I wish they'd show or say something that finally sells me on this game existing, because I would say I want an Uncharted 5 more than a Last of Us 2 - and I don't want an Uncharted 5 even the tiniest bit.

Well, I was going to buy it at launch, but now...I'll wait several months for it to be available on Steam, but since I've already waited that long, I might as well wait until it drops to under $20 - because it's an old game by that point. Of course, by the time it's dirt cheap, that'll be when they put out the inevitable Game of the Year Edition with all the DLC, so I might as well wait to get that, but I'm not paying $60 for what'll be probably be a 2-year-old game by then, so I'll then wait for the GotY Edition to drop to under $20. That's assuming the game is actually any damn good and doesn't get savaged in reviews, or that I still give a damn about playing it.

Annoying, but...whatever. It's not like there won't be plenty of other games to play. Best of luck to Gearbox and their partnership with Epic.

Makes sense. Obviously they'd rather people buy the remaster, and what better way to ensure that than to pull the original version? It's just a shame they decided to be greedy and ask $40, which is only going to stoke community outrage. Whereas, if the remaster was only $20, one could easily argue that's a fair price for the game, the DLC, and the minor graphical and gameplay tweaks.

@squidracerX: Well, first off, I don't think I'm entitled to more games. But I believe I should get value for my money, and, for me, access to on online play and two games a month isn't much of a value, especially when those games aren't of interest to me. Which is why I let my subscription to PS+ lapse at the end of last year. While I'd love to see the service offer more, I'm really not demanding it. I'm not outraged by them dropping PS3 and Vita games - even though, yes, I was still playing some of those games, on those rare occasions when they offered something I was curious about but had never bought - but I am disappointed that Sony didn't make any effort to fill that gap. But I understand that I'm in the minority there.

Yes, Sony had PS Now before Microsoft had Game Pass. By 'steal' I meant that Sony should take a page from Microsoft's book and consider launching some of their first party stuff on PS Now, or at least getting newer releases on the service sooner. Of course, if they did that, then offering free games with PS+ would be pointless, since there would likely be a better selection and better value to PS Now, resulting in PS+ being purely a pay-to-play-online service, which might be harder to sell at the current price. Which is why I suggested they might conceivably merge the two services, rolling the streaming catalog of PS Now into the online play of Plus - though, that would likely result in Sony increasing the price of PS+, which might not sit well with a large percentage of their users, even if that increased price was less than what the two services would cost together at this time. And, for all I know, it's entirely possible that Sony has already considered this, crunched the numbers and weighed the pros and cons, and they decided that how things are now is the best way to satisfy the largest percentage of their community while maximizing their profits.

You make a good point, though, even if you were being a bit obnoxious and argumentative about it. For someone like me, who doesn't much care about online multiplayer and might still have an interest in playing some older games, PS Now likely would be a better value than PS+ since I'd get access to both older and (somewhat) newer games. I'll need to look into what games are currently available on the service. Thank you for the suggestion.

I really hope this is something Sony addresses in the very near future. Either they need to hurry up and get the PS5 on shelves so they can start offering PS5 games, or they need to start giving away an additional PS4 game or two. Or they need to steal Microsoft's Game Pass system and, instead of asking for another chunk of cash for that service, just roll it into PS+ and, instead of the current 'free games with Plus' model, consumers just get access to an always changing, always growing library of games. I don't know. But they need to do something.

@pmanden: There are still games coming that I definitely want to play (Ghost of Tsushima, The Last of Us Part II) or am at least curious about (Days Gone, Death Stranding), and as long as Sony can keep that train of noteworthy games rolling into the future, then I'll still be buying their consoles. But the impersonal nature of a trailer dump stream and their absence from E3 lends itself to the narrative that Sony is slipping back into their PS3 launch hubristic, tone-deaf attitude. It worries me that, because they've been on top this entire generation, they're back to taking their community/consumers for granted, believing they can do no wrong and we'll lap up whatever they throw us - like an $800 PS5. But time will tell.

Hopefully these fears will be assuaged whenever they have their not-E3 stream.

@pcps4xb: I might've just had unreasonable expectations for the stream. I mean, it was being streamed, so I thought that signified it would be worth watching live because it was going to include some worthwhile announcements or talk about changes to their services or something. That it was just twenty minutes of trailers was incredibly disappointing.

And, yeah, I imagine they're saving the PS5 announcement for during/after E3 - provided it's coming next year.

@Poodger: But how much could they shave off the price if they didn't have to include the LCD screen? While they're at it, they can keep the detachable Joycons, since I'd never use anything but a Pro controller, and they wouldn't need a separate dock if the system was built to just sit under and be directly connected to a TV. I'm still being asked to pay for handheld features that I have no interest in ever utilizing. I just want a decently priced box that will let me play the handful of Nintendo games that I can't play anywhere else. I can't bring myself to spend $300, plus another $60-70 for a Pro controller, just to play maybe half a dozen games.

@pcps4xb: While they may not make or break the success of a platform, they definitely have an impact on sales and how consumers may view the company behind the platform. Sony's State of Play stream felt incredibly cold and impersonal, like they couldn't be bothered to interact with their customers. It was the equivalent of an automated call center leaving me a voicemail. It was really disappointing to see that seeming lack of interest in engaging with their community.

But, you're right, it won't actually make or break them. End of the day, as long as they deliver on games and services I want, they're still going to get my money.

Pathetic. I guess they called it 'State of Play' because 'Sony's Ad/Trailer Video' would've told people exactly what they needed to know: this isn't worth your time. Did that even need to be streamed? Why not just dump it on YouTube and then tweet, "Threw up some trailers on YouTube. Maybe check 'em out when you're on the toilet or something."

If this is what they're doing from now instead of stage shows at E3...man, the future of Playstation looks f***ing grim.