I'm going with PS4, but people telling other to be happy about PS+ are one step removed from a corporate shill. The reason PS+ is good is because its a value added service, its not mandatory. It attracts users because of the value it brings. All the free games you've been getting for PS3 and PSN, not one of them will transfer over to PS4. So all these free games you've gotten are as good as gone the second you decide to switch consoles. Now let's get to the fact that PS+ is now a mandatory service for online games. They no longer need to sell it or entice you to buy it. If you have a PS4 and want to play online you will buy it, period. I will admit the that first wave of games you get with PS+ on PS4 does look quite good. I just think that anyone who takes Sony on their word that PS+ will be as good on PS4 as it is on the PS3 in three years time is delusional.
Finally, why do I have to be ok with something because it isn't expensive? Do you really think anyone is complaining about mandatory PS+ because they CANT AFFORD the $4-5 a month? NO NO NO NO. Reducing your counter-argument to "It's cheap you poor ass, stop eating subway" makes you look like an idiot. I'm pissed about paying for PS+ for online because I don't have to do it now, I don't have to do ti on PC, and there is no additional value being added from what I currently have that in anyway justifies it going from FREE to $5 a month. No, I am not "paying for servers". 99% of games are P2P, and when I do need to pay for servers I can easily do that through PURCHASING THE GAME.
To sum up. PS4 is the best option, by far, but that doesn't mean mandatory PS+ is anything other than complete and utter bullshit. Do not defend it, as there is no defensible argument for making it mandatory.
This is a terrible complaint.
PS+ is not mandatory. It's an option. And as someone who will probably champion Steam from here to eternity, it's a fantastic option from what I've seen.
A mandatory option if you want to play online games, which are something like 80%+ of games now? I realize Sony won, but do we have to take them in our mouth too?
Jesus Christ, dude, you get a fuckton more dollars out of PSN+ than you ever put into it. It GIVES YOU MORE THAN 20 GAMES PER YEAR. A single one of those games is usually enough to pay for the whole subscription!!!! The total value you get is much more than what you pay!!!!!! HOW HARD IT IS TO UNDERSTAND THAT?????
Comon guys, sony doesnt have to have a deal with the devil. They just needed in this case to do the opposite of everything that pissed off people about the xbox one.
I wouldnt be surprised at all if it turns out the PS4 started out with some kind of DRM / always online code but if they were smart enough they made it so that it could be turned on and off easily via software/firmware. Then they see the crap microsoft is getting and say 'turn it off, then announce it was never there'.
I found the VP of Sony on twitter interesting, saying how after Microsoft revealed their DRM/used game plan his twitter exploded with people begging not to have them go down the same route. While he said Sony didn't have any plans to impose this, I really don't believe that and my personal feeling is that they chose to change their minds. I have to wonder If Microsoft had said absolutely nothing at all before E3 what Sonys press conference would have looked like.
We could have been in a very different world if Microsofts ship wasn't so leaky and the Adam Orth incident hadn't happened.
Not to shit on the parade, but how is that response going to be when EA announces project sixty dollar, and sony goes "yeah we said we wouldn't do it..."
I'll do like I did with Project Ten Dollar and not buy EA games.
It's just a brief example though, when every company that does it on the xbox does it on the PS4, are you still in a winter wonderland of drm freeness? I just think some clarification is in order.
Yeah I know right how do we know Sony does not sacrifice young boys and girls in order to provide life force for their consoles. How many hookers have been buried in building foundations to cement their power.
We need some clarification/imma just asking questions.
This isn't wild fucking speculation.
They are on record saying used games were up to publishers, after their initial reveal. But lets give them a standing ovation at a press conference for saying the same thing as MS, only while being vague.
We really need a follow up with publishers on if there going to do "project $X" on ps4, and if theyill need always on in their games(fair enough, it will depend on the game for online req).
It is wild speculation as "DRM up to the publishers" is what currently exists on the PS3 and the Xbox 360.
Which they do charge for. See EA. Except people are cheering and championing the opposite.
Do either of these systems have a daily "phone home" feature? Is having to have a DVD/bluray at all identical to Xbox ones Scheme?
Why is what MS and Sony does relevant where my whole argument is that publishers will be doing the fucking here, and that Sony could just be playing dumb? I don't think there actually playing dumb, I think there just being their normal state of "fuckers".
implying Schrodinger DRM schemes is both disingenuous and odious.
schrodinger drm schemes? That needs definition. Always both able to play and not play?
Nevermind your bullshit implication that Sony and Micosoft are identical in their conduct, just that Microsoft is incompetent at "messaging."
Yes bullshit implications, several media outlets running direct interviews with Sony as of 3 months ago all stating "well.... itill play used games..." and then trailing off. Then asking for their PR's official response, and getting the same answer. Then "we have to wait to explain more about our services later". If your service is "meh status quo", wheres the issue? Why the waffle? Why so careful with words? It goes beyond standard PR being careful with words, press was pretty straightforward with the issue and not playing "gotcha".
Here's the thing, EA maybe the only one that was doing online passes this gen, but when its mandatory on xbone, theres no reason for publishers to not push their own version on the PS4 copy.
On "always online", the ps4 may not have it, but its still up to the publisher. See PC games that are single player but require always online. Sony has always had a very open platform that has worked for them and against them in the past. All these things still fall in line. We have gotten notice from blizz that D3 will have offline play, which is a good sign. But UBI hinted they needed online for some of their games. Remember, "cloud" is the keyword of this E3.
I'm going with PS4, but people telling other to be happy about PS+ are one step removed from a corporate shill. The reason PS+ is good is because its a value added service, its not mandatory. It attracts users because of the value it brings. All the free games you've been getting for PS3 and PSN, not one of them will transfer over to PS4. So all these free games you've gotten are as good as gone the second you decide to switch consoles. Now let's get to the fact that PS+ is now a mandatory service for online games. They no longer need to sell it or entice you to buy it. If you have a PS4 and want to play online you will buy it, period. I will admit the that first wave of games you get with PS+ on PS4 does look quite good. I just think that anyone who takes Sony on their word that PS+ will be as good on PS4 as it is on the PS3 in three years time is delusional.
Finally, why do I have to be ok with something because it isn't expensive? Do you really think anyone is complaining about mandatory PS+ because they CANT AFFORD the $4-5 a month? NO NO NO NO. Reducing your counter-argument to "It's cheap you poor ass, stop eating subway" makes you look like an idiot. I'm pissed about paying for PS+ for online because I don't have to do it now, I don't have to do ti on PC, and there is no additional value being added from what I currently have that in anyway justifies it going from FREE to $5 a month. No, I am not "paying for servers". 99% of games are P2P, and when I do need to pay for servers I can easily do that through PURCHASING THE GAME.
To sum up. PS4 is the best option, by far, but that doesn't mean mandatory PS+ is anything other than complete and utter bullshit. Do not defend it, as there is no defensible argument for making it mandatory.
This is a terrible complaint.
PS+ is not mandatory. It's an option. And as someone who will probably champion Steam from here to eternity, it's a fantastic option from what I've seen.
A mandatory option if you want to play online games, which are something like 80%+ of games now? I realize Sony won, but do we have to take them in our mouth too?
Jesus Christ, dude, you get a fuckton more dollars out of PSN+ than you ever put into it. It GIVES YOU MORE THAN 20 GAMES PER YEAR. A single one of those games is usually enough to pay for the whole subscription!!!! The total value you get is much more than what you pay!!!!!! HOW HARD IT IS TO UNDERSTAND THAT?????
It can actully get a little sickening, I got Thomas was alone through PSN+, a delightful little platformer. Now I can't pay for it making me feel terrible. But if I had not gotten it on PSN + I never would ahve tried it and found out how charming and brilliant it is.
They gave me a Ps3 copy and a Vita copy.
So i brought the DLC, paid once got a vita and PS3 copy.
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
I found it strange that Xbox had slightly better exclusives than Sony. Sony is usually king of exclusives while MS is usually a joke. Definitely want to play DR3, but I'm SURE it will come out on PS4 eventually as Super Duper edition. The rest I can live without. I like to rent games a lot, and no renting on Xbone is dealbreaker for me.
@Mugaaz Which exclusives would those be? Because in watching both press events I would heartily disagree with you. The only ones I saw that might be considered decent are Halo and Killer Instinct. Everything else (including Spark) was not exclusive.
Ah I forgot about Ryse, but that looked like Call of Duty: Romans with QTE combat so...yeah.
Delphinidaes on
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
If the publishers want to instill some kind of draconian DRM then that's on them, and they deal with the fallout. The console makers shouldn't be enablers by default.
I'm going with PS4, but people telling other to be happy about PS+ are one step removed from a corporate shill. The reason PS+ is good is because its a value added service, its not mandatory. It attracts users because of the value it brings. All the free games you've been getting for PS3 and PSN, not one of them will transfer over to PS4. So all these free games you've gotten are as good as gone the second you decide to switch consoles. Now let's get to the fact that PS+ is now a mandatory service for online games. They no longer need to sell it or entice you to buy it. If you have a PS4 and want to play online you will buy it, period. I will admit the that first wave of games you get with PS+ on PS4 does look quite good. I just think that anyone who takes Sony on their word that PS+ will be as good on PS4 as it is on the PS3 in three years time is delusional.
Finally, why do I have to be ok with something because it isn't expensive? Do you really think anyone is complaining about mandatory PS+ because they CANT AFFORD the $4-5 a month? NO NO NO NO. Reducing your counter-argument to "It's cheap you poor ass, stop eating subway" makes you look like an idiot. I'm pissed about paying for PS+ for online because I don't have to do it now, I don't have to do ti on PC, and there is no additional value being added from what I currently have that in anyway justifies it going from FREE to $5 a month. No, I am not "paying for servers". 99% of games are P2P, and when I do need to pay for servers I can easily do that through PURCHASING THE GAME.
To sum up. PS4 is the best option, by far, but that doesn't mean mandatory PS+ is anything other than complete and utter bullshit. Do not defend it, as there is no defensible argument for making it mandatory.
This is a terrible complaint.
PS+ is not mandatory. It's an option. And as someone who will probably champion Steam from here to eternity, it's a fantastic option from what I've seen.
A mandatory option if you want to play online games, which are something like 80%+ of games now? I realize Sony won, but do we have to take them in our mouth too?
Jesus Christ, dude, you get a fuckton more dollars out of PSN+ than you ever put into it. It GIVES YOU MORE THAN 20 GAMES PER YEAR. A single one of those games is usually enough to pay for the whole subscription!!!! The total value you get is much more than what you pay!!!!!! HOW HARD IT IS TO UNDERSTAND THAT?????
Not sure if I should have bothered but ...
Because not everyone's gaming habits are the same. Because not all of those 20 games will be PS exclusives. And because for those that are, the PS store doesn't have a monopoly on PS game sales.
But MS didn't get the message. They only heard what they wanted to.
Why did they even fire the guy, he was defending their awful policy. In an insulting manner yes, but he was still indulging in organisational loyalty.
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
It's allegedly going to have exclusive content on the ps 4 though. No idea what right now.
probably something dumb like a skin or a gun and some bullshit time-waster mission that Bungie cut out, then added back in to please Sony
no developer in their right mind puts their good shit into that console exclusive crap. they just pop in their throwaway stuff so sony will cut them a check for $50,000 for basically nothing meaningful
Yes bullshit implications, several media outlets running direct interviews with Sony as of 3 months ago all stating "well.... itill play used games..." and then trailing off. Then asking for their PR's official response, and getting the same answer. Then "we have to wait to explain more about our services later". If your service is "meh status quo", wheres the issue? Why the waffle? Why so careful with words? It goes beyond standard PR being careful with words, press was pretty straightforward with the issue and not playing "gotcha".
Um, use your brain. It's called a strategy. Let's say Sony never had any intention of implementing a DRM, which would be the smarter option:
a) Say something straight away, tip off your opponent and let them adjust their plans long before they've even unveiled their system.
b) Saying nothing, waiting until your opponent ties a noose around his own neck and then kick the fucking chair out from under him.
I'm going with PS4, but people telling other to be happy about PS+ are one step removed from a corporate shill. The reason PS+ is good is because its a value added service, its not mandatory. It attracts users because of the value it brings. All the free games you've been getting for PS3 and PSN, not one of them will transfer over to PS4. So all these free games you've gotten are as good as gone the second you decide to switch consoles. Now let's get to the fact that PS+ is now a mandatory service for online games. They no longer need to sell it or entice you to buy it. If you have a PS4 and want to play online you will buy it, period. I will admit the that first wave of games you get with PS+ on PS4 does look quite good. I just think that anyone who takes Sony on their word that PS+ will be as good on PS4 as it is on the PS3 in three years time is delusional.
Finally, why do I have to be ok with something because it isn't expensive? Do you really think anyone is complaining about mandatory PS+ because they CANT AFFORD the $4-5 a month? NO NO NO NO. Reducing your counter-argument to "It's cheap you poor ass, stop eating subway" makes you look like an idiot. I'm pissed about paying for PS+ for online because I don't have to do it now, I don't have to do ti on PC, and there is no additional value being added from what I currently have that in anyway justifies it going from FREE to $5 a month. No, I am not "paying for servers". 99% of games are P2P, and when I do need to pay for servers I can easily do that through PURCHASING THE GAME.
To sum up. PS4 is the best option, by far, but that doesn't mean mandatory PS+ is anything other than complete and utter bullshit. Do not defend it, as there is no defensible argument for making it mandatory.
This is a terrible complaint.
PS+ is not mandatory. It's an option. And as someone who will probably champion Steam from here to eternity, it's a fantastic option from what I've seen.
So let's say tomorrow Steam announces that they've somehow introduced a Plus Subscription that is required for online play. They'll give you some free games too but only after they've been on the Summer / Winter sales once or twice on deep discount. Still happy?
Yeah actually.
Then bully for you. But it doesn't make the contrary opinion invalid.
The other "opinion" is that PS+ is mandatory.
It is not.
Much like if someone's opinion were that the earth is flat.
I'm going with PS4, but people telling other to be happy about PS+ are one step removed from a corporate shill. The reason PS+ is good is because its a value added service, its not mandatory. It attracts users because of the value it brings. All the free games you've been getting for PS3 and PSN, not one of them will transfer over to PS4. So all these free games you've gotten are as good as gone the second you decide to switch consoles. Now let's get to the fact that PS+ is now a mandatory service for online games. They no longer need to sell it or entice you to buy it. If you have a PS4 and want to play online you will buy it, period. I will admit the that first wave of games you get with PS+ on PS4 does look quite good. I just think that anyone who takes Sony on their word that PS+ will be as good on PS4 as it is on the PS3 in three years time is delusional.
Finally, why do I have to be ok with something because it isn't expensive? Do you really think anyone is complaining about mandatory PS+ because they CANT AFFORD the $4-5 a month? NO NO NO NO. Reducing your counter-argument to "It's cheap you poor ass, stop eating subway" makes you look like an idiot. I'm pissed about paying for PS+ for online because I don't have to do it now, I don't have to do ti on PC, and there is no additional value being added from what I currently have that in anyway justifies it going from FREE to $5 a month. No, I am not "paying for servers". 99% of games are P2P, and when I do need to pay for servers I can easily do that through PURCHASING THE GAME.
To sum up. PS4 is the best option, by far, but that doesn't mean mandatory PS+ is anything other than complete and utter bullshit. Do not defend it, as there is no defensible argument for making it mandatory.
This is a terrible complaint.
PS+ is not mandatory. It's an option. And as someone who will probably champion Steam from here to eternity, it's a fantastic option from what I've seen.
So let's say tomorrow Steam announces that they've somehow introduced a Plus Subscription that is required for online play. They'll give you some free games too but only after they've been on the Summer / Winter sales once or twice on deep discount. Still happy?
Yeah actually.
Then bully for you. But it doesn't make the contrary opinion invalid.
The other "opinion" is that PS+ is mandatory.
It is not.
Much like if someone's opinion were that the earth is flat.
Do either of these systems have a daily "phone home" feature? Is having to have a DVD/bluray at all identical to Xbox ones Scheme?
Why is what MS and Sony does relevant where my whole argument is that publishers will be doing the fucking here, and that Sony could just be playing dumb? I don't think there actually playing dumb, I think there just being their normal state of "fuckers".
[/quote]
So your argument is that it'll be the same if we ignore the fact that MS have baked in their online 24hr checks . . . .
Because sony don't have that which is the entire point of difference.
Wow, i have no words really none.
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Some of the games I'm interested in - Destiny, Watch Dogs - are going to come out for the 360 as well. The 360 I already own. I did set up a preorder for the PS4 last night - it was impressive, and it looks like if I'm going to get a next gen console that it should be it, or at least first - but it was with the idea that I would cancel it if I didn't see a need. I'm wondering...I mean how good could games look on the PS4 if they were primarily designed for this gen's consoles? So I don't know if it is worth it for that. I hope they come up with a list of launch games soon. I'd like to see what limited to next-gen and will be available right away.
Of course we don't even have a launch date as of yet...
Different 'free' games are made available each month. You can then 'buy' these games for £0.00 either through your PS3, PSP, Vita or by logging on to the web store from any other device and purchasing there.
Once you've 'bought' the free game it is attached to your account. You can now download it if you wish or you can leave downloading it until you fancy playing it.
When the game you've 'bought' leaves PS+ it's price goes back up from £0.00 to whatever it was before on the store. The game, however, is still attached to your account, so you can download and play it again for free.
This remains true for as long as your PS+ subscription is live. If you let it lapse then the games are no longer available, if you resubscribe then all the PS+ games you 'bought' will be available for download again at no extra cost.
It's why I'd recommend that anyone who has a PS3 and PS+ but doesn't have a vita (or a vita but doesn't have a ps3) still goes through and 'purchases' all of the free games as soon as they're available. Should you ever pick up a vita (or PS3) then you have a library of free games waiting for you.
It's an amazing service that is terribly advertised.
basically anyone who has a PS3 or Vita and doesn't have PS+ is a silly goose, and anyone complaining about PS4 multiplayer being locked behind multiplayer is a silly goose because you'd have to be retarded not to take PS+ at $4.something per month.
This, a thousand times this. IT'S CHEAPER THAN A SINGLE ONE OF THE GAMES YOU GET.
And you get DOZENS of games. It simple as that. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to own a PS3, a Vita or a PS4 and not sign up for PSN+. Zero.
I don't have PS+ because all I play is COD and I have no income. The problem is there's an inverse relationship between having money and having time.
Nobody makes me bleed my own blood...nobody.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
I'm going with PS4, but people telling other to be happy about PS+ are one step removed from a corporate shill. The reason PS+ is good is because its a value added service, its not mandatory. It attracts users because of the value it brings. All the free games you've been getting for PS3 and PSN, not one of them will transfer over to PS4. So all these free games you've gotten are as good as gone the second you decide to switch consoles. Now let's get to the fact that PS+ is now a mandatory service for online games. They no longer need to sell it or entice you to buy it. If you have a PS4 and want to play online you will buy it, period. I will admit the that first wave of games you get with PS+ on PS4 does look quite good. I just think that anyone who takes Sony on their word that PS+ will be as good on PS4 as it is on the PS3 in three years time is delusional.
Finally, why do I have to be ok with something because it isn't expensive? Do you really think anyone is complaining about mandatory PS+ because they CANT AFFORD the $4-5 a month? NO NO NO NO. Reducing your counter-argument to "It's cheap you poor ass, stop eating subway" makes you look like an idiot. I'm pissed about paying for PS+ for online because I don't have to do it now, I don't have to do ti on PC, and there is no additional value being added from what I currently have that in anyway justifies it going from FREE to $5 a month. No, I am not "paying for servers". 99% of games are P2P, and when I do need to pay for servers I can easily do that through PURCHASING THE GAME.
To sum up. PS4 is the best option, by far, but that doesn't mean mandatory PS+ is anything other than complete and utter bullshit. Do not defend it, as there is no defensible argument for making it mandatory.
This is a terrible complaint.
PS+ is not mandatory. It's an option. And as someone who will probably champion Steam from here to eternity, it's a fantastic option from what I've seen.
So let's say tomorrow Steam announces that they've somehow introduced a Plus Subscription that is required for online play. They'll give you some free games too but only after they've been on the Summer / Winter sales once or twice on deep discount. Still happy?
Yeah actually.
Then bully for you. But it doesn't make the contrary opinion invalid.
The other "opinion" is that PS+ is mandatory.
It is not.
Much like if someone's opinion were that the earth is flat.
Some of the games I'm interested in - Destiny, Watch Dogs - are going to come out for the 360 as well. The 360 I already own. I did set up a preorder for the PS4 last night - it was impressive, and it looks like if I'm going to get a next gen console that it should be it, or at least first - but it was with the idea that I would cancel it if I didn't see a need. I'm wondering...I mean how good could games look on the PS4 if they were primarily designed for this gen's consoles? So I don't know if it is worth it for that. I hope they come up with a list of launch games soon. I'd like to see what limited to next-gen and will be available right away.
Of course we don't even have a launch date as of yet...
Its like upgrading to a brand new pc. You can play the games that ran on your old machine, but they'll look drastically better on the new one, and you can play new ones that you couldn't before.
CorriganX on Steam and just about everywhere else.
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
I never got an answer last night: Does Amazon charge you at the time of pre-order, or when the product ships?
I think from the waffling early on it was clear that Sony was at least entertaining conversations with publishers about it; there's no way that Microsoft went ahead with this, told the publishers, and the publishers didn't at least ask Sony "you guys hoppin' on this train, too?" So, yeah. They probably considered it. We'll likely never find out how long or how seriously, but we can safely assume that it's something that was on the table, then XBone announce happened, and they got the message; either validation that they chose properly, or a bump pushing them to their DRM-free choice.
Some of the games I'm interested in - Destiny, Watch Dogs - are going to come out for the 360 as well. The 360 I already own. I did set up a preorder for the PS4 last night - it was impressive, and it looks like if I'm going to get a next gen console that it should be it, or at least first - but it was with the idea that I would cancel it if I didn't see a need. I'm wondering...I mean how good could games look on the PS4 if they were primarily designed for this gen's consoles? So I don't know if it is worth it for that. I hope they come up with a list of launch games soon. I'd like to see what limited to next-gen and will be available right away.
Of course we don't even have a launch date as of yet...
Might wanna wait for some Watch Dogs 360 footage
Everything shown at conferences has been for next-gen
Nintendo showed off their version of Watch Dogs earlier today, which would likely be comparable with the PS3/360 versions, and let's just say it looked...not very enticing
Last generation, the reason to choose a PS3 over a 360 was because you didn't have to pay to play online games.
This generation, you have to pay to play online with both consoles... so I guess it wasn't the hill to die on lots of people made it out to be?
For me, it's always been the exclusives that made me choose which console I wanted. 50-60 bucks a year isn't a good way to decide what console to buy. And truth be told, I want to play the new Halo coming out, but I'm so uninterested in the xbone right now. I think it's just time to say goodbye to John.
If it is a consolation, Bungie isn't even doing Halo anymore. They are working on Destiny, a PS4 exclusive.
It helps, but I think 343 did a pretty good job with 4.
But isn't Destiny on all systems? Even current gen?
My bad. I did a quick look earlier and saw "PS4 exclusive" and basically lept to conclusions.
I really wonder if the extra power of the PS4 will even matter. Maybe for in house stuff, but I see most developets just coding to the lowest common denominator (Xboned) to save on costs.
Some of the games I'm interested in - Destiny, Watch Dogs - are going to come out for the 360 as well. The 360 I already own. I did set up a preorder for the PS4 last night - it was impressive, and it looks like if I'm going to get a next gen console that it should be it, or at least first - but it was with the idea that I would cancel it if I didn't see a need. I'm wondering...I mean how good could games look on the PS4 if they were primarily designed for this gen's consoles? So I don't know if it is worth it for that. I hope they come up with a list of launch games soon. I'd like to see what limited to next-gen and will be available right away.
Of course we don't even have a launch date as of yet...
PS4 games will basically look like what PC games look like right now. So go look at a video of FarCry 3, or some other high fidelity game, on a modern up to snuff PC, and that's basically what the PS4 will be able to push at launch.
Now, how many games will be designed for that, it's hard to say. I know for a fact that Destiny is being designed next-gen first, and then downscaled for PS3/360, so the highest visual fidelity experience will be on next-gen consoles, particularly the PS4 which is Destiny's "primary platform".
I never got an answer last night: Does Amazon charge you at the time of pre-order, or when the product ships?
When (or maybe slightly before) it ships.
For example, I ordered the latest Walking Dead TPB last December. It arrived yesterday with release date delivery, and looking back through my order history I was charged for it yesterday as well.
am I the only one excited for The Division?! i want to divide things! it looks like DayZ, except approachable. or like APB, but not total shit. Or really any shooter/MMO, except not shit.
i guess it's really hard to make a decent shooter into an MMO?
0
Mike Danger"Diane..."a place both wonderful and strangeRegistered Userregular
Weeeell...it's not quite the same though. I mean the PS4 is a different development environment than whatever it was developed on. So it's a port, essentially. That can cause issues. I guess my concern is that it won't necessarily run or look better and it might be more buggy. Even if it's not buggy AND runs smoother and looks a little nicer, is it worth buying a new console now instead of waiting until next year some time. There's plenty of time to get more information though.
Also if I could get wishes granted they would release a controller for the PS4 that is basically a 360 controller. I've never been a fan of the dual shock.
Posts
Jesus Christ, dude, you get a fuckton more dollars out of PSN+ than you ever put into it. It GIVES YOU MORE THAN 20 GAMES PER YEAR. A single one of those games is usually enough to pay for the whole subscription!!!! The total value you get is much more than what you pay!!!!!! HOW HARD IT IS TO UNDERSTAND THAT?????
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
It's already been stated you don't need plus to access media options.
I found the VP of Sony on twitter interesting, saying how after Microsoft revealed their DRM/used game plan his twitter exploded with people begging not to have them go down the same route. While he said Sony didn't have any plans to impose this, I really don't believe that and my personal feeling is that they chose to change their minds. I have to wonder If Microsoft had said absolutely nothing at all before E3 what Sonys press conference would have looked like.
We could have been in a very different world if Microsofts ship wasn't so leaky and the Adam Orth incident hadn't happened.
Well hot dog!
As far as I remember, no you didn't for those things. They are still outside the pay wall.
Why is what MS and Sony does relevant where my whole argument is that publishers will be doing the fucking here, and that Sony could just be playing dumb? I don't think there actually playing dumb, I think there just being their normal state of "fuckers".
schrodinger drm schemes? That needs definition. Always both able to play and not play?
Yes bullshit implications, several media outlets running direct interviews with Sony as of 3 months ago all stating "well.... itill play used games..." and then trailing off. Then asking for their PR's official response, and getting the same answer. Then "we have to wait to explain more about our services later". If your service is "meh status quo", wheres the issue? Why the waffle? Why so careful with words? It goes beyond standard PR being careful with words, press was pretty straightforward with the issue and not playing "gotcha".
Here's the thing, EA maybe the only one that was doing online passes this gen, but when its mandatory on xbone, theres no reason for publishers to not push their own version on the PS4 copy.
On "always online", the ps4 may not have it, but its still up to the publisher. See PC games that are single player but require always online. Sony has always had a very open platform that has worked for them and against them in the past. All these things still fall in line. We have gotten notice from blizz that D3 will have offline play, which is a good sign. But UBI hinted they needed online for some of their games. Remember, "cloud" is the keyword of this E3.
But MS didn't get the message. They only heard what they wanted to.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
It can actully get a little sickening, I got Thomas was alone through PSN+, a delightful little platformer. Now I can't pay for it making me feel terrible. But if I had not gotten it on PSN + I never would ahve tried it and found out how charming and brilliant it is.
They gave me a Ps3 copy and a Vita copy.
So i brought the DLC, paid once got a vita and PS3 copy.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
@Mugaaz Which exclusives would those be? Because in watching both press events I would heartily disagree with you. The only ones I saw that might be considered decent are Halo and Killer Instinct. Everything else (including Spark) was not exclusive.
Ah I forgot about Ryse, but that looked like Call of Duty: Romans with QTE combat so...yeah.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
That's ok, still a while until launch anyway.
Not sure if I should have bothered but ...
Because not everyone's gaming habits are the same. Because not all of those 20 games will be PS exclusives. And because for those that are, the PS store doesn't have a monopoly on PS game sales.
Why did they even fire the guy, he was defending their awful policy. In an insulting manner yes, but he was still indulging in organisational loyalty.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
probably something dumb like a skin or a gun and some bullshit time-waster mission that Bungie cut out, then added back in to please Sony
no developer in their right mind puts their good shit into that console exclusive crap. they just pop in their throwaway stuff so sony will cut them a check for $50,000 for basically nothing meaningful
Um, use your brain. It's called a strategy. Let's say Sony never had any intention of implementing a DRM, which would be the smarter option:
a) Say something straight away, tip off your opponent and let them adjust their plans long before they've even unveiled their system.
b) Saying nothing, waiting until your opponent ties a noose around his own neck and then kick the fucking chair out from under him.
The answer is b. B!!!!
I can't believe I seriously have to explain this.
The other "opinion" is that PS+ is mandatory.
It is not.
Much like if someone's opinion were that the earth is flat.
[/quote]
So your argument is that it'll be the same if we ignore the fact that MS have baked in their online 24hr checks . . . .
Because sony don't have that which is the entire point of difference.
Wow, i have no words really none.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
You don't on the PS3. I don't think they will change that.
Guys
Guys
Who cares what it might have been?
Let's focus on what it will be
What it will be is nothing like Microsoft's approach, this is what matters here
Thinking impure thoughts is not a crime when compared to taking evil actions
Of course we don't even have a launch date as of yet...
Wii: 4521 1146 5179 1333 Pearl: 3394 4642 8367 HG: 1849 3913 3132
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
And:
His opinion is based on made up information.
So yeah it's pretty much less valid.
Its like upgrading to a brand new pc. You can play the games that ran on your old machine, but they'll look drastically better on the new one, and you can play new ones that you couldn't before.
CorriganX on Steam and just about everywhere else.
I think from the waffling early on it was clear that Sony was at least entertaining conversations with publishers about it; there's no way that Microsoft went ahead with this, told the publishers, and the publishers didn't at least ask Sony "you guys hoppin' on this train, too?" So, yeah. They probably considered it. We'll likely never find out how long or how seriously, but we can safely assume that it's something that was on the table, then XBone announce happened, and they got the message; either validation that they chose properly, or a bump pushing them to their DRM-free choice.
Might wanna wait for some Watch Dogs 360 footage
Everything shown at conferences has been for next-gen
Nintendo showed off their version of Watch Dogs earlier today, which would likely be comparable with the PS3/360 versions, and let's just say it looked...not very enticing
My bad. I did a quick look earlier and saw "PS4 exclusive" and basically lept to conclusions.
I really wonder if the extra power of the PS4 will even matter. Maybe for in house stuff, but I see most developets just coding to the lowest common denominator (Xboned) to save on costs.
When it ships, 100% positive on this from the US perspective (not sure about other regions)
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
PS4 games will basically look like what PC games look like right now. So go look at a video of FarCry 3, or some other high fidelity game, on a modern up to snuff PC, and that's basically what the PS4 will be able to push at launch.
Now, how many games will be designed for that, it's hard to say. I know for a fact that Destiny is being designed next-gen first, and then downscaled for PS3/360, so the highest visual fidelity experience will be on next-gen consoles, particularly the PS4 which is Destiny's "primary platform".
When (or maybe slightly before) it ships.
For example, I ordered the latest Walking Dead TPB last December. It arrived yesterday with release date delivery, and looking back through my order history I was charged for it yesterday as well.
i guess it's really hard to make a decent shooter into an MMO?
I think it's at the time of the preorder but you get refunded if the price changes?
I didn't get charged til the game shipped when I preordered Bioshock Infinite off Amazon...
UK is when it ships, at least.
Also if I could get wishes granted they would release a controller for the PS4 that is basically a 360 controller. I've never been a fan of the dual shock.
Wii: 4521 1146 5179 1333 Pearl: 3394 4642 8367 HG: 1849 3913 3132