If you're looking to buy a console in 2018, I'd just wait until you're ready to buy to see what the news is at that time. I mean, if you end up buying in a year from now...then a lot could be announced between now and then.

So if I were you, I'd wait until you're ready to buy, and then consider your options. Even if a PS5 is announced, it depends when it actually launches and whether or not it's backwards compatible.

In other words, I think it's a bit too early to ask this question - nobody will be able to give you a valid answer. Wait until you're ready, cash in hand, and then look at the landscape at the time. If it turns out that PS5 is then only a couple of months away, you might choose to wait. :-)

@RSM-HQ: Yeah, the Chalice Dungeons are rubbish. Let me clarify: when I say "complete package", I'm talking about the combination of satisfying gameplay and plot. :-)

As for the DLC, I thought that The Ringed City was better than Ashes of Ariandel. I agree with you there. But I think neither DLC was particularly interesting. The plot of Dark Souls III was an enormous mess (which the DLC really did nothing to correct), and the combat encounters were okay. I felt that the ending was highly anti-climactic.

Compare that to The Old Hunters, which re-contextualised Bloodborne in a remarkably clever way, and I think there's just no comparison (lore-wise, at least).

But, to each his (or her) own. At the end of the day, I'd recommend owning both games (and their DLC), if that's at all possible.

@RSM-HQ: The only reason I mention Bloodborneas an alternative to consider is because it's the more complete package, in the sense that the gameplay is great and the plot both makes sense, and is self-contained.

I agree that Dark Souls III is a fun game. But in my view, it's probably the weakest Dark Souls game and the DLC is incredibly lacklustre, especially Ashes of Ariandel.

@cyberpunk_2077: To be honest, I'm not sure what you're expecting people to say. Of course there will be some new PlayStation hardware at some point (although nobody knows what it will be called). There will also be new Xbox and Nintendo hardware at some point, too.

I think it's far too early for anyone to say anything meaningful about these new platforms when nobody knows a) when they will be released or b) what they will actually be.

My only comment is that I hope Sony and Microsoft continue to keep backwards compatibility in mind, in terms of ensuring that new hardware is built on architecture that can facilitate that fairly easily.

If you collect for multiple systems, then you can at least choose the best multiplatform options for specific games when they come up. So there's one advantage to having multiple consoles.

Aside from that, my suggestion - especially to save money - is to target exclusives. If you collect for Saturn and Dreamcast, there are plenty of great exclusive titles that are really worth owning. You'll find that some exclusives get a bit pricey - especially on Saturn - but you can do what I do, and just collect slowly (at the moment I'm buying one or two retro games every couple of months; I try to go for CIB stuff where possible).

Nioh is a good game - very solid, great combat system, wonderful atmosphere. But it's highly, highly repetitive. I got bored of it about halfway through. Dark Souls 3 is a great game with an excellent combat system and a great deal more level and enemy variety on offer. It's biggest fault is its lore, which is an utter mess, but this shouldn't worry you if you aren't deeply into Dark Souls lore.

Of course, as others have said here, you can go one better and nab Bloodborne (especially if you can get it with The Old Hunters DLC). I think that's a far better game than the other two, if it's an option for you.

I don't find it very surprising that remasters do well. I mean, usually only great games are remastered - so there's a sense of proven success or proven quality for people who buy these remasters. In other words, you generally know you're buying something reliably good.

Also, you may not be re-buying something; you might have just missed out on the original game the first time around. Or maybe you loved the original and you want to play it again on new hardware with improved graphics and features. Nothin' wrong with that. :-)

I know this is a quick reply so no pressure, I just had some free time being the weekend. I think this constitutes one of my longest posts in my history here (since '01), so my apologies for the length.

No worries, mate. It's now the end of May and I'm finally responding, haha. :P
Given the time that has passed, I might just respond to some specific points of interest. But I did read your entire reply, and I really appreciate it.

Your position is very sensible. While it's true it's futile to fuss over what cannot be changed, on the other hand, always accepting what is can lead to complacency and the enablement of sub-par standards. I find it's important to always hold a company accountable so as to their betterment (and by extension, my profit), so I tend towards being more of an idealist in gauging both a company and its products. But you don't need to be completely satisfied with something to find enrichment in it. I gain a lot in pondering on the what-could-have beens. It's fun to dissect things and think on differing approaches. :)

Very fair points. I guess another reason that I'm not too harsh about these things is that, at the end of the day, we are talking about video games of all things. To be honest, I'd probably find myself getting a lot more fired up about politics or religion (or any taboo topic you care to name, haha).

That said, I am a person who tends to judge things on their own merits. So, if Nintendo were to release a game that disappointed me (and they've certainly done this before), then I'm more than happy to criticise what I actively dislike.

On the contrary, more than once their hardware has held detriment to that of what I value them for, and I know many share the sentiment. Many play Nintendo's games not due to their hardware, but in spite of it which I find telling.

While the Switch is the closest to contemporary tech we've seen since the GCN, portability is an ancillary perk (though it will be nice to play their games in bed). I'd rather they use those resources towards specs, not because I don't appreciate portability, but because it's not intrinsic to the software, only affecting how it can be used. I also believe their hardware decisions are dictated largely by a desire for corporate distinction to be able to compete, not due to creative predilections.

This is a really fascinating point, especially given the time that has passed. Did you end up buying a Switch? If so, what do you think of it?

I'm not terribly keen on the idea of Nintendo developing for other platforms, because I think the only advantage they'd get is a spec boost. And that's probably the single least interesting aspect to me, especially because simply boosting specs is an exercise in diminishing returns over time - I mean, you can play a number of Wii U games that completely blow some Xbox One and PS4 games out of the water visually, especially those produced by Nintendo, who tend to naturally master their own hardware (as one would expect).

Playing Switch especially is interesting because you're getting plenty of hardware power (I'd say it's definitely sufficient to produce lovely graphics), but you're also getting this incredibly unique experience that is a fusion of hardware and software - for example, I just played Arms tonight, and it's clear that this game could really only be done on the Switch. We'd potentially lose a lot of that uniqueness if we didn't have that magical combination of Nintendo hardware and software.

I'd personally hate to lose that.

You are attempting to remove everything aside from how Nintendo approaches gameplay and claiming that most paramount in defining their identity. I see this being a very flawed perspective as it's incredibly exclusionary and dismissive.

I'm not attempting to remove those things, I'm just saying that they don't matter without the design philosophy that created them in the first place. I fully understand and accept that those artefacts are highly valuable and that there's an enormous emotional connection to them. But their value isn't inherent - it's been earned through great game design, and that great game design has been borne from a very specific methodology for creating games.

Theirs is a philosophy that leads to stagnation and creative bankruptcy. With it, we will forever be seeing the same IPs to be whored out as nothing but guinea pigs.

Stagnation and creative bankruptcy? That certainly doesn't describe Nintendo. In fact, I'd say they very much fall into the opposite end of the spectrum.

Nintendo takes great care with their IP, generally speaking. I don't see many examples of their IP being "whored out as nothing but guinea pigs", honestly.

I mean, if you think that repeated use of an IP equates to stagnation and creative bankruptcy, then I'm not sure how you'd explain something like Super Mario Galaxy. Yes, it used an existing IP - but it was one of the most innovative and unique games of the last decade. I don't think anyone could reasonably suggest that it was an example of creative bankruptcy.

It's true that Nintendo doesn't bring entirely new franchises into focus very often, but I must admit that I've been pretty impressed with the new franchises they have offered (Splatoon and Arms come to mind as the most obvious cases).

What is the difference of them doing so for fiscal considerations as opposed for fans' desires? That they'd decide to do it for appeasement wouldn't infringe upon their creativity anymore than deciding to do it for money would, which from all indications looks to be their main impetus.

I don't think there is much difference, necessarily. But I think creating anything for the sake of appeasement is inherently not smart business (and not just in the game industry).

Fundamentally, whatever they do, my preference is for them to focus on creating great games, regardless of franchise. If their creative experiments lead them in particular directions, that's fine with me. For me, the underlying creativity and design of the game - the quality of the experience - is paramount. I wouldn't want the tail to wag the dog, so to speak; I wouldn't want them to look at (for example) an online poll and say "Well, most people want Metroid, so we'd better make Metroid".

Don't get me wrong though; if they come up with a great idea and a great design for Metroid, then awesome! No worries there. But as Iwata used to say, the best idea should win. I think that's an important principle, given that we're discussing a creative medium.

Nioh's a nightmare, man......never was much good at difficult games. Team Ninja's back in form though, but I'm surprised there's no pink ribbon difficulty option. I can bear the humiliation. :P

Sure I can add you on PSN, but unfortunately I'm not a + subscriber (not enough games I'm interested in to warrant the investment) if you're looking for some MP. Heck, I don't even know my ID if you get around to it first. Try Rekunta or MirkoS77.

On a side note, Pikmin 3 is incredible. You're of good taste. It's exemplary of Miyamoto's genius in seeing how insects working in his garden could translate into mechanical implementations to create such a satisfying gameplay experience. The man's utterly brilliant.

Well, I've now added you. Yay! :D

If you have a Switch, feel free to send me your friend code via private message. It'd be fun to play some Mario Kart!

Yeah, I guess it depends what you mean by "sold on a game". I can watch something and be interested or not, sure. But my ultimate verdict on a game can only be reached by physically playing it myself.

I'm never sold/not sold until I physically play a game. No amount of video can replace the experience of playing it for yourself. I'll try ARMS and see if I like it. :-)