• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Gaming news

Still got a good 3-4 years before they bring out PS6 based on previous generations life cycle of 7 years. I kept my PS4 until last year and it was still going strong with its back catalogue of games. A PS5 pro more likely to come out this year.
 
A PS5 pro more likely to come out this year.
Seen a lot of people speculating that they might bundle it with the GTAVI launch - which I might actually be tempted by tbh
Though I never went for a PS4 Pro, my day 1 PS4 was still going strong when I bought my PS5 last year
 
Still got a good 3-4 years before they bring out PS6 based on previous generations life cycle of 7 years. I kept my PS4 until last year and it was still going strong with its back catalogue of games. A PS5 pro more likely to come out this year.
Out of curiosity, would you (and everyone else reading this) be okay with shorter games? I'm not talking 3 hours here, something more inline with around the 360. Because I seriously think the market at the top will crash or get very dull if not.

Just to give you some examples, the Sony leaks apparently said Spiderman cost 300m and 5/6 years to make. The Last of us 2 and Horizon was about 200m and around 5 years each too.
 
Bloody hell, feels like I've only had mine 5minutes
The strange thing is its time warping as you've got older

PS1 - 1994
PS2 - 2000
PS3 - 2006
PS4 - 2013
PS5 - 2020

So latter half makes sense you'd be expecting the PS6 ~2027
 
Ok yeah that makes more sense haha - I bought mine Dec 2022, didn't realise they'd been out that long
Yeah I got mine when they came out in Nov 2020

For 1st spin HW its held up surprisingly well I wish I could the same about the controller and drift....on my 4th 5th
 
Out of curiosity, would you (and everyone else reading this) be okay with shorter games? I'm not talking 3 hours here, something more inline with around the 360. Because I seriously think the market at the top will crash or get very dull if not.
Well I just played through the uncharted/TLOU series over Xmas to see how long it would take me. UC1-3 took me around 24 hours each and then UC4 around 20 hours. TLOU 1 took me 17 hours and TLOU2 26 hours. Plus I play in short bursts or complete a chapter.

And I would think I am not your average or play for hours on end. So if you're talking 20-30 hours for a game that would do me. But it's quality and storyline driven I am after. That's why I loved these naughty dog games - apart from TLOU2. But their new lineup has dried up not including the remakes.

I am currently playing GOW Raknorak and tbh I am not really enjoying it but will plow through with it. I read it takes about 32 hours to complete, plus another 6 hours for the free DLC.
 
The strange thing is its time warping as you've got older

PS1 - 1994
PS2 - 2000
PS3 - 2006
PS4 - 2013
PS5 - 2020

So latter half makes sense you'd be expecting the PS6 ~2027
PS1 - that takes me back. I remember seeing Gran Tourismo on that in my dorm mate's room and being blown away by it and knew I had to get myself one. Pro Evo games with my uni housemates until early hours of the morning and metal gear solid. Happy days!

The only one I didn't get was PS2 for some reason.
 
Well I just played through the uncharted/TLOU series over Xmas to see how long it would take me. UC1-3 took me around 24 hours each and then UC4 around 20 hours. TLOU 1 took me 17 hours and TLOU2 26 hours. Plus I play in short bursts or complete a chapter.

And I would think I am not your average or play for hours on end. So if you're talking 20-30 hours for a game that would do me. But it's quality and storyline driven I am after. That's why I loved these naughty dog games - apart from TLOU2. But their new lineup has dried up not including the remakes.

I am currently playing GOW Raknorak and tbh I am not really enjoying it but will plow through with it. I read it takes about 32 hours to complete, plus another 6 hours for the free DLC.
See, for a single player with reply value, I think 26 hours or 24 hours is too long really. During the PS2 era, silent hill 2 for example was about 9 hours - keep in mind that's if you know what you're doing. Mass Effect (storyline only) was about 25 hours each. There's a lot of replay or extra content in these games that bump them up, so to have a story game over 20 hours seems excessive to me.
 
Last edited:
PS1 - that takes me back. I remember seeing Gran Tourismo on that in my dorm mate's room and being blown away by it and knew I had to get myself one. Pro Evo games with my uni housemates until early hours of the morning and metal gear solid. Happy days!

The only one I didn't get was PS2 for some reason.
I skipped PS3 (360 instead) but had the rest,
PS1 was so good - Wipeout was the first game I had on it, absolutely loved it
 
Out of curiosity, would you (and everyone else reading this) be okay with shorter games? I'm not talking 3 hours here, something more inline with around the 360. Because I seriously think the market at the top will crash or get very dull if not.

Just to give you some examples, the Sony leaks apparently said Spiderman cost 300m and 5/6 years to make. The Last of us 2 and Horizon was about 200m and around 5 years each too.
i was having a chat with a mate about prince of persia, he just got the new one on switch and was having fun

we were talking about the sands of time series and only when we looked them up did we realised they dropped like movies use too 2003/2004/2005...and so whilst the games themself were only 10-15 hr games...you got more regular drops which allowed them to change up the game mechanics a bit each time...and in hindsight that was fun
 
i was having a chat with a mate about prince of persia, he just got the new one on switch and was having fun

we were talking about the sands of time series and only when we looked them up did we realised they dropped like movies use too 2003/2004/2005...and so whilst the games themself were only 10-15 hr games...you got more regular drops which allowed them to change up the game mechanics a bit each time...and in hindsight that was fun
A lot of those games had replay value too. I just find it very odd how this idea of a longer game means it's better that we seem to be stuck in. A lot of the older games we're no where near this long.

Funnily enough, if Sony and PlayStation are pushing even more for PC, Steam might as well bring out it's on console for people who don't want the fuss of a PC. They have literally all the sony/xbox line up, third party and all the indies, so why not.
 
A lot of those games had replay value too. I just find it very odd how this idea of a longer game means it's better that we seem to be stuck in. A lot of the older games we're no where near this long.

Funnily enough, if Sony and PlayStation are pushing even more for PC, Steam might as well bring out it's on console for people who don't want the fuss of a PC. They have literally all the sony/xbox line up, third party and all the indies, so why not.
i do get the "value for money" argument though, AU$70-90 for a 200hr game is good "value" compared too the same price for a 10-20 hr game
 
i do get the "value for money" argument though, AU$70-90 for a 200hr game is good "value" compared too the same price for a 10-20 hr game
It depends I find. Like, some games do have 200hrs of content, but what exactly is that content? In open world games it's usually 'collect 2000 items' for no reason and it's just pointless and boring - not something I would ever do either. Shorter games that have new game+ where you can replay the game with unlimited ammo, extra items, secrets or harder difficulties tend to be far more rewarding.

I think if the games are shorter, they would probably drop the price back down too. The older games would re-use the art, animations etc for the sequels and add new moves/skills etc whilst tweaking the games. That's how they could get more games and sequels out compared to nowadays.

Sega still do this funnily enough with the Yakuza/Like a Dragon games.
 
It depends I find. Like, some games do have 200hrs of content, but what exactly is that content? In open world games it's usually 'collect 2000 items' for no reason and is just pointless and boring - not something I would ever do either. Shorter games that have new game+ where you can replay the game with unlimited ammo, extra items, secrets or harder difficulties tend to be far more rewarding.

I think if the games are shorter, they would probably drop the price back down too. The older games would re-use the art, animations etc for the sequels too and add new moves/skills etc whilst tweaking the games. That's how they could get more games and sequels out compared to nowadays.

Sega still do this funnily enough with the Yakuza/Like a Dragon games.
i think that depends on how good you are maybe, witcher 3 was over 200hrs for me and there was no collections like that, BotW and TotK both had their korok seeds but i got over 200hr out of them without doing more of the korok seeds than i needed to max out my items, skyrim is another

I know lots of people can churn through those big game faster but and you really get your twitch going...but playing causally so you have to get back in the groove can really make them stretch out
 
i think that depends on how good you are maybe, witcher 3 was over 200hrs for me and there was no collections like that, BotW and TotK both had their korok seeds but i got over 200hr out of them without doing more of the korok seeds than i needed to max out my items, skyrim is another

I know lots of people can churn through those big game faster but and you really get your twitch going...but playing causally so you have to get back in the groove can really make them stretch out
I guess it's a more personal taste thing for me. Thankfully the smaller studios have me covered as they have an older style of game design đź‘Ť
 

Latest posts

Top