Bloodborne Catch-all

Shadout wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Shadout wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Fuzzballx wrote:

Sad, but if they don't don't value XBOX1 and PC players as their customers, well, i'm just not that excited about their product then i guess.

That's a tad simplistic. It's probably more accurate to say that Sony asked them to make this game for the PS4. They have an existing relationship.

They could have said No. Seems fair to say they value their relationship with Sony (or simply Sonys money) more than getting out to more customers. Which is a shame really. I bet even their future games that might again be released on more platforms will hurt from exclusivity of this. Reduces the brand recognition.

You can't reach customers without money.

They somehow managed to make Dark Souls 1 and 2.

Demon's Souls money made Dark Souls. Dark Souls money made Dark Souls 2. Sony money is making BloodBorne.

Shadout wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Shadout wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Fuzzballx wrote:

Sad, but if they don't don't value XBOX1 and PC players as their customers, well, i'm just not that excited about their product then i guess.

That's a tad simplistic. It's probably more accurate to say that Sony asked them to make this game for the PS4. They have an existing relationship.

They could have said No. Seems fair to say they value their relationship with Sony (or simply Sonys money) more than getting out to more customers. Which is a shame really. I bet even their future games that might again be released on more platforms will hurt from exclusivity of this. Reduces the brand recognition.

You can't reach customers without money.

They somehow managed to make Dark Souls 1 and 2.

If it is true that Sony is co-developing Bloodborne it does make it a bit different, somewhat first-party. Still, From is capable of developing games on their own.

They made them with Namco's money. Very few developers are able to make games on their own.

EverythingsTentative wrote:
Shadout wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Shadout wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Fuzzballx wrote:

Sad, but if they don't don't value XBOX1 and PC players as their customers, well, i'm just not that excited about their product then i guess.

That's a tad simplistic. It's probably more accurate to say that Sony asked them to make this game for the PS4. They have an existing relationship.

They could have said No. Seems fair to say they value their relationship with Sony (or simply Sonys money) more than getting out to more customers. Which is a shame really. I bet even their future games that might again be released on more platforms will hurt from exclusivity of this. Reduces the brand recognition.

You can't reach customers without money.

They somehow managed to make Dark Souls 1 and 2.

Demon's Souls money made Dark Souls. Dark Souls money made Dark Souls 2. Sony money is making BloodBorne.

Sony money made Demon's Souls.

nvm, been covered thoroughly

SixteenBlue wrote:

With Namco's money.

Who did not demand exclusivity. I haven't heard Namco refusing to release future From games?
In the end I don't care who pays. I just think they are hurting themselves more in the long run by releasing exclusive games, especially when they already managed to break through that limitation before.

Okay, that trailer looked amazing. It's still not clear how much Souls DNA is in there, and the lack of a shield clearly differentiates it, but it certainly looks like a sibling of some kind.

Really looks kind of like the 3D Castlevania that Konami has been struggling to produce for years and years.

Clocky, I'm pretty sure they've confirmed that they are repeating some of their online features, as well as some new twists, but nothing has been spelled out AFAIK.

Selfishly, I'd like this to release on October 6, 2015. I'd love to play through this at Halloween time. The horror is palpable in that trailer - I love that they've taken a game to just go full horror with, after all the great horror elements in the Souls games.

Shadout wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

With Namco's money.

Who did not demand exclusivity. I haven't heard Namco refusing to release future From games?

What does Namco having a contract have to do with Sony having a different contract?

Absolutely nothing.

In the end I don't care who pays. I just think they are hurting themselves more in the long run by releasing exclusive games, especially when they already managed to break through that limitation before.

Do you know why the game exists, and why it is on the ps4? Because Sony is footing at least part of the bill. That's the limitation. And quite frankly, without that money, we'd probably be seeing some other game that isn't Bloodbourne from them.

Anyone complaining about it being an exclusive as if their feelings were hurt needs to get over themselves, and maybe use a spell checker. It is a business.

As much as I understand you sentiment about console exclusie games, I don't hold it against the dev. They are just taking the guaranteed money now, instead of the maybe money later. Especially when the now money is potentially the same as the later money.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

As much as I understand you sentiment about console exclusie games, I don't hold it against the dev. They are just taking the guaranteed money now, instead of the maybe money later. Especially when the now money is potentially the same as the later money.

That's not really accurate. Few developers have enough money to pay for a full game's development. Period. They have to take publishing deals. With that in mind, publishing deals can also include money later as well, they're not always fixed payments. So they're not making trade offs, they're simply making the entire process possible.

SixteenBlue wrote:
EverythingsTentative wrote:

As much as I understand you sentiment about console exclusie games, I don't hold it against the dev. They are just taking the guaranteed money now, instead of the maybe money later. Especially when the now money is potentially the same as the later money.

That's not really accurate. Few developers have enough money to pay for a full game's development. Period. They have to take publishing deals. With that in mind, publishing deals can also include money later as well, they're not always fixed payments. So they're not making trade offs, they're simply making the entire process possible.

The sentiment I was trying to get across, while maybe not entirely accurate, is that Sony is footing the bill for this upfront. Maybe money is going to be had in both cases, depending on how the game sells.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

Selfishly, I'd like this to release on October 6, 2015. I'd love to play through this at Halloween time. The horror is palpable in that trailer - I love that they've taken a game to just go full horror with, after all the great horror elements in the Souls games.

It sounds like you may not get your wish because it's supposed to be releasing in early 2015. 6 months from now is the rumored estimate.

But I guess you're welcome to keep it in the shrink wrap until October 6 while the rest of us are playing

Dyni wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:

Selfishly, I'd like this to release on October 6, 2015. I'd love to play through this at Halloween time. The horror is palpable in that trailer - I love that they've taken a game to just go full horror with, after all the great horror elements in the Souls games.

It sounds like you may not get your wish because it's supposed to be releasing in early 2015. 6 months from now is the rumored estimate.

But I guess you're welcome to keep it in the shrink wrap until October 6 while the rest of us are playing :D

I've somehow postponed getting the first DS2 DLC so far, but I doubt I could postpone a whole game!

But this time, I would skip the midnight launch + taking a day off on Tuesday. That was kind of a waste with DS2, particularly since they didn't launch the damn servers until midnight PST.

EverythingsTentative wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
EverythingsTentative wrote:

As much as I understand you sentiment about console exclusie games, I don't hold it against the dev. They are just taking the guaranteed money now, instead of the maybe money later. Especially when the now money is potentially the same as the later money.

That's not really accurate. Few developers have enough money to pay for a full game's development. Period. They have to take publishing deals. With that in mind, publishing deals can also include money later as well, they're not always fixed payments. So they're not making trade offs, they're simply making the entire process possible.

The sentiment I was trying to get across, while maybe not entirely accurate, is that Sony is footing the bill for this upfront. Maybe money is going to be had in both cases, depending on how the game sells.

Gotcha. That's more or less what I'm saying as well.

Fuzzballx wrote:

Sad, but if they don't don't value XBOX1 and PC players as their customers, well, i'm just not that excited about their product then i guess.

Exclusivity only works when the product is good enough to actually make someone buy that console just for your product (Forza Franchise for example where i'm concerned).

I bought DKS2 on xbox and on PC, full price opening day or pre-order on both. And i don't regret it a bit. I'll probably buy all the expansions for PC as well.

But you know, there's no way i'm gonna get a PS4 to play this game and the one other exlusive i have any interest in.

If you're gonna make something exclusive, you should bother making it so world shattering it can sell a console by itself.

Damn thread peaked my interset for like 1 minute till i realized it was exclusive to PS4, now i'm just totally uninterested.

Maybe they know what their doing, but they're all idiots in my book (MS and Sony and their exclusives battles over non world shattering games).

Seriously, you're citing Forza as a better game than Bloodborne, comparing both prior to playing? Everything you said after that was just a faint sizzle to me.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
Fuzzballx wrote:

Exclusivity only works when the product is good enough to actually make someone buy that console just for your product

...

If you're gonna make something exclusive, you should bother making it so world shattering it can sell a console by itself.

I bought a PS3 just to play Demon's Souls. I may buy a PS4 just to play this - I need to go watch this trailer, which I have not yet done. For some of us Souls fans, a FROM game is as world shattering as it gets.

Dammit Fed stop making so much sense. :p

I got a PS3 for Demon's Souls, Uncharted, and Disgaea. All exclusives that I couldn't get anywhere else. And ended up getting 2 more Disgaea games, 2 more Uncharted games, and 2 more Souls games out of the deal. All Microsoft was offering back then was a $50 bill to play online and a bunch of games that had PC ports or were also on PS3. :p

Exclusivity is part of the deal with consoles, and part of what goes into choosing the right one for you. I've been very satisfied with my Wii/PS3 combo the last few years and probably will be with a Wii U/PS4 in the future.

Dakuna wrote:

Seriously, you're citing Forza as a better game than Bloodborne, comparing both prior to playing? Everything you said after that was just a faint sizzle to me.

The main Forza series is also unabashedly first party--Turn 10 Studios is owned by Microsoft. From Software is not owned by Sony.

Dakuna wrote:

Seriously, you're citing Forza as a better game than Bloodborne, comparing both prior to playing? Everything you said after that was just a faint sizzle to me.

You might be able to miss all my points further...i'm just not sure how.

*sizzling away*

Fedaykin98 wrote:
Fuzzballx wrote:

Exclusivity only works when the product is good enough to actually make someone buy that console just for your product

...

If you're gonna make something exclusive, you should bother making it so world shattering it can sell a console by itself.

I bought a PS3 just to play Demon's Souls. I may buy a PS4 just to play this - I need to go watch this trailer, which I have not yet done. For some of us Souls fans, a FROM game is as world shattering as it gets.

That's cool man. I hope it pays off for them. The games are awesome. As big a fan as i was of dKS and DKS2 tho, i'm not even considering buying a PS4 for this for a moment but i'd have pre ordered it already on xbox 1.

Hopefully this is just a spiritual successor and a DKS3 makes it into development soon seperately and comes out for both consoles and PC again.

I do prefer the look of DKS 1 and 2 to the footage so far of this new title.

Fuzzballx wrote:
Dakuna wrote:

Seriously, you're citing Forza as a better game than Bloodborne, comparing both prior to playing? Everything you said after that was just a faint sizzle to me.

You might be able to miss all my points further...i'm just not sure how.

*sizzling away*

Fedaykin98 wrote:
Fuzzballx wrote:

Exclusivity only works when the product is good enough to actually make someone buy that console just for your product

...

If you're gonna make something exclusive, you should bother making it so world shattering it can sell a console by itself.

I bought a PS3 just to play Demon's Souls. I may buy a PS4 just to play this - I need to go watch this trailer, which I have not yet done. For some of us Souls fans, a FROM game is as world shattering as it gets.

That's cool man. I hope it pays off for them. The games are awesome. As big a fan as i was of dKS and DKS2 tho, i'm not even considering buying a PS4 for this for a moment but i'd have pre ordered it already on xbox 1.

Hopefully this is just a spiritual successor and a DKS3 makes it into development soon seperately and comes out for both consoles and PC again.

I do prefer the look of DKS 1 and 2 to the footage so far of this new title.

I would bet all the internet points that the B team is making DS3. It will be on all the consoles. It will also be terrible, because DS2 is terrible. *dropsmicruns*

EverythingsTentative wrote:
Fuzzballx wrote:
Dakuna wrote:

Seriously, you're citing Forza as a better game than Bloodborne, comparing both prior to playing? Everything you said after that was just a faint sizzle to me.

You might be able to miss all my points further...i'm just not sure how.

*sizzling away*

Fedaykin98 wrote:
Fuzzballx wrote:

Exclusivity only works when the product is good enough to actually make someone buy that console just for your product

...

If you're gonna make something exclusive, you should bother making it so world shattering it can sell a console by itself.

I bought a PS3 just to play Demon's Souls. I may buy a PS4 just to play this - I need to go watch this trailer, which I have not yet done. For some of us Souls fans, a FROM game is as world shattering as it gets.

That's cool man. I hope it pays off for them. The games are awesome. As big a fan as i was of dKS and DKS2 tho, i'm not even considering buying a PS4 for this for a moment but i'd have pre ordered it already on xbox 1.

Hopefully this is just a spiritual successor and a DKS3 makes it into development soon seperately and comes out for both consoles and PC again.

I do prefer the look of DKS 1 and 2 to the footage so far of this new title.

I would bet all the internet points that the B team is making DS3. It will be on all the consoles. It will also be terrible, because DS2 is terrible. *dropsmicruns*

I literally -literally - LOL'd at that, 'EverythingsTentative'.

Seriously, though, while it is inconvenient if you're on the 'A' console camp that only 'B' console is getting a game, it is still very much a subjective issue whether the game is a system seller or not. So, you (Fuzzballx) might think Bloorbourne is not worth the PS4's price of admission and that's just fine, but it doesn't really detract from the developer's quality as a studio nor does it make them bad in general. Sony is footing the bill just like they did with Demon's Souls, which is a spiritual relative of the Dark Souls series. No big deal. If it makes you that angry, well, maybe it IS a system seller, non? hehehe

My two cents.

Also, I personally am buying a PS4 specifically for Bloodbourne, knowing that any sequels to Dark Souls will make it to most platforms anyways.

brokenclavicle wrote:

I literally -literally - LOL'd at that, 'EverythingsTentative'.

Seriously, though, while it is inconvenient if you're on the 'A' console camp that only 'B' console is getting a game, it is still very much a subjective issue whether the game is a system seller or not. So, you (Fuzzballx) might think Bloorbourne is not worth the PS4's price of admission and that's just fine, but it doesn't really detract from the developer's quality as a studio nor does it make them bad in general. Sony is footing the bill just like they did with Demon's Souls, which is a spiritual relative of the Dark Souls series. No big deal. If it makes you that angry, well, maybe it IS a system seller, non? hehehe

Yeah, while the inconvenience is definitely annoying, this could be said about many things. My personal pet peeve, more than this, is the inability to play games across consoles. I'm much more annoyed that I have to buy a separate console if my friends happen to choose the XBox vs. the Playstation to play NBA2k or Madden. That's much much sillier to me.

My two cents.

Also, I personally am buying a PS4 specifically for Bloodbourne, knowing that any sequels to Dark Souls will make it to most platforms anyways.

Same. I was on the fence if only because of The Last of Us. But this might be the nudge.

DSGamer wrote:

My personal pet peeve, more than this, is the inability to play games across consoles. I'm much more annoyed that I have to buy a separate console if my friends happen to choose the XBox vs. the Playstation to play NBA2k or Madden. That's much much sillier to me.

Agreed. I've missed out on at least 4 years of NCAA Football leagues here at GWJ because I'm apparently the only one playing on PS3. But there's no reason for me to buy a 2nd console for one game that I can already play on the console I have.

DSGamer wrote:
brokenclavicle wrote:

I literally -literally - LOL'd at that, 'EverythingsTentative'.

Seriously, though, while it is inconvenient if you're on the 'A' console camp that only 'B' console is getting a game, it is still very much a subjective issue whether the game is a system seller or not. So, you (Fuzzballx) might think Bloorbourne is not worth the PS4's price of admission and that's just fine, but it doesn't really detract from the developer's quality as a studio nor does it make them bad in general. Sony is footing the bill just like they did with Demon's Souls, which is a spiritual relative of the Dark Souls series. No big deal. If it makes you that angry, well, maybe it IS a system seller, non? hehehe

Yeah, while the inconvenience is definitely annoying, this could be said about many things. My personal pet peeve, more than this, is the inability to play games across consoles. I'm much more annoyed that I have to buy a separate console if my friends happen to choose the XBox vs. the Playstation to play NBA2k or Madden. That's much much sillier to me.

My two cents.

Also, I personally am buying a PS4 specifically for Bloodbourne, knowing that any sequels to Dark Souls will make it to most platforms anyways.

Same. I was on the fence if only because of The Last of Us. But this might be the nudge.

Almost bought a PS3 for last of us...now that i held out, it seems to have upped my hold out rating. Probably get the PS4 used in like 3 years and finally pick these games up for 10 bucks each:P

Hah.

I bought an xbox one so I could play Forza and Titanfall. I really wish I had not done that.

That trailer has sold me on the game. Incredible.

The more I see of Bloodborne the more I wonder if, with Dark Souls in the equation, they decided they shouldn't have two series running with almost exactly the same name so they decided to change the Demon Souls enough for it to become a new 'franchise' with a new name.

Higgledy wrote:

That trailer has sold me on the game. Incredible.

The more I see of Bloodborne the more I wonder if, with Dark Souls in the equation, they decided they shouldn't have two series running with almost exactly the same name so they decided to change the Demon Souls enough for it to become a new 'franchise' with a new name.

The stuff I'm reading makes this sound like it's going to be very different from a Souls game, though - for instance, they just said at Gamescom that it will be less punishing to players.

Less punishing in the sense of lower difficulty, or in the sense of less penalty when you die (losing souls/humanity), I wonder.

DS2 totally removed the loss of souls/humanity on death if you chose to use that soul ring. That was a mistake imo. Much of the suspension and danger comes from having meaningful risks from dying.
Plus in both DeS and DS1 there was some gameplay mechanics around being alive vs being dead.

I would assume there was something similar in Bloodborne with being beast or not (it was called Project Beast before the announcement after all).

Regarding lower difficulty, DS2 was already a bit less difficult, since it did a better job at explaining things.
On the other hand, all the Soul games has really only been as difficult as one wanted them to be. Playing a caster in DeS made everything much easier. Somewhat true in DS1 and DS2 as well.

From wrote:

“You died a lot in the previous games, and you had to persevere, but one of our main goals with this game is that we don’t want to focus on punishing the player,” he said.

Dont really agree with that view on their games. Souls isnt about dying a lot. It is easy to make a game where you die a lot. Just make it too hard. The great thing about the Souls games has been that it is not really too hard. It is rarely cheap (though it is from time to time). It is reasonably fair, BUT if you die, then it hurts. You do not just respawn unharmed at a checkpoint 1 minute earlier (well, in DS2 you can do exactly that).
Tbh, any game that tries to offer even the slightest amount of difficulty, should not focus on 'dying', it should focus on 'surviving'. What people remember, and enjoy, is surviving all those odds stacked against them.
But of course, the prerequisite to feeling you have survived is the feeling that anything could kill you.

Woooohoooo!!! Ragdoll is back I really missed it in DS2. You can also see a bit of the UI here.

Well, i'm encouraged, this sounds more and more like a new IP with just mechanical similarities to DeS and there's every reason to hope for a DKS3 for multiplaform still in my mind.

If you remove the life saving rings in DKS2, you have a game that's plenty punishing and focused on killing you repeatedly in punishing ways while you figure it out. Every reason to hope DKS3 could be still come along and be amazing.

Fuzzballx wrote:

and there's every reason to hope for a DKS3 for multiplaform still in my mind.

I really don't think there is any reason to worry about DKS3 being exclusive to any platform. Bloodborne and Dark Souls can exist separately without issue, especially since it has become clear that there are 2 separate teams working on these games.