If these are the highlights I wonder what the lesser classic games are going to be. Rascal for PS1? Bubsy 3D? Masters of Teras Kasi? I actually enjoyed Masters of Teras Kasi. My friends and I had fun doing stupid Star Wars things with it.
bigsocrates's forum posts
@peffy: If they plan to have that many at launch then their choices were strange. The stuff about not having to re buy old games is good (though it should be noted that the PS2 games appear to be the PS4 versions of those games, which are already playable on PS4/5, and there are a lot more digital PS2 games stranded on PS3). But I do have a digital version of Syphon Filter I bought for 99 cents in 2014, so I'll be able to not play that on 2 additional platforms. Seriously, though, it's good they are making PS1 and PSP games playable on PS4/5, I just hope they include more games that people actually want to play in 2022 (2D and RPG games from 1997 have aged better than 3D games.)
In terms of the backlog issue...I don't think there is a solution for anyone. I personally just like having more options and I sometimes get in the mood to play weird stuff. Like I would love for them to move Xevious 3D/G over to the PS5 because I have a weird love of that game.
N2O: Nitrous Oxide is another one that was on PS3 and that I personally enjoy playing every now and then.
Note that I am not suggesting either of these games would move even 1 subscription, I'm just saying that even with a big backlog of modern games and better games sometimes it's nice to go back to an old game and experience a different style of game and a different time. The PS1 and PS2 eras were so creative and weird, and that doesn't really show through in the list.
@bisonhero: People are mad at Twitch because they let him livestream the murder (though they did eventually ban him because even Twitch won't actually allow you to livestream murder) and they allow a lot of bad content on their platform despite complaints while being super strict about less important issues like copyright and nudity.
And their legal obligations to report behavior to the police is not relevant for holding them morally accountable. They absolutely could interface with authorities better (though how much we want Twitch calling the cops on people is an open question; I certainly wouldn't for things like drug use.)
Streaming sites have been used to stream a lot of actual heinous activity for a reason, and that's because they don't do a good enough job of identifying and banning that stuff quickly. For the most extreme cases (like this, an actual mass murder in progress) they generally will after enough people flag it, but all too often they allow people to stay on their platforms despite doing and saying some pretty bad stuff. And they don't focus enough on using automoderation to identify and automatically ban this stuff before others get to see any of it.
@lapsariangiraff: Interesting that you use "knife" in your example instead of "guns." Gun control alone will not stop mass murders, of course, but it can help, as many countries have shown. Likewise curbing social media does not stop the spread of extreme ideology, but it can help.
IN point of fact people do NOT move to Truth Social. Those right wing sites have very few users and most of them migrate back to Twitter or other mainstream sites. They want to spread their vile lies to everyone, not just the already committed.
Which brings up why stopping the spread of such material on Twitch or Twitter or whatever is important. A lot of people who would not seek out radical material will check it out of it is presented to them, and some subset will get drawn in. Exiling them all to Truth Social or whatever would do a lot to stop people from being radicalized.
Now am I claiming that better moderation on social media is a panacea? Of course not. But the fact that it won't cure the disease, only lessen some of the symptoms, doesn't mean it's not important. That's like saying that if someone is sick and has a bad fever we shouldn't give them fever reducing drugs because those drugs won't cure them. They won't, but they're still an important part of the treatment plan. You treat the symptoms and the underlying disease.
So do I think that Twitch is the most responsible party here? Not at all. Obviously not. Do I think that social media companies doing a better job of moderating would help somewhat and is an important thing to strive for? Yes. It will help, somewhat. Am I angry at Twitch and other social media companies for their bad moderation and the ways that plays into radicalization? I am.
They don't have to be the worst actors or primary cause to deserve blame for their bad actions. Not having good moderation tools for hate speech and violence is bad, and they deserve criticism for it. It causes real harm.
@lapsariangiraff: Everything that you say is a problem is a problem.
However the use of social media to radicalize and promote extreme ideologies and the failure of platforms to control and curtail these behaviors is also a real problem. This particular mass murderer was obsessed specifically with "replacement theory," a confused collection of racist beliefs that amount to white people somehow being 'replaced' by immigrants and inferior races (murdering a bunch of mostly US born black people in Buffalo is an incoherent response to what replacement theory actually says, but most of these people are not very bright.)
From a technical perspective locating racist language or murder are not very easy for an automatic system, but every social media site (including Twitch) needs better reporting and moderation features, and needs to pull the plug on extremist ieology much faster than they already do.
Part of not letting them roll back rights and roll on fascism is stopping the social media radicalization cycle, and part of that has to be done on social media.
Tucker Carlson should also, of course, be immediately fired and shunned, but that goes without saying.
Regina and Wakaka are minor characters. The meaty side quests are the ones with the major characters. River has a pretty good quest chain, as does Judy. The Peralez side quest chain is also pretty good.
Gigs are pure filler and just there to grind on or for completionists. Characters who have a major role in the main story of the game tend to have the best side quests.
@nameredacted: I don't want to get too deep into the Microsoft stuff because it's a little off topic and we don't actually know how Game Pass is doing (I would bet it is still losing money but not as much as you think) but it's only relevant because it's the obvious comparison. I don't think Sony would be doing this at all if not for Game Pass and its success (it may not be making money but it has helped make Xbox attractive again to some people and it certainly has a lot of subscribers.)
But moving past Game Pass, my main point is that this product is not attractive on its own to the people who are most likely to be interested in it. Long time Sony Fans have all this stuff available and aren't itching to play old versions of Worms anyway (because nobody is itching to play old PlayStation versions of Worms.)
New fans aren't interested in old games and if they are PS5 owners with PS+ they have access to a big library that contains many of these games through PS+ (maybe that's going away) and have gotten others through PS+ over the last couple years.
So who does that leave? Non-subscribers, who you are now asking to pay a higher fee to access some old games, or the newest purchasers, who are likely to be your least engaged audience, especially for the older stuff.
I am not saying Sony should necessarily put all their first party games on the service immediately, or splash out big cash for third party day-of launch deals like Xbox has. But they have been very stingy even with properties they own. They have a massive back catalog of classic games that they own the licenses to because they are selling them right now, today, on the PS3 store. Legend of Dragoon is one example. They already have the PS1 emulator up and running so it would be easy to offer that, and RPGs age better than many other genres.
They also have relationship with third parties who have the rights to many of their most classic PS1 and PS2 games. There are talks about Sony buying Square, and the companies have a good relationship. How hard would it be to get Einhander and a few non-Final Fantasy RPGs? Couldn't be that expensive. NAMCO is still around and you're already doing business with them for Tekken 2, so why not grab some of the Pac-Man World games to bulk out the service? I can't imagine they would be super costly since NAMCO isn't doing anything with them.
That kind of thing.
I think it's awesome that rain and Tokyo Jungle are on there; those are two PS3 classics that deserve more love. And they should stream relatively well. But there are a lot more games of that ilk.
The whole model just seems very much like Nintendo and their Switch Online deal that everyone kind of hates.
This doesn't have to be Game Pass but Sony could make it much better than this without breaking the bank.
And if you're not going to make it better why do it at all?
@bakedpony: Have they committed to porting over the whole PSnow lineup? I didn't see that they did. And games cycle in and off of that service. They are converting PSnow to PS Plus premium so it makes sense, but I haven't seen that commitment and it isn't listed here.
Regardless, this is their attempt to attract subscribers so I'd be pretty surprised if they've hidden much of value. When you're touting Lost Planet 2 you likely don't have a lot of dry powder, but we'll find out soon.
@bakedpony: They say that, but I would bet that it's the vast majority of the list. This thing is launching in under 2 weeks in Asia, and if they had a lot more games to show, and more impressive games, why would they release that list of PS1 game? Congratulations you get 2 Worms games and Mr. Driller. Subscribe today!
It's possible that there are going to be a lot more games available but I bet it will only be a few more. If that's wrong then whoever prepared this list should not be in marketing.
@chaser324: As I said I agree it's not bad if you're new to the ecosystem, but even if you've only been around a few years with a PS+ subscription you've gotten a lot of these games just off that. And most of the rest have been dirt cheap on PSN. It's a pretty good collection if you're just joining, but some of them are also in the already available PS4 collection.
I have no idea what the deal is with the classic games. They had literally hundreds of them available on PSN for the PS3 era, and among the handful of PS1 games are a bunch that have aged horribly. Mr. Driller is a great game but Mr. Driller Drilland is way better and has been very cheap on PSN. I can't imagine trying to play Syphon Filter 1 in the year of our lord 2022. That's a game that was interesting for the time. Good luck playing Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 on streaming!
This catalog will grow over time and I assume that's part of why it's so tiny, to allow them to drip feed games and look like they're providing value, but they could have at least brought out some heavy hitters that hadn't been released for a while (I.Q. Intelligence Qube is a cool game, but that was on the PlayStation Classic mini console and will only appeal to die hard PlayStation fans anyway.)
Just seems like a poor showing if you're trying to induce long term PS+ subscribers and PlayStation players to join the service. And if you're not going for them why even bother with having classics? Is any new player signing up to play the original Hot Shots Golf? Are they excited about Jumping Flash!? Because let me tell you, if you're not a long time gamer with nostalgia or at least a retro enthusiast...you should not be excited about Jumping Flash!