Jump to content


Established Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,893 Excellent

About Daweii

Profile Information

  • Location
    Birmingham, UK
  • Interests
    Art, Football, Gaming and Women.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just because they are not the focus of my post does not mean I am giving them a pass. Our whole team is **** shit and needs a rebuild.
  2. Well said Keane. The defenders need to be better. We give so much shit to our goalkeepers, but with trash like that in front of them we could have the worlds best goalkeeper between those sticks and we'd still be getting relegated. We need a complete rebuild.
  3. Megadrive/SNES era games as far as I'm aware didn't have standardised pricing. Some games were £30 while others cost way more than that. When the NBA 2K21 pricing news came out I did see some images of old Toys 'R Us adverts in the US on Twitter showing Zelda: A Link to the Past for $70 on the SNES.
  4. The NBA 2K21 base edition will cost £64.99 on PS5/Series X. 2K/Take-Two are the first publisher to come forward and state exactly what their price point will be in the next-gen. They won't be the only ones targeting this price point either; Source Other publishers are considering a price raise, but when they say "considering" it's likely set in stone at this point that EA, Activision, UbiSoft and Bethesda will all be following suit. Take-Two wouldn't make this decision in a bubble, if they were the only ones in favour of raising the price then they wouldn't have gone ahead with it.
  5. I believe mobile is tracked separately, but I could be wrong. The article didn't mention mobile, Android or iOS once so I can only assume that this stat is localised to the console market. Mobile is digital only, PC is digital only. Console gaming is the only platform left that can even have a digital vs physical discussion as far as I'm aware.
  6. I read a report on gameindustry.biz in early 2019 I think it was that stated 80% of the UK's video game market was now digital. Now that stat is misleading as a lot of it is digital sales of indie games, microtransactions and DLC. Only about 25% of that 80% was AAA games so it's not all bad news for physical, but these percentages are only going to grow from here on out. I also saw the same universal praise for the digital edition and I am curious to see how this all plays out going forward. I do think your thought on EA giving away FUT is something that will happen. This option of a digital console isn't just a sign that stats are in digital's favour, it's also a sign that enough people have some form of Internet that digital is also thriving. I do expect to see more games go down the free to play route because that's where the money is. Source I found the article. After writing my reply I doubted myself and had to look up the article itself to make sure I wasn't just making it all up.
  7. That's why there is a choice. I fully understand your position that digital doesn't offer the value features you want. I also fully understand that physical is more flexible for those that don't buy every game brand new and don't buy every game at launch, but there are a growing number of people that do. If you like games coming down in price then there is a version of PS5 for that. For perspective I pay full RRP for every game. I am likely the outlier on this forum as a result, but I am very much someone that recently paid full RRP for Last of Us 2 digitally and every other game for the last 17 years since digital became a thing.
  8. They offer the digital games for their actual RRP. As of right now Sony and Microsoft are merely sticking to the price tag and games in 2020 have an RRP of around £59.99, some are little less than that, but that's the price of games. They are staying firmly in line. Just because other stores sell the games for less is not Sony, or Microsoft not staying in line, it's other stores deviating from that line. In the end this is all going to come down to what you believe games to be worth. I have had no issue paying RRP for every game since the early 2000's, I understand though that to others it's a case of why pay £60 when the game is £40 on ShopTo and I fully get that.
  9. They would definitely have the potential to abuse it. I think for at least this upcoming generation they will be kept in line because physical still exists. If Sony are going to abuse a digital monopoly it'll be when physical is no longer an option. There was also a bunch of placeholder listings on Amazon that leaked a couple weeks back that had every PS5 game costing £70. So even if Sony don't take advantage, if those leaked placeholders are accurate then next-gen is gonna be expensive.
  10. If the prices are accurate and the Digital is £100 less than Physical then it's likely because PlayStation Store will be the only way to buy games. PlayStation Store is Sony property so they get a 30% cut of all third party sales and 100% of all first party sales. That would likely be enough to allow them to subsidise the cost of the Digital because they'll make way more money over the life of the product.
  11. I am so used to digital these days. I was primarily a PC gamer in the early 2000's which means I was there on day one when Steam launched and Steam killed discs on PC, it made them redundant which means for the last 17 years I have gotten used to downloading my games. Next-gen games will be smaller. PlayStation 5 comes with an ultra-fast solid-state drive (SSD), faster than anything in a PC today, massively faster. What this means is games don't have to duplicate assets to speed up load times. On PlayStation 4 every asset that appears thousands of times across a world like textures, mail boxes, street lights, stop signs or even cars need to be duplicated as hard drives are slow. If you're moving through the world at quite a speed then the hard drive can't keep going back to the main folder to load in another mail box, I mean it can, but you'd see the game physically pause for 35 seconds every 40 seconds to load in another mail box. The solution to this is to split the world into unique chunks on the hard drive complete with its own assets even if those assets already exist elsewhere. Spider-Man (40GB game) would be 10-15GB smaller without duplication. So games will already be smaller in next-gen, but there is more to it than just removing asset duplication. PlayStation 5 has custom compression/decompression hardware in it. This hardware has two uses. Firstly it compresses the data so that the SSD can load at 10GB/s which is pretty cool, I mean 10GB/s would load Spider-Man (PS4) in around 4 seconds. That said compression doesn't just allow the SSD to hit its advertised typical speeds, it also makes files smaller. So a 200GB game today could be 100GB without duplication which is not bad, but that's 100GB without compression. In the end that 200GB game today could be 50GB on PS5. That takes PS5's 825GB SSD from storing 4 games at a time to storing 16 games. Now sure some of this will be nullified by certain assets getting bigger in next-gen, but lets say the average game is between 50-75GB on PS5 it's still so much better than where we're at right now on PS4. Also factor in that download speeds aren't just based on download speed. If the CPU can't move the data around fast enough and the drive can't write data fast enough then download speeds will suffer. This is why download speeds on PS4 are terrible because the CPU in the PS4 is so bad your phone is probably faster than it. PS5 doesn't have that issue as its CPU is 4x faster and it's storage is 100x faster. Download speeds even for those that aren't rocking amazing speeds will be faster on PS5 than they were on PS4. So long story short. Games should be smaller and should download faster on PS5.
  12. Digital edition is the one I'll be buying for sure. My mind was already made up long before potential prices started to leak so saving £100 will be a nice bonus.
  13. Jack Gallagher got released from WWE the other day after allegations of rape. I'm not sure why WWE singled him out, but I do believe his response on Twitter was seen as an apology which could be construed as an admission of guilt. Matt Riddle for instance took a less tactful approach and claimed the woman accusing him was crazy which seems to have worked. So without proof Riddle remains for now. I am curious to see how AEW handle the Jimmy Havoc thing. We know that WWE like to sweep things under the rug unless given no choice, I'm not sure what AEW do as this is their first potential controversy.
  • Create New...