Silent Hill : The Only Good Video Game Movie?

Happy Halloween

Halloween is here, and I have the perfect movie for you, and to make things interesting it is in-fact a movie based on a video game franchise. Wait! Don't click away! Yes, I know that concept has been explored and has failed many times, and I too am still recovering from what they did to Assassins Creed, but hear me out. The Silent Hill movie honestly doesn't get enough credit and recognition as it still stands as one of the best movies based on a video game, and one that honors the source material. So, Let's go over what they did right, what might make you cringe, and what makes it a great movie to watch on a dark Halloween night.

What They Did Right

Honestly one of the things I love about this movie is that you can see the respect the director and writers had for this franchise. Sure, some of the most iconic characters are in the movie and they're all done justice thanks to most of the actors, I'll get into why I can't say all of the actors later. But what really shows the level of love put into this movie are the small details that are added. Details like the fog that was originally used in the game to create the feeling of an open world without putting the processing strain of an open world on the PS2. This, combined with the music pulled straight from the game's iconic soundtrack immediately puts the viewer into the unsettling atmosphere. Even the camera angles were thought through as they did their best to mimic the in-game camera. I can go on and on, and I think that's the point, that there's so much little details that are put there for the fans and to help build the platform this movie stands on.

You can feel the amount each person involved invested into this movie when you watch The Making of Silent Hill The Movie. Everyone seems to be on the same page and everyone seems to understand the themes and dark tones the story carries. But most importantly, the director Christophe Gans mentions that he's a gamer, and he understands the lore of the game, but practically in the same breath he says, "The game is a game, and the film is a film." And he uses this mindset to take some liberties, one of the biggest being the fact that the protagonist is played by the mother. The game has the father looking for his daughter, but the movie decides to instead focus on the mother's love for her child. And what makes this so powerful is when the father then goes looking for his family and you watch the pain a mother goes through losing her child, while the father loses his family. Now once again I can go on, but I'd rather go into the small amount of areas they may have missed the mark on

What They Did Wrong

I'll be the first to admit that the movie isn't perfect, and that notion is practically put front and center during the opening scenes of the movie. Rose is frantically searching for her child through the woods only to save her at the last second before her daughter nearly sleep walks off a cliff. The daughter, Sharon then proceeds to scream Silent Hill over and over until she wakes up. The issue here is the lack of subtlety and mystery, and it all comes of as rushed and lazy writing that does its best to put us in Silent Hill as soon as possible. There are a couple more corny lines and thrown together scenes that seem outta place but if you don't cringe during the first 5 minutes of the movie then you have a much better tolerance then I. Next, I have to comment on the young actress playing the little girl Sharon. Now, let me start by saying that she does a great job as the demon, and the fact that she is playing multiple roles is impressive, but one role is a bit distracting. It seems like whenever she plays the role of Sharon it's hard to watch as the lines she's given always come out as forced. But this is just me being critical of a child actress. But that's about it if you can look past the occasional corniness that comes with any video game translated into movie, you'll see that good in this movie heavily out weighs the bad

A Scary Good Movie

So, that brings us here, in a world where a movie based on a video game, is actually pretty good. Not only good but well put together with a story, climax, and ending that will probably stick with you. And with the spookiest holiday upon us I think it's a perfect time to stream, rent, or even buy this movie off the bargain racks and give it a shot. The best part about it is if you're a fan of the game there's plenty of small details that are put there specifically for you, but if you just like horror the story and gore will hold your interest.


What do you think? Is there such a thing as a good video game movie, and if so, is it Silent Hill?

Black Ops 4's Greatest Feature

Something More Games Should Have

I've been having a blast jumping back into the Call of Duty franchise. Yes, I played Call of Duty WWII, but I'd argue that the majority of enjoyment from that game was based  purely on nostalgia. While Black Ops 4 seems like a true revival of the franchise that for once has built upon itself in every way. And although the game's campaign had to be sacrificed, what we got in return was something competitive, inventive, and most of all, fun! But there's one feature in particular I'd like to talk about, a feature that has seemed to of disappeared over the years, especially in AAA titles.

Split-Screen

That's right, split screen, the feature you might remember making 007 Goldeneye for the N64 so popular. But since then this feature seems to have been thrown away without all that much complaint from the consumer. The only time this topic hit the headlines was when Halo 5 infamously did away with the feature, claiming that it was to help them reach 60 frames per second. Cries from parents who couldn't play with their kids, and friends no longer able to hold the tradition of playing together on one system were heard all over social media. Unfortunately, this didn't change anything, although Microsoft was at one point on the right track, with a system feature that had people cheering.

Play... Anywhere?

It's called Xbox Play Anywhere, and it promised the ability to play games on both the Xbox one and PC as long as you purchased the game digitally. On paper this seemed like a great idea that was purely for the consumer's benefit. After all, you could argue that the reasoning for removing local co-op from games is primarily a financial decision that benefits the corporation while hurting the consumer. Because, without split screen, in order for your friend or loved one to play the game with you they must own both a console and another copy of the game. The Play Anywhere feature might not be the perfect fix to this issue, but it at least allowed those who bought the game on PC the ability to play with them on console.

This was a pretty poor fix and yet Microsoft has trouble implementing even that. Currently since the feature was announced over 2 years ago less then 30 games are compatible and less then half of those titles are from AAA developers. Essentially, this feature is meant for games exclusive to PC and Xbox one games, but what about everything else? Enter our next solution in the works.

Cross Play

Recently this topic has gotten a lot of attention when Microsoft and Nintendo came together on games like Minecraft and Fortnite, allowing players to play together no matter what platform. And after getting a lot of heat and bad press for refusing to join in, Sony later allowed cross play for Fortnite, but is that enough? Why can't I play with my friends? Should I be punished for wanting to own a PC when my friends are playing on console, or visa versa? The obvious answer is no, but unfortunately there's a lot of red tape in the way that complicates things. Companies want there to be a reason for consumers to buy their console, and if everyone is playing all the same games together, then the only difference is the shape of the plastic box you're using to play your games.

And this is only the tip of the ice berg when it comes to the debate over cross play, which is why COD: Black Ops 4 is something special. The ability to allow split screen gaming removes any complications and simply lets your friend sit right next to you to play the game together. It allows two people to play 1 game together on one system, which sounds simple until you realize the lack of local co-op in games today. And that's why split screen is Call of Duty: Black Ops 4's greatest feature, and one that more games should have while we all try and figure out cross play.



But what do you think? Is split screen a relic of the past or is its removal just another example of corporate greed?

Fortnite : Coming To Store Shelves for $30?

Better Late Then Never

"Eww, why would Epic put their product in a dying market," said your friend who laughs at you for still buying physical copies of games. Well, you can tell your friend that the demand for physical games may have shrunk, but brick and mortar stores still hold a piece of the gaming market place. But before we go into that, let's discuss exactly what it means for Fortnite to hit store shelves.

Honestly, it doesn't mean much. It's not like the game is now $30 and anyone who wants to play has to pay up, no. The $30 dollar price tag is for a v-buck and exclusive winter gear bundle, which includes 1,000 v-bucks, Frostbite Outfit, Cold Front Glider, Chill-Axe Pickaxe, and Freezing Point Back Bling. Also, if you buy the Xbox One version, it comes with a CD, while the PS4 and Switch versions both come with a code. Now, I know what you're thinking, 'This is just like any other bundle Epic will try and sell,' and you're exactly right. In fact, this bundle will also be available digitally to those who already own the free-to-play game. So why even put the product on store shelves if it's already digitally available to those who downloaded it?

Well, similar to the mentality behind their game, they want to make sure that everyone has access to their in-game purchases. Better yet, with the holiday season coming up, they want to make sure that they have the perfect gift for people to give their Fortnite fans in the family. After all, giving a someone a physical box to unwrap is much better then giving him numbers to your credit card so he can get the Deep Freeze bundle.

What Does This Mean?

So if a company like Epic Studios is releasing physical media to put it on store shelves, then what does that say about the market place, and the survival of brick and mortar stores? It says a lot actually, just think about it, this is a game that has been digital from the start, and has proved to be immensely successful. The game is free so everyone has access to it and they're able to chose whether or not they want to put money into it for in-game accessories. But Epic knows that although their game is one of the most accessible, being available on any platform, there is still a spot they're absent. A spot that might not hurt them usually, but can be a lost opportunity during the holidays.

The fact is, although nearly everyone has heard of Fortnite by now that doesn't mean everyone knows or cares that much about it. So, when your Uncle, Grandmother, Mom, or Dad try to find a gift for you they'll probably go to Gamestop, or the nearest gaming store, and drop the name Fortnite. But instead of the sales person telling them that it's a free digital game so all they have is a tee shirt, they will instead have the perfect product to push to those buyers.

And for those who are fans of the classic brick and mortar gaming store, whether it be the ability to chat with like minded people, play demos, or just browse, this is good news. This shows that one of the biggest digital games studio still sees value in the classic process of purchasing a game. It also proves that there is still a market out there no matter how small or loyal. And for now, it's one of the best ways to get your last minute gift under the tree.



But what do you think? Are the holidays not enough to sustain such a business, or is this one o many sign that physical games will always have a place for consumers.

Venom : Post Credit Scene Cringe

Spoiler Warning

Before you read this please go and watch Venom! I'll be diving into spoiler territory in terms of what we can expect from the Venom sequel so turn back now if you haven't seen the movie.

Let's Talk About It

With that outta the way, let's talk about it. So there I was, sitting in my cushioned theater seat with a big smile on my face after enjoying my time watching Venom and listening to Eminem's song play during the credits. Yep, that's right, Eminem released a song for Venom on his new CD and the song is just as amazing as you'd think. Then the after credit scene began to play and I knew what was coming, I knew Cletus Kasady was going to be teased, but rumors of Woody Harrelson had me nervous.

Before I go into the scene let me first put my cards on the table and expose my bias so you can better understand my opinion. First, Carnage has always been one of my top 5 villains, so getting the correct portrayal for a such a horrifying villain had me watching the scene with baited breathe. And the second Woody Harrelson's face came into focus I couldn't help but yell profanity at the inanimate movie screen. Honestly, Woody Harrelson would have been a good choice... about 20 years ago, but now? No, and let me tell you why. I personally have Woody Harrelson fatigue after annually seeing him in a movie every year since Zombieland in 2009. I'm sick and tired of Woody Harrelson and Hollywood's need to put him into every quirky character they can shove him into. I get it, Woody Harrelson is an odd guy so he's the first person a casting director thinks of, but can we maybe think of someone else, anybody else? In my opinion, casting Woody Harrelson in this role is only marginally better then casting Nicolas Cage, who seems to sign on to any script that's thrown at him. In all seriousness though, it seems as though fans have once again done a better job casting for there favorite Spiderman villain then Hollywood. Names such as the actor Cameron Monaghan from Gotham, Michael C. Hall from Dexter, and Jackie Earle Haley who played Rorschach in Watchmen have all been brought up. Personally, I'm a big fan of the idea of Cameron Monaghan, but I honestly would have rather of seen any of these actors, or maybe even a no-name actor play the role. Anyway, now that you better understand the lens I'm viewing this scene through lets talk about it.

What Happened!? 

The scene treats us to Eddie riding to a secure facility as he plans to interview a highly violent fugitive. Any fan of Spiderman and the lore behind Venom already has an idea of who he's going to see. As Eddie walks through the halls of the high security prison the guard warns him to stay on his guard despite the fact that he's in an isolated space within the prison. Finally, Cletus Kasady is revealed and as Eddie walks into his cell within a cell the camera focuses on Cletus writing "Welcome Eddie" in blood. The two then have a short dialog exchange, Cletus asks "You mind if we forego the creepy serial killer thing... I mean I can turn it on if you want," setting the tone with a little exposition. By the end of the scene Cletus asks him to get closer, and when Eddie does Cletus says, "When I get outta here, and I will. There's gonna be carnage." And that was it.

What Went Wrong?

First, I believe the sole reason Woody Harrelson was chosen for this role was the director's friendship he grew with the actor while shooting Zombieland. Ruben Fleischer even sat down with IGN for a one-on-one interview about the Venom movie and the inclusion of Carnage came up. Fleischer discusses how it would be interesting for Harrelson to re-enter the role he played in Natural Born Killers. Are you serious? That was 24 years ago! So as I mentioned previously maybe he would have done justice to the character 20 years ago, but today he's old enough to play Cletus' father, who (fun fact) killed Cletus' mother. But I've clearly gone into detail as to why I believe Carnage was mercilessly miss-cast, so lets move on.

The wig! What in god's name was the reasoning for giving Harrelson that wig!? Honestly, if I wasn't so upset about the casting, I would have been laughing about the Little Orphan Annie wig he was trying to pull off with a straight face. It's nothing short of laughable and an absolute disgrace. The costume design looked as though they had a dollar store budget, or maybe they were going for a Ronald McDonald look, either way it was impossible not to notice. And the accent! What in god's name... alright it's not as bad as the wig, but his accent seemed to be all over the place. At times he seems to have a southern draw, and next he's speaking in a plain American accent.

All these factors only added to the overall, anti-climactic scene. The scene itself seemed like it was written using a psychopath check list.
- Locked in a cell, within a cell, in a prison ✓
- Guard warns you before speaking with him ✓
- Use blood to write on something ✓
- Cell has see through walls ✓
- Speak in a calm manner ✓
- Say something intelligent/philosophical ✓
- Ask the visitor to get closer ✓
- End your menacing line with a smile ✓

Whoever wrote this scene clearly watched Silence of the Lambs and decided to add a couple more tropes to pass this paint by numbers scene off as original. But here's the real issue, Cletus Kasady isn't Hannibal Lector from Silence of the Lambs, and he's not Mickey Knox from Natural Born Killers, he is something else entirely. He is not calm, cool, and collected, he's chaotic and unpredictable. This is what makes him a powerful force of nature, because his persona gives readers the belief that he is truly uncaring and unstoppable. And yet one of his first lines practically pokes fun at this as he asks if they can skip the whole being a creepy serial killer routine.

Finally, his last line made me cringe. The reason being that, everyone who stayed to watch the after credit scene knows this is Cletus Kasady, and knows Cletus is Carnage, so why say it? It feels like the director was holding my hand throughout the scene and then bashed the fact that Carnage was coming in the sequel over my head as hard as he could. Subtlety goes a long way, just look at the ending of Batman Begins. You never see the Joker, and his name isn't even spoken, Batman is simply handed a card and the scene allows the audience to fill in the blanks.

How We Can Fix This

Yes, that's right, I still think we can fix this through creative story telling. What if the man in the cell is in fact Cletus' father and is simply using his son's name as an alias to keep off the grid. We learn this as Eddie Brock dives deeper into the life of who he thinks is Cletus Kasady but is in fact an impostor who didn't start using that name until his first murder, who was his wife. Eddie then learns that the man has a son who was accused of killing his Grandmother, and was sent to an orphanage until they could get the evidence they needed to put him in penitentiary. But as Eddie rides towards the orphanage, a fire truck beats him there as a wall of police cars and chaos blocks him from getting through. Venom also warns Eddie not to get any closer as he's weak against fire and maybe even fearful of it. And just as the scene is set, fire putting fear into Venom, as chaos circles them we then see a young man being led into a police car while laughing and fighting against the police, begging them to let him see the children's bodies burn. Time slows as the police car then passes Eddie and the two lock eyes. He stands frozen looking at Cletus as though the line between vigilante and true evil is drawn between them.


But maybe I'm judging a 2 minute post credit scene a bit too harshly. What do yo think, is there hope for Carnage, or is all hope lost in those curly red locks

Black Ops 4 : Should A Game Have A Campaign?

Supply And Demand

Has the demand for a campaign gotten completely drowned out by the unrelenting popularity and versatility of multiplayer? The games industry is a lot of things to a lot of people but at the end of the day it's a business, and all their decisions can be broken down and viewed economically. And one of the most basic laws of economics is the rule of supply and demand, which is the simple equation used so that the availability of a product or service meets the desire for it. And lets face it, the demand for multiplayer games has never been higher. Games such as Overwatch, Fortnight, and many more have been topping the charts in sales and have remained some of the most popular games to stream on Twitch. So, when you look strictly at the statistics and sales of recent games it's easy to see why studios are stressing the importance of multiplayer in their games. But are we on a progressive path, or are we leaving something less popular behind? 

It's Only The Beginning

source © Statista 2018

Although it may sound ominous that the overall focus the industry has on multiplayer is only growing, it's not all bad, look what multiplayer has done for video games. Esports is putting video games on the map, and discussions about allowing the sport in to the Olympics has become more and more prevalent. Not to mention, the crowds that esports draw in are not to be ignored. Thanks to the data gathered on esports by Statistica, the market is projected to bring in over 1.1 billion dollars in revenue by 2019. And unfortunately it's not the Witcher 3 that people are coming to see, because what people want to see is a competition.

It's true that some single player games can still drive competition through speed runs and completing collections, but speed runs hasn't become a billion dollar business. The fact is, people love to watch their favorite pro players compete against others in the competitive game of their choosing. And all this attention and revenue has not gone unnoticed by developers and their studios. Especially when you consider the cost involved to create something the majority of your player base will only play once and might not even finish. Rob Fahey discussed this in the Game Industry article The Economics of Single Player Games a year ago, but if you read it, you'll see it remains true to this day. The fact is that developers are spending a large chunk of their budget on something that has arguably become unnecessary to sell a game.

Why Make A Single Player Game  

Well, all we've talked about is what makes a game popular and profitable, but single player offers something that multiplayer never will. It's something that's hard to describe so I'll simply call it the 'impact' the game has on a player. The wow moment that connects a player to a game and brings out a much wider span of emotions. What does this is the story offered within a game's campaign, and although some forms of multiplayer can offer story as well, it's often much shorter. Players are willing to put in hours, days, weeks or more into a game's story so that they can feel the connection and impact the story gives them.

But unfortunately, to some that's not enough. And that brings me to one of the most shocking displays of the drop in single player popularity. Recently the beloved studio Telltale Games let go nearly all its staff, leaving a skeleton crew of 25 people to finish their current project with Netflix. How these people were let go without any warning or severance pay is sad and disgusting, but I unfortunately can't go into more detail without straying from the topic. To learn more Megan Farokhmanesh, from The Verge wrote a great piece going into detail on the sad news, and you can read it here.

So, the question remains, why make a single player game? Especially when multiplayer has proven to be statistically more profitable and popular. Well, Activision and Treyarch have most likely asked the same question before developing Black Ops 4, and they controversially decided to not invest in one. Instead they chose to use that money and time to put more effort into their variety of multiplayer. And in a way, the very same reason they chose to do this, is the answer to that question, which is, know your audience. If you know your audience then you already know whether to invest in a single player game or not.



But what do you think? Is Activision and Treyarch making a mistake by not including a campaign, or are they simply reading the market and giving people what they want.

Bowsette Broke The Internet But What's Next?

Who Is Bowsette?

Original by @ayyk92

Before we discuss what she may become let's first talk about how the internet sensation came to be. It all started with a comic, seen on the left, posted by the twitter user @ayyk92. The comic shows an alternate ending to Super Mario Odyssey where the super crown power up exists. In that game, the climactic ending has both Bowser and Mario asking for Peach's hand in marriage, only for Peach to stand up for herself and deny both of their aggressive proposals. Well, in the universe @ayyk92 has created, it looks like Bowser had a plan B, and that plan involves the newly announced super crown power up.

We then see Mario and Bowser brought together through their denied attempts to win Peach's heart, and here's where the plan takes an unforeseen turn. Bowser uses the super crown power up, which then gender swaps him thanks to the crown's ability to turn it's wearer into a 'Peach-afied' version of themselves'. The viewer, and Peach, are then treated to the image of Mario and the later named Bowsette walking by as they chat and to Peach's surprise and confusion, seemingly enjoy each other's company.

End of story, right? WRONG!

This is where the story begins, as it was love at first sight for the Nintendo community and beyond. Fan art poured in from all corners of the internet, and when I say all corners, I mean ALL of them. Yes, the NSFW artists also latched on to the character and has created a wealth of lusty images of the character while putting emphasis on her busty figure. But it wasn't just her body that everyone fell in love with, although it probably didn't hurt her popularity either. No, it was also the 'attitude' she brought to the Mario universe. Most fan art carried a constant theme of a character who's sassy, aggressive, powerful, and assertive. And it was a character like this that has arguably been missing in the Mario universe. It was as though those who were creating their own interpretation of the character not only wanted to be part of the popular meme but also help in filling a void within the Mushroom Kingdom. Peach may have shown off her independence in the recent Mario Odyssey, but that doesn't change that she's the perfect model of the damsel in distress. Bowsette is the exact opposite, she wouldn't let anyone overpower her, and if anything she'd be the one to cause a little chaos, but I digress.

What's Next For Bowsette?

Original by Rakkuguy

Bowsette has become impossible to ignore, even the corporate side of Nintendo must have taken notice as their stock hit a noticeable spike during her peak in popularity. A fan event, dedicated to celebrating the new community favorite has already been planned in Japan. And one creative Youtuber, who goes by GandaKris, has even shown us all how to use the Peach amiibo to create a custom Bowsette amiibo. So, if Nintendo accepts Bowsette as cannon it would be a huge announcement that many fans would probably love to see, but what would the repercussions be? For one, by accepting that Bowser is able to use the power up then that opens up a huge window of possibilities, some of which have already been explored by the community.

After Bowsette hit her peak in popularity, people have been wondering who else could use the super crown power up. One of my personal favorites is Rakkuguy's continuation of the previously mentioned comic featuring the newly name Booette. In this comic we see Luigi get an idea from his brother Mario and use the crown on King Boo, later walking by a clearly confused and slightly horrified Princess Daisy. So who's next? The skeleton koopa Dry Bones, Chain Chomp, Cheep Cheep, Shy Guy, and more have all been reimagined by many artists. One artist in particular, eindraa, went as far as to create his depiction of each and every one.

Now, let's not ignore the elephant in the room. By approving this as cannon they are allowing an ability that gender swaps the user, and that might be asking a bit too much from a gaming company who's target market is primarily children. But does that mean that they should turn their backs on such a magnetic character? One that will clearly live on whether they chose to acknowledge her or not? Well, there might be a way, and it could even be a plot device for a future Mario game. As far as we know, this power is used purely by Toadette, so maybe Bowser's next scheme will be to steal that power from the Toads to become the true King of the Mushroom Kingdom. Maybe he imagines himself becoming a more elegant and regal King who will finally win over Peach's heart, and if not the crown should make him King either way. But comically, instead of turning him into a king he becomes a 'Peach-afied' version of himself. At first he's, well she's angry and confused, but through her anger she makes a new plan to replace Peach as princess of the Mushroom Kingdom. So instead of trying to kidnap her... for love, she kidnap's her to replace her as the true princess.


Original by @kuroko_14

But that's just one idea. What do you think will come of Bowsette? Will Nintendo ever include Bowser's new form and risk their reputation, or will they ignore the fan favorite?

The PlayStation Classic : A Bad Move By Sony?

How Much Does Nostalgia Cost?

Sony recently announced the PlayStation Classic, and anyone who watches me on twitter knows, I'm not exactly a fan. But before I dive completely into cynicism and go over everything wrong with this decision lets discuss what exactly Sony is selling for $100. 

"The console will come pre-loaded with 20 classic titles, including fan-favorites such as Final Fantasy VII, Jumping Flash, Ridge Racer Type 4, Tekken 3, and Wild Arms. The mini console is approximately 45% smaller than the original PlayStation, and it emulates the original’s look and feel by featuring similar controllers and packaging. Long-time fans will appreciate the nostalgia that comes with rediscovering the games they know and love, while gamers who might be new to the platform can enjoy the groundbreaking PlayStation console experience that started it all. All of the pre-loaded games will be playable in their original format." - PlayStation.blog

Sounds pretty sweet right? The perfect way to commemorate the system's... 24th anniversary? Yeah... well I'm not buying it, metaphorically and literally. This product was clearly made to take advantage of current trends while ignoring the true interests of their customers.

Where Did Sony Go Wrong?

Honestly Sony has done a lot of good for their customers over recent years. They arguably made indie games mainstream, made a lot of exclusive deals, and offered their console at a much more competitive price. So, let's not ignore all the progress Sony made since the PS3. But, with that said, that makes it that much more important to point it out when Sony reverts back to their corporate focused ways. The fact is, the PlayStation Classic is a cash grab. It's not a celebration of any kind of anniversary, although it's funny how the blog makes it sound like it's celebrating "Almost 25 years". In other news, I'll be celebrating my grandmother's 'almost 90th' Birthday soon, I mean she'll be 89, but 90 sounds cooler.

Seriously though, it should be obvious that Sony believes that Nintendo has put a price on nostalgia and intends on cashing in. All while looking as though they're bringing back their classic games as if they were hidden away in Walt Disney's Vault. When the fact is, Sony simply sees this as a much more profitable way to give their customers access to old games without providing backwards compatibility.

Can't Go Back

  
PS4 not having any form of backwards compatibility was a hot topic for many fans. Especially after Microsoft announced that the Xbox One would have access to Xbox 360 and original Xbox games through the store. Online petitions were created to raise awareness of the issue, but all fans got was a brief and simple answer during the 2015 E3. The boss of PlayStation Shuhei Yoshida said, "Backward compatibility is hard ."- Gamespot Article

And since then, that remained Sony's stance on the subject. Looking back now, a more comical quote from the boss of PlayStation Europe is,

"When we've dabbled with backwards compatibility, I can say it is one of those features that is much requested, but not actually used much. That, and I was at a Gran Turismo event recently where they had PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4 games, and the PS1 and the PS2 games, they looked ancient, like why would anybody play this?"

Looking back and seeing how Sony is now creating a dedicated system to play those same 'ancient' games is laughable. So that proves to us that Sony isn't doing this for the dedicated Sony fans who have asked for this, they're doing this because they got tired of Nintendo being the only one having a retro system that continues to sell out in stores. Because Microsoft has proven that backward comparability has a following and can be made accessible through the system's store. But why let the consumer pick and choose the games they want to play, when depending on the price, the average gamer may spend only $50 to play old favorites. Why do that when Nintendo has paved the way for a new product that locks the consumer in at a $100 entry fee to access 20 pre-selected games. Even those who might only be interested in playing 2 of the 20 games will still buy the system just to get that nostalgic feeling of the good old days. You know, those days when nostalgia didn't have a price tag.


But what do you think? Is it worth it, are you gonna wait for it to go on sale, or are you still holding out for PS4 to be backward compatible.