The problem is that it turned out the general market for a $250 dedicated gaming handheld was pretty small as well. Especially after the $250 3DS faltered. Yet Sony's stubbornly refusing to drop the price.
Honestly I'm not expecting any set price range for the PS4... that company's so hard to predict. I'd agree that the disaster of the $600 PS3 would teach them (and, well, anyone paying attention) not to release anywhere near that high again, yet Vita still happened. Who knows, maybe they'll pleasently surprise me.
But this is getting off-topic. Maybe the One's launch price will be low enough that the general market decides they can live with the no more used games thing. Though modern-day Microsoft hasn't exactly been hot on bargains either.
The problem is that it turned out the general market for a $250 dedicated gaming handheld was pretty small as well. Especially after the $250 3DS faltered. Yet Sony's stubbornly refusing to drop the price.
Honestly I'm not expecting any set price range for the PS4... that company's so hard to predict. I'd agree that the disaster of the $600 PS3 would teach them (and, well, anyone paying attention) not to release anywhere near that high again, yet Vita still happened. Who knows, maybe they'll pleasently surprise me.
But this is getting off-topic. Maybe the One's launch price will be low enough that the general market decides they can live with the no more used games thing. Though modern-day Microsoft hasn't exactly been hot on bargains either.
One thing to note about the pricing for the Xbox One is the subsidized option.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
The problem is that it turned out the general market for a $250 dedicated gaming handheld was pretty small as well. Especially after the $250 3DS faltered. Yet Sony's stubbornly refusing to drop the price.
Honestly I'm not expecting any set price range for the PS4... that company's so hard to predict. I'd agree that the disaster of the $600 PS3 would teach them (and, well, anyone paying attention) not to release anywhere near that high again, yet Vita still happened. Who knows, maybe they'll pleasently surprise me.
But this is getting off-topic. Maybe the One's launch price will be low enough that the general market decides they can live with the no more used games thing. Though modern-day Microsoft hasn't exactly been hot on bargains either.
One thing to note about the pricing for the Xbox One is the subsidized option.
Yeah, that could wind up being the One's secret weapon, especially since it's been working so well for the 360.
But as ginormous as Gamestop is, the public has been trained pretty well to expect easy access to used games.
The problem is that it turned out the general market for a $250 dedicated gaming handheld was pretty small as well. Especially after the $250 3DS faltered. Yet Sony's stubbornly refusing to drop the price.
Honestly I'm not expecting any set price range for the PS4... that company's so hard to predict. I'd agree that the disaster of the $600 PS3 would teach them (and, well, anyone paying attention) not to release anywhere near that high again, yet Vita still happened. Who knows, maybe they'll pleasently surprise me.
But this is getting off-topic. Maybe the One's launch price will be low enough that the general market decides they can live with the no more used games thing. Though modern-day Microsoft hasn't exactly been hot on bargains either.
They're getting better, there's more sales on the 360 now and while GoD prices are generally terrible and always at full RRP, there are the occasional "better-than-the-shops" bargains to be had. It's kind of like the early days of Steam.
I'll say this: if Microsoft had as frequent, aggressive sales as Steam now does and reasonably depreciated the price on stuff over time like Steam does, I'd be on board with used games going away.
I'll say this: if Microsoft had as frequent, aggressive sales as Steam now does and reasonably depreciated the price on stuff over time like Steam does, I'd be on board with used games going away.
Though I'd be shocked if that happens.
Completely agree. It's their move and they can justify the whole thing by making it consumer-friendly like that. The whole "like Steam" argument cuts both ways, and they can't just use it to lock down sharing without giving the consumers anything back in return.
But I'm still betting on my original assessments on price (PS4 $599, XBox One $499). I think MS will try to cut under Sony no matter what. They're putting less in the actual box because of Kinect, which can't be cheap tech. The PS Eye can be from what I understand. Just a basic webcam isn't it?
After inflation, the PS4 is a price cut anyway The PS3 will be 8 years old when the PS4 comes out, and the PS4 will have better hardware. Its possible each goes for $499 I guess... but I doubt a penny less. Not if they actually want to make money on them instead of lose again. They're shipping more than just the box anyway... it all adds up.
I'll say this: if Microsoft had as frequent, aggressive sales as Steam now does and reasonably depreciated the price on stuff over time like Steam does, I'd be on board with used games going away.
Though I'd be shocked if that happens.
Completely agree. It's their move and they can justify the whole thing by making it consumer-friendly like that. The whole "like Steam" argument cuts both ways, and they can't just use it to lock down sharing without giving the consumers anything back in return.
Steam is what it is because it was built specifically to outcompete a market that featured a permanent price of 'free', though. I see zero reason to believe the console services will offer anything like that, considering that they refuse to compete with used game market now and the entire purpose of the effort is to essentially hamstring that competition so they don't have to bother.
They got a generation ahead of themselves. If they had created the 'Steamlike' service first, offered better value to the consumer and made the used game competition an afterthought no one would have cared when they locked out the market.
But I'm still betting on my original assessments on price (PS4 $599, XBox One $499). I think MS will try to cut under Sony no matter what. They're putting less in the actual box because of Kinect, which can't be cheap tech. The PS Eye can be from what I understand. Just a basic webcam isn't it?
After inflation, the PS4 is a price cut anyway The PS3 will be 8 years old when the PS4 comes out, and the PS4 will have better hardware. Its possible each goes for $499 I guess... but I doubt a penny less. Not if they actually want to make money on them instead of lose again. They're shipping more than just the box anyway... it all adds up.
Well, I'm willing to bet that "FIVE HUNDRED NINETY NINE US DOLLARS" isn't happening agiain, a high price makes sense compared to what the PS3 and 360 go for now once each has a hard drive and kinect/move.
It's just that I think that if you combine high console prices with 3rd parties doing cross gen development for a while then you could get a really, really slow start to this new generation. And if install bases stay low for a while then it's going to be hard to bet many millions of dollars on making a PS4/XBO exclusive game. If they take advantage of generation change over to make games $70 that would also slow the adoption rate.
PS, inflation doesn't really apply directly to electronics. They usually get cheaper over time even while they get more powerful.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
There's no way Microsoft or Sony would be stupid enough to come to market right before the holidays with a product that's more expensive than a new IPad.
There's no way Microsoft or Sony would be stupid enough to come to market right before the holidays with a product that's more expensive than a new IPad.
There's no way Microsoft or Sony would be stupid enough to come to market right before the holidays with a product that's more expensive than a new IPad.
There's no way Microsoft or Sony would be stupid enough to come to market right before the holidays with a product that's more expensive than a new IPad.
So, cheaper than $329, then?
I said a new IPad.
The brand new model is $499.
The new iPad Mini is $329. And it's selling like crazy.
I think the start to this next gen will be glacial. There's simply not enough reason to upgrade. I'll be running my PS3 for quite awhile yet. Until there's games on the next gen I want to play, there's not going to be a reason to do anything. And it will take more than 1, I'm not buying a system for one game. In 2-3 years I think it will be right, because by then the game library will be large enough to make the switch. There isn't a single new feature being promised on XBox or anywhere that has me going "OOOH MUST HAVE". I just wanna play games. No games*, no sale for me.
*I don't play Halo or Call of Duty or Madden
Destiny PS4: Earthen1
+7
David_TA fashion yes-man is no good to me.Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered Userregular
There's no way Microsoft or Sony would be stupid enough to come to market right before the holidays with a product that's more expensive than a new IPad.
So, cheaper than $329, then?
I said a new IPad.
The brand new model is $499.
The new iPad Mini is $329. And it's selling like crazy.
There's no way Microsoft or Sony would be stupid enough to come to market right before the holidays with a product that's more expensive than a new IPad.
I think the start to this next gen will be glacial. There's simply not enough reason to upgrade. I'll be running my PS3 for quite awhile yet. Until there's games on the next gen I want to play, there's not going to be a reason to do anything. And it will take more than 1, I'm not buying a system for one game. In 2-3 years I think it will be right, because by then the game library will be large enough to make the switch. There isn't a single new feature being promised on XBox or anywhere that has me going "OOOH MUST HAVE". I just wanna play games. No games*, no sale for me.
*I don't play Halo or Call of Duty or Madden
I agree with this in general about the XBone and the PS4, but I already got a WiiU so I'm not exactly one for self-control.
I think the start to this next gen will be glacial. There's simply not enough reason to upgrade. I'll be running my PS3 for quite awhile yet. Until there's games on the next gen I want to play, there's not going to be a reason to do anything. And it will take more than 1, I'm not buying a system for one game. In 2-3 years I think it will be right, because by then the game library will be large enough to make the switch. There isn't a single new feature being promised on XBox or anywhere that has me going "OOOH MUST HAVE". I just wanna play games. No games*, no sale for me.
*I don't play Halo or Call of Duty or Madden
I'm interested to see how strong the early-adopter consumer base reacts to things once it is all available for purchase.
0
fearsomepirateI ate a pickle once.Registered Userregular
edited May 2013
Sony probably thought they were pricing aggressively at $250. Difference is that's probably pretty close to cost for them, while the 3DS is probably much cheaper to make. My guess is at this price point, they're not losing money on it after a game or two, so they'd rather wait until they can economize on its production to drop the price.
I think the start to this next gen will be glacial. There's simply not enough reason to upgrade. I'll be running my PS3 for quite awhile yet.
Despite my comments about Skyrim looking like fried butt, to be honest, there's nothing about this gen's graphics that has me itching to move on already. I was ready to move on from software rendered PC graphics pretty much the moment I saw a Dreamcast in action, and I was pretty much ready to move on from last-gen graphics by the time RE4 came along with its crazy jaggies, and it was obvious the Xbox couldn't handle much fancy lighting without dropping the geometry and framerate down to unpleasantly low levels.
This time around, nothing about the Killzone or COD footage we've seen made me say, "Oh man, I cannot get rid of my PS3 soon enough!!!"
fearsomepirate on
Nobody makes me bleed my own blood...nobody.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
Sony probably thought they were pricing aggressively at $250. Difference is that's probably pretty close to cost for them, while the 3DS is probably much cheaper to make. My guess is at this price point, they're not losing money on it after a game or two, so they'd rather wait until they can economize on its production to drop the price.
I think the start to this next gen will be glacial. There's simply not enough reason to upgrade. I'll be running my PS3 for quite awhile yet.
Despite my comments about Skyrim looking like fried butt, to be honest, there's nothing about this gen's graphics that has me itching to move on already. I was ready to move on from software rendered PC graphics pretty much the moment I saw a Dreamcast in action, and I was pretty much ready to move on from last-gen graphics by the time RE4 came along with its crazy jaggies, and it was obvious the Xbox couldn't handle much fancy lighting without dropping the geometry and framerate down to unpleasantly low levels.
This time around, nothing about the Killzone or COD footage we've seen made me say, "Oh man, I cannot get rid of my PS3 soon enough!!!"
Well, that's at least in part because COD isn't really "next gen", just ported over. Killzone looked nice, I suppose, but the visual style just looked so bland.
Really I think the impressive "next-gen" stuff for games will be more impressive CPU intensive things like AI, maybe more depth. Graphics will improve but we aren't going to see such an obvious jump as we have in previous console generations.
FuriousJodo on Twitch/PSN/XBL/Whatever else
+3
fearsomepirateI ate a pickle once.Registered Userregular
Sony probably thought they were pricing aggressively at $250. Difference is that's probably pretty close to cost for them, while the 3DS is probably much cheaper to make. My guess is at this price point, they're not losing money on it after a game or two, so they'd rather wait until they can economize on its production to drop the price.
I think the start to this next gen will be glacial. There's simply not enough reason to upgrade. I'll be running my PS3 for quite awhile yet.
Despite my comments about Skyrim looking like fried butt, to be honest, there's nothing about this gen's graphics that has me itching to move on already. I was ready to move on from software rendered PC graphics pretty much the moment I saw a Dreamcast in action, and I was pretty much ready to move on from last-gen graphics by the time RE4 came along with its crazy jaggies, and it was obvious the Xbox couldn't handle much fancy lighting without dropping the geometry and framerate down to unpleasantly low levels.
This time around, nothing about the Killzone or COD footage we've seen made me say, "Oh man, I cannot get rid of my PS3 soon enough!!!"
Well, that's at least in part because COD isn't really "next gen", just ported over. Killzone looked nice, I suppose, but the visual style just looked so bland.
That actually reinforces my point, since the first Killzone alone made it apparent to me how badly we needed a new generation of hardware. I didn't need to see a PS3/360 to know that the character models and lighting in GTA looked horrible, or that Xbox games that used normal mapping were clearly making huge sacrifices in other areas.
This gen, the only games I feel like that about are open-world games, and some of those actually look quite good, like Just Cause 2 and Dead Island.
Nobody makes me bleed my own blood...nobody.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
Yeah, I'll agree with that. I'm mostly looking forwards to fewer loading screens in open-world games, higher texture resolution (which, depending on game, can make a huge difference), and increased NPC count.
Aesthetic style is pretty much king now. How good a game looks is more a function of overall art design, rather than throwing more polygons or shaders at it.
Really I think the impressive "next-gen" stuff for games will be more impressive CPU intensive things like AI, maybe more depth. Graphics will improve but we aren't going to see such an obvious jump as we have in previous console generations.
If AI in general improves I will be pleased as shit.
+2
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Really I think the impressive "next-gen" stuff for games will be more impressive CPU intensive things like AI, maybe more depth. Graphics will improve but we aren't going to see such an obvious jump as we have in previous console generations.
Everyone says the jump won't be as impressive as the last gen, and it always is. I fully expect mid generation Xbox one/ps4 games to blow away end of life 360/PS3 games on a technical level. But more than anything, I hope this gen has more varied art. Brown realism is so tired at this point.
0
fearsomepirateI ate a pickle once.Registered Userregular
This is the first generation where I've seen people shrug their shoulders at launch titles. Also, they're running out of major, qualitative scene-level improvements to make in graphics. Pixel-sized surface detail's already here. Dynamic shadows are already here. Gamma-correct HDR's already here. Energy-conserving lighting is already here. We've seen some approximations of GI and radiosity. There's not a whole lot of large-scale stuff left to get "right." A lot of what we're going to see next gen is, as Guerilla talked about, stuff we've seen this gen, but all put together at much higher fidelity and with far fewer tradeoffs (like how KZ2 & 3 had to sacrifice physically correct lighting in order to do deferred shading without doing a second pass).
Nobody makes me bleed my own blood...nobody.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
Really I think the impressive "next-gen" stuff for games will be more impressive CPU intensive things like AI, maybe more depth. Graphics will improve but we aren't going to see such an obvious jump as we have in previous console generations.
If AI in general improves I will be pleased as shit.
The problem is figuring out what qualifies as "better AI", sadly--it's not always evident. Half-Life 2 broke a lot of ground, but it had predictable, unoriginal AI when it came out (of course, its predecessor blazed a trail in that area). But it works because so much of the game is set in corridors, or makes use of enemy waves (like a lot of games).
Now, having smart, plausible AI in something like Battlefield is immediately evident--and it doesn't even need to be comparable to gamer multiplayer behavior (as hilarious as it is in multiplayer, jets racking up kills by skimming the ground would suck in singlelpayer), just better than the abysmal behavior we've got now.
I've been playing Assassin's Creed 3, which reminded me of Red Dead Redemption. And if those games are the graphical plateau? I'm completely cool with it. There's still obviously improvements to be made, but it's really going to me more along the lines of tidying up. Cleaner shadows, better AA, smoother framerate. Stuff like that. But I don't believe we're going to get another giant leap, if possibly ever. And that's very likely going to be a problem when it comes time to convincing people to make the jump to new consoles.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I've been playing Assassin's Creed 3, which reminded me of Red Dead Redemption. And if those games are the graphical plateau? I'm completely cool with it. There's still obviously improvements to be made, but it's really going to me more along the lines of tidying up. Cleaner shadows, better AA, smoother framerate. Stuff like that. But I don't believe we're going to get another giant leap, if possibly ever. And that's very likely going to be a problem when it comes time to convincing people to make the jump to new consoles.
Yeah, the most immediate gains to be had right now is doing stuff similar to what's being done now, but at higher resolutions (particularly getting everything to actually run at 1080p, instead of 540p upscaled to 720p or whatever) and at a constant 60fps.
0
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
Really I think the impressive "next-gen" stuff for games will be more impressive CPU intensive things like AI, maybe more depth. Graphics will improve but we aren't going to see such an obvious jump as we have in previous console generations.
If AI in general improves I will be pleased as shit.
The problem is figuring out what qualifies as "better AI", sadly--it's not always evident. Half-Life 2 broke a lot of ground, but it had predictable, unoriginal AI when it came out (of course, its predecessor blazed a trail in that area). But it works because so much of the game is set in corridors, or makes use of enemy waves (like a lot of games).
Now, having smart, plausible AI in something like Battlefield is immediately evident--and it doesn't even need to be comparable to gamer multiplayer behavior (as hilarious as it is in multiplayer, jets racking up kills by skimming the ground would suck in singlelpayer), just better than the abysmal behavior we've got now.
Just wondering if you downloaded Minerva yet.
Because MAN that lets the HL2 AI show off. They're pretty impressive at times if you let them out of their corridors.
Really I think the impressive "next-gen" stuff for games will be more impressive CPU intensive things like AI, maybe more depth. Graphics will improve but we aren't going to see such an obvious jump as we have in previous console generations.
If AI in general improves I will be pleased as shit.
The problem is figuring out what qualifies as "better AI", sadly--it's not always evident. Half-Life 2 broke a lot of ground, but it had predictable, unoriginal AI when it came out (of course, its predecessor blazed a trail in that area). But it works because so much of the game is set in corridors, or makes use of enemy waves (like a lot of games).
Now, having smart, plausible AI in something like Battlefield is immediately evident--and it doesn't even need to be comparable to gamer multiplayer behavior (as hilarious as it is in multiplayer, jets racking up kills by skimming the ground would suck in singlelpayer), just better than the abysmal behavior we've got now.
Well, while an unoriginal / uninspired AI can be a bad thing, a game can also be constructed with that in mind to make it not noticeable or not a problem at all.
I'll say this: if Microsoft had as frequent, aggressive sales as Steam now does and reasonably depreciated the price on stuff over time like Steam does, I'd be on board with used games going away.
Though I'd be shocked if that happens.
I think they are too tied to the retail sector to pull it off.
Posts
Honestly I'm not expecting any set price range for the PS4... that company's so hard to predict. I'd agree that the disaster of the $600 PS3 would teach them (and, well, anyone paying attention) not to release anywhere near that high again, yet Vita still happened. Who knows, maybe they'll pleasently surprise me.
But this is getting off-topic. Maybe the One's launch price will be low enough that the general market decides they can live with the no more used games thing. Though modern-day Microsoft hasn't exactly been hot on bargains either.
One thing to note about the pricing for the Xbox One is the subsidized option.
Yeah, that could wind up being the One's secret weapon, especially since it's been working so well for the 360.
But as ginormous as Gamestop is, the public has been trained pretty well to expect easy access to used games.
They're getting better, there's more sales on the 360 now and while GoD prices are generally terrible and always at full RRP, there are the occasional "better-than-the-shops" bargains to be had. It's kind of like the early days of Steam.
Though I'd be shocked if that happens.
Completely agree. It's their move and they can justify the whole thing by making it consumer-friendly like that. The whole "like Steam" argument cuts both ways, and they can't just use it to lock down sharing without giving the consumers anything back in return.
"The concept of a "luxury" gaming console is a contradiction in terms."
"Absolute prices points are important while price compared to power or features included is not."
"All of this is because game consoles and handhelds are platforms for software that needs to sell millions of copies to break even"
"Thus it will be forever and ever. Amen."
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
...And also with you. :P
But I'm still betting on my original assessments on price (PS4 $599, XBox One $499). I think MS will try to cut under Sony no matter what. They're putting less in the actual box because of Kinect, which can't be cheap tech. The PS Eye can be from what I understand. Just a basic webcam isn't it?
After inflation, the PS4 is a price cut anyway
They got a generation ahead of themselves. If they had created the 'Steamlike' service first, offered better value to the consumer and made the used game competition an afterthought no one would have cared when they locked out the market.
Well, I'm willing to bet that "FIVE HUNDRED NINETY NINE US DOLLARS" isn't happening agiain, a high price makes sense compared to what the PS3 and 360 go for now once each has a hard drive and kinect/move.
It's just that I think that if you combine high console prices with 3rd parties doing cross gen development for a while then you could get a really, really slow start to this new generation. And if install bases stay low for a while then it's going to be hard to bet many millions of dollars on making a PS4/XBO exclusive game. If they take advantage of generation change over to make games $70 that would also slow the adoption rate.
PS, inflation doesn't really apply directly to electronics. They usually get cheaper over time even while they get more powerful.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
PS - Local_H_Jay
Sub me on Youtube
And Twitch
Source
So, cheaper than $329, then?
yea, that's what I'm anticipating
I said a new IPad.
The brand new model is $499.
The new iPad Mini is $329. And it's selling like crazy.
*I don't play Halo or Call of Duty or Madden
Playstation Vita to get a price increase to $329!
Hi, let me introduce you to Surface
I agree with this in general about the XBone and the PS4, but I already got a WiiU so I'm not exactly one for self-control.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I'm interested to see how strong the early-adopter consumer base reacts to things once it is all available for purchase.
This time around, nothing about the Killzone or COD footage we've seen made me say, "Oh man, I cannot get rid of my PS3 soon enough!!!"
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
Well, that's at least in part because COD isn't really "next gen", just ported over. Killzone looked nice, I suppose, but the visual style just looked so bland.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
This gen, the only games I feel like that about are open-world games, and some of those actually look quite good, like Just Cause 2 and Dead Island.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
Aesthetic style is pretty much king now. How good a game looks is more a function of overall art design, rather than throwing more polygons or shaders at it.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
If AI in general improves I will be pleased as shit.
Everyone says the jump won't be as impressive as the last gen, and it always is. I fully expect mid generation Xbox one/ps4 games to blow away end of life 360/PS3 games on a technical level. But more than anything, I hope this gen has more varied art. Brown realism is so tired at this point.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
I am going to say it is probably more of the same stuff they have already been doing, with probably a ton of third party sequels in there.
But I might be surprised yet!
The problem is figuring out what qualifies as "better AI", sadly--it's not always evident. Half-Life 2 broke a lot of ground, but it had predictable, unoriginal AI when it came out (of course, its predecessor blazed a trail in that area). But it works because so much of the game is set in corridors, or makes use of enemy waves (like a lot of games).
Now, having smart, plausible AI in something like Battlefield is immediately evident--and it doesn't even need to be comparable to gamer multiplayer behavior (as hilarious as it is in multiplayer, jets racking up kills by skimming the ground would suck in singlelpayer), just better than the abysmal behavior we've got now.
Yeah, the most immediate gains to be had right now is doing stuff similar to what's being done now, but at higher resolutions (particularly getting everything to actually run at 1080p, instead of 540p upscaled to 720p or whatever) and at a constant 60fps.
Just wondering if you downloaded Minerva yet.
Because MAN that lets the HL2 AI show off. They're pretty impressive at times if you let them out of their corridors.
Why I fear the ocean.
Well, while an unoriginal / uninspired AI can be a bad thing, a game can also be constructed with that in mind to make it not noticeable or not a problem at all.
I think they are too tied to the retail sector to pull it off.