You can plug them in, but PS4 format controllers don't work on PS5 games; they only work on PS4 versions of games. You know, for all of that fancy rumble that's meaningless when you're playing Guilty Gear on a fightstick.
Well, let me take a little bit of credit away from them then, because those controllers are needlessly mandatory, even for games that don't make use of its features! How do you think fighting game players felt about that right as Sony bought the world's biggest fighting game tournament and made all tournaments run on PS5? lol
We're in such uncharted territory that I don't think I'll be able to predict it, but if Microsoft nails their next box, with its multiple stores and a bespoke version of Windows, which would make it capable of running Sony's games that aren't on "Xbox" today, I don't know how Sony will be able to compete by being second to market. Anything can happen though, it just won't involve PlayStation 6 succeeding by doing what PlayStation 5 did.
There's overhead to making consoles the way that they're made now; not just R&D and manufacturing cycles, but think about the cert process, for instance, that doesn't exist on PC. That overhead only makes sense at a certain scale. Economic factors are just changing how feasible it is to make a console the way that they've always been made, plus multiple countries' legislation is finally breathing down these companies' necks to destroy walled garden ecosystems, and Microsoft is attempting to get out ahead of it. The Steam Deck isn't quite as easy as a traditional console, but it's damn close for a competitive price, and it's just a computer. I think we're all expecting Microsoft's next box and potential handheld to just do that but with Windows, and I honestly don't know how Sony will adapt, but they're in the process of adapting.
I'm well aware of how consoles typically make money. So is Sony. The thing is, their games are getting more expensive to make and take longer too. That means there are fewer of them, which means there are fewer reasons to buy a PlayStation, which means there are fewer games sold to profit from. They historically haven't published on other platforms, because their bread is buttered when you feel like you need a PlayStation and buy your games there, even the ones available elsewhere. There's always demand for an easy-to-use box you can buy for less than a PC, but in the past decade, consoles have become more complex, PCs have become easier (and/or the know-how for using them became more commonplace), and the gap in price between the two has shrunk, especially when you consider long-term costs like subscriptions for online play or having to buy remasters of games that you could just have on PC and run at better resolutions and frame rates, things that consumers have become to savvy to.
Oh yeah, and of course Microsoft is doing even worse, sounding like their next console will just be a dressed-up Windows PC.
Well, I didn't stretch that one piece of information into that conclusion. Sony's basically telling their investors that. Their expensive exclusives are not fueling growth in adoption of the platform the way they used to, making their margins far slimmer, even when their competition in Xbox is basically squeezed out of the market. I believe Circana estimated that peak spending on console hardware was all the way back in 2009, when there were three extremely successful consoles in healthy competition with one another. If their old model was still working, they wouldn't have broken into the PC market to begin with. With the PC sales of Helldivers 2, that game is 7th in revenue for PlayStation published games; without the PC sales, it doesn't crack the top 20. New management at Sony is embracing these market realities. Consoles used to be the dominant platform for AAA games, and they no longer are, and that makes plenty of sense when you realize how many of consoles' advantages have been eroded over the years.
Missing its sales target means that Sony expected it to sell more by this point in its cycle. The console model is breaking down.
I just finished up Titan Quest with a friend, and we moved on to V Rising. That game feels very good to play. The controller support is a tad wonky in menus, and I wish that the opening minutes were better at facilitating co-op play, but it seems like a very cool loop between base building/survival and action.
So Redfall was set up to fail, and you make those people fall on the sword, and then Hi-Fi Rush is a game people clearly want more of and could have stood to cost more than $30, and you let those people go too instead of hitting the ground running on a sequel? What is wrong with you, Microsoft?
Why does this response just feel like it's a restatement of what people already have the right to without addressing if they're taking any action or not? Their mobile phone example even remains usable, whereas a lot of these games do not.
Sinking ship or not, word was that Wizards' cut of BG3 was over $90M. $100M was the entire production cost of Baldur's Gate 3. If you could fund an entire other massive video game for the cost of what you paid your partner for licensing, I'm sure anyone would be rethinking that deal. At this point, they don't need the D&D license any more than BioWare needed the Star Wars license after KOTOR.
There are so many viable alternatives. I've got an increasingly long list of things I won't tolerate in games anymore, and I'm nowhere near running out of games to play. The big problem is being able to identify which of those checkboxes are checked or not; PC Gaming Wiki is working for this purpose lately, though it shouldn't be necessary.