It will sell like crazy and the fans that love the games will love it I’m sure.
"…so it’s not like you can play it on the go (there’s no version with a cellular connection) or without also owning a PlayStation 5. There is literally nothing else it can do. That seems like a bit of a bummer given the $200 price tag – I’d have liked to be able to watch Netflix or YouTube on the Portal, but all media functions are disabled on Sony Remote Play. The PlayStation Portal will only play games and let you navigate the PS5’s menus, so without a PS5 at the ready, the Portal is a paperweight. "
They try to say that the screen is bigger, but at that point they could just play on a TV, since they need to be with their PS5 at home.
Also mystifying that they say a tablet with a bigger screen would be inconvenient because you couldn't play it on the bus. You can't play this thing on the bus either.
Another true IGN moment. 8/10? Man this thing looks ugly. And it can only stream your local Playstation 5 on the local network, otherwise it's useless. Battery life is a joke for a streaming only device. Does not have Bluetooth. And the price is expensive for what it does. Yet IGN praises this. Imagine Microsoft did the same thing for XBox. I really don't want to come off as a Console War guy (I'm a PC Gamer), but imagine that for a moment. And no, I do not hate Sony, I just hate this device.
I don't think this is a console war thing. I just think IGN is a sellout rag that rates games however game companies tell them to. Their ratings are consistently unexplainable by anyone with sense.
But I think it does not support streaming over the internet. Its only limited to the same network you are with your PS5. Or am I wrong? Edit: Apparently I can't read. At least it is possible to stream your PS5 to other wifi networks.
Thanks for confirmation. One can't even stream the online streaming games with the PS Plus subscription. Its really only about the local games you have... I'm totally baffled.
“This was the turning point for me, where I went from “well this is kind of neat,” to “this is actually rad.” There I was, playing FF7R from the PS5 in my house in a cafe across town and it was nearly indistinguishable from the experience at home. Again, that’s something that can certainly be done on your phone or tablet (and those are able to get past that login screen) but none of them feels as good to hold and play on as the Portal.”
It does play via remote wifi but only games from your local ps5.
Hmm, okay. So I got most of the stuff correct then (no internet streaming), but didn't got the part it would stream on other wifi networks. I skipped parts of the review, because I didn't expect that functionality would have changed. Shame on me and this should be a lesson! So then that went from useless (in my opinion) to useful at times.
But the PS5 has to run for that, right? Can you remote control to run and sleep the PS5?
So the remote play functionality from before remains intact. So once paired with the PS5 the device can remotely turn the device on or the device is always listening for the connection.
This is a dedicated device for that though. If you read my initial post I’m not a fan of the device and even less of the manner by which IGN reviewed it. They’re looking at it in a complete vacuum and comparing it to a device that basically already failed (The Backbone).
Still, not entirely sure who this is supposed to be for. The poor battery life, lack of Bluetooth, and the inability to play media is just disappointing, even at 200 dollars. Just feels like there are better ways to play PS5 games on the go than this.
I know people want to implicitly shit on this thing because they don’t personally want one, and I guess they don’t want other people to enjoy them, but come on, this is silly. You know none of that. You just wish it was that.
Honestly, this place was great for a while, but it’s very rapidly devolving into the vapid reddit style comments you see all over that place.
I don’t know if that’s a fair criticism. I think I first saw something about this thing yesterday. Not much of a marketing push. I had to look it up to see what the heck it is. It seems to have a very specific and narrow use case. I’m sure it’s a nice option for people with that need and works well enough, but it’s not exactly something the masses are clamoring for. There’s similar tech out there and they are sort of niche products. I don’t expect this thing to be selling like hotcakes.
When this thing was first announced it was met with mostly people all over going “what’s the point of this thing, nobody is going to buy such a useless thing when they can just play on their phone or some adapter” etc.
Then when the pre-orders where announced to be selling out, it didn’t shift to “people want this thing”, they just pivoted to “they are just lying to hype it up”
And now that it’s sold out everywhere, they have no choice but to either admit it was wanted and they were wrong, or just keep going with the idea that, no, it’s everyone else that is wrong.
Sure, but the narrative in this thread is assuming that it muuust have been low units for low sales based on nothing. That is what I was critizing. The people here and the quality of the comments.
I pre-ordered mine back in September. Those of us who game from multiple rooms in their house this thing is amazing. Or those who have to share a TV with people who don’t use the PS5 connected to it.
I don’t have any generation PlayStation so I don’t have a dog in this fight. That being said:
I completely understand. I’ve got a gaming rig in one room, stream to mini PCs set up as steam consoles in other rooms, and have a Steam Deck. I can play anywhere in my house. I never need to worry whether someone else is using a TV.
Others have said it already, but it’s the best way to describe it. It’s literally just a screen with a controller attached. You can only use it for remote play on a PlayStation console at home. It doesn’t offer cloud gaming and it doesn’t allow you to even connect to WiFi networks that require you to sign on in a browser before gaining access to the Internet because the thing doesn’t even have a browser included in the software. The only common use case I could see for this thing is if you’re going to a friend’s house as a teen and want to play online games while in person.
Even then, as a parent I would much rather just spend the extra money on a steamdeck or other handheld that has compute and actual software. This is a ripe $200 turd that hardcore PlayStation fans and overzealous scalpers are buying.
The use case is that you live with other people and other people want to use the TV that the ps5 is connected to, and you want to play ps5, and you aren’t a jerk who hogs the TV all the time.
It’s okay, demonstrably people want this, even if you’re mad about it.
I’m mad that people are being sunk by consumerism. The cost of living is sky high right now and people are wasting their money on products that don’t make a whole lot of sense. Theres similar products that work much better for just a little bit more. Hell, buy a used tablet. At least that has processing like I mentioned. You can remote play through the tablet for a fraction of the cost.
That's not a reddit thing though. People make one-offish comments everywhere. Maybe not in your inner circle specifically but in general i've seen a lot of forums and chat rooms growing up that are like that.
Yeah, but Sony isn’t reaping the rewards for it, scalpers are. Artificial scarcity would make sense if Sony were jacking up their prices, but they’re not the ones doing that.
ign.com
Najstarsze