This has been true of every console launch ever, though. The 360 and PS3 at launch didn't look nicer than medium-spec PCs. It's always been the case that if you want the very best graphics, you build a PC.
Perhaps they didn't look much better, but the hardware of the 360 was fairly high-end at the time of its release. The Xenos GPU was basically intended to be ATI's flagship PC GPU and was basically released concurrently with the 360 as the X1800. Even then, the Xenos had some special work done with it that put it ahead of that card (like unified shaders) that wouldn't be seen in ATI's PC stuff for another year or so.
The Xenon processor was a three core CPU released when multicore processing in PCs was barely heard of. It again would take a year or so before we started even seeing dual core processors become common on the PC.
The PS4's hardware is basically off the shelf. Like, the Best Buy, you-can-go-there-right-now shelf. There isn't much at all cutting edge about it, by a stretch of about two years.
GDDR5 for main CPU functions is pretty unheard of.
I don't even know if you CAN build a PC that uses it like that.
As I noted in my post before that, the RAM situation is unique, and considering the 360 and PS3 it's good they didn't skimp. It does not, however, suddenly make an older Jaguar core into a new Bulldozer, for example.
While true, the Jaguar Core was never explicitly written for in the way that a console gets software written for it.
It is a foregone conclusion that directX will not be the middleware on this platform like it is for 99% of PC games; there will be specialized SDKs with optimized versions of OpenGL, Unreal Engine 3 and 4, and other middlewares that speak much closer to the metal than they are allowed to in the multiple-configuration hell that is the PC industry.
Remember that the original xbox was packing 64 megs of RAM and a 700 MHz celeron processor and could do this:
Consoles are not PCs, even if they use PC hardware off the shelf.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I'm not arguing that the PS4 or next Xbox aren't going to have impressive games, nor am I invoking my PC Master Race status. I'm arguing that this is not leading-edge hardware, and also against what Jeffe said about consoles being weaker than PCs. The actual trend has always been for consoles to be pretty impressive tech in the beginning that is rapidly outpaced by PCs, and not cheaper components from the start that simply benefit from being a fixed target.
Mostly, I'm saying that most of what you are seeing that is impressive about these newer games is a function of production values, and not necessarily hardware.
Edit: Just for fun, though, I will add that the OXBox's GPU was again equivalent to about the very best consumer NVidia card you could buy at the time of its release.
Honestly, what I most remember about the console launches is arguments about whether the new tech specs were awesome or outdated.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited February 2013
I feel like that is an argument for Nintendo having made the right choice with hardware this generation, in that there will not be fundamentally different games as a result of the upgraded hardware, just better "production values" - an argument I disagree with.
Meanwhile, what this better hardware means is that games with similar visuals to Skyrim will have zero loadtimes, games like Minecraft can have massive worlds with 32 people logged in all doing stuff at the same time, running off a peer to peer server, games like Dead Rising can take the sense of scale and quantity of enemies to ridiculous levels... and chances are there will be things we can't even begin to imagine that a smart developer will crack because the power is there to be exploited.
PC game developers would be mad to require someone have a PC on the level of the PS4's announced specs (8 gigs of GDDR5 RAM, beefy if not top of the line processor, Beefy GPU), and will be mad to do so for another 3-4 years. so exclusive games on both of the next gen platforms are going to outpace similar PC games, at least for a brief window, even on the hardware that is inferior to a top of the line gaming rig.
There will be marginally prettier games on PCs costing 2-3x what the PS4 / xbox 720 will cost, but there won't be wildly different gaming experiences for some time, aside from obvious input device differences.
There were MUCH better gaming PCs when the xbox 1 dropped, and some of the exclusives could stand toe to toe with the best PC experiences of the time.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I feel like that is an argument for Nintendo having made the right choice with hardware this generation, in that there will not be fundamentally different games as a result of the upgraded hardware, just better "production values" - an argument I disagree with.
Meanwhile, what this better hardware means is that games with similar visuals to Skyrim will have zero loadtimes, games like Minecraft can have massive worlds with 32 people logged in all doing stuff at the same time, running off a peer to peer server, games like Dead Rising can take the sense of scale and quantity of enemies to ridiculous levels... and chances are there will be things we can't even begin to imagine that a smart developer will crack because the power is there to be exploited.
PC game developers would be mad to require someone have a PC on the level of the PS4's announced specs (8 gigs of GDDR5 RAM, beefy if not top of the line processor, Beefy GPU), and will be mad to do so for another 3-4 years. so exclusive games on both of the next gen platforms are going to outpace similar PC games, at least for a brief window, even on the hardware that is inferior to a top of the line gaming rig.
There will be marginally prettier games on PCs costing 2-3x what the PS4 / xbox 720 will cost, but there won't be wildly different gaming experiences for some time, aside from obvious input device differences.
There were MUCH better gaming PCs when the xbox 1 dropped, and some of the exclusives could stand toe to toe with the best PC experiences of the time.
I haven't really brought Nintendo into it. If the PS4 is "meh", then the Wii U is basically "WTF?". The only impressive thing about the Wii U's hardware is that it consumes little power, generates little heat, and is relatively small for what it is.
But fine, if you think games like Watch_Dogs won't look as good on a high-end PC (which it was in fact running on at the PS4 event, by the way) as it eventually will on console hardware, be my guest.
Honestly, what I most remember about the console launches is arguments about whether the new tech specs were awesome or outdated.
Fights to the death about how the 360/PS3 would be horribly gimped because it lacked Blu-ray or cores or voxels or whatever shit and would be vastly inferior to the PS3/360.
And it turns out it didn't matter one goddamn bit.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Watch_Dogs is a multiplatform game. I fully expect it to look and play the same everywhere, with *slight* graphical upgrades for the people with crazy expensive rigs.
I am speaking more along the lines of Halo 5, Resistance, Uncharted, Whatever the Shadow of the Colossus guy decides to do, etc. These are the games that don't have to do anything but work on one thing, and they tend to be stunning as a result.
Halo 4 still impresses the hell out of me, and its running on a 7 year old dinosaur.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I don't want to play on a PC because every game is KBAM. If a game is configured to use a controller and has a profile set up, then you can get a PC gaming controller for an extra $50, but... are we really comparing the mish mosh of components that can cost upwards of $2000 to a plug & play gaming console that costs around $400?
Developers love consoles because they only have to target 1 platform. If you design for the PS3, you can assume that every PS3 is the same. Part of the reason developers have ignored Nintendo's peripherals throughout history is that it mucks up the previously easy design and architecture. Do I assume that every user as a Wii Balance Board? If so, I should just make a game that is specific to the balance board, rather than optional, because I don't want to test out tons of either-or scenarios.
If I design for the WiiU, I know every user will have the tablet and every hardware bit will be the same. Nintendo has made it clear that I can also design as if players 2-5 have Wiimotes. Easy! I don't need to run through testing 10 different video cards, 15 different CPUs, various resolutions, and more. That's why developers like developing for consoles. What's more, even with Nintendo's sub-optimal online gaming, the developer doesn't need to handle all the network code -- Nintendo handles that and the developer just plugs into it. If I go to a PC developer's website, their FAQs are full of very technical troubleshooting bits, and their forums are full of "I can't get this to run on [specs]."
If anything, I see Sony's use of x86 as a smart statement encouraging easier development and better compatibility. The PS3 is my multiplatform console, and it does irk me that developers start out on the x86 platforms and the PS3 version is the afterthought. That's not their fault, though -- it's Sony's for using an esoteric, weird CPU. But the Wii U still uses a PowerPC architecture, meaning now it's really the odd man out. That being said, the positive development for Nintendo is that they're not forcing developers to change everything -- I get the feeling that allowing off-screen play or rendering something to the tablet is relatively simple, in the scheme of porting, so it won't be as complex as switching a title over to the Wii.
As for the Smartglass stuff, we're still in early days for that. It only came out late last year, and yes, it does the same type of thing, but I think that's exactly right. Allow for smart phones to serve as an optional, add-on thing that enhances gameplay without being a necessary component. The difference between doing it via smartphone versus crafting a specific peripheral is that a large portion of the gaming community already owns smartphones. It's just savvy business sense to look at these devices that are becoming ubiquitous and, more important, are actually getting REAL support from a host of different industries.
I mean, my friend runs his thermostat from his iPhone. We're there.
Watch_Dogs is a multiplatform game. I fully expect it to look and play the same everywhere, with *slight* graphical upgrades for the people with crazy expensive rigs.
I am speaking more along the lines of Halo 5, Resistance, Uncharted, Whatever the Shadow of the Colossus guy decides to do, etc. These are the games that don't have to do anything but work on one thing, and they tend to be stunning as a result.
Halo 4 still impresses the hell out of me, and its running on a 7 year old dinosaur.
Agreed, Halo 4 is pretty nice for what it is - though unfortunately for me it does come at the cost of making split-screen multiplayer perform rather poorly in comparison.
The closest we have to an exclusive to look at is the Killzone demo, which is also impressive. I'm going to try my best not to make qualitative judgments because that's a bad road to go down, but other than the impressiveness of the scale of the set-pieces on display along with setting and art style, I'm not seeing much technically that you don't get in something like Crysis 3 maxed out.
That's just me, though.
PS - I also like that we're returning to bright and bloomy graphics. I'm actually semi-serious about that - I really like that lots of these games we're seeing aren't afraid of being bright.
Ultimanecat on
SteamID : same as my PA forum name
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
I like the new controller design. They really need a transparent hand on it though to better sell the touchpad. The unremarkable shape of it implies a no-man's-land beyond your thumbs.
I really, really felt like the Playstation 4's intended goal is to be a better version of the XBOX 360. There were pretty demos and all this media integration stuff with apps and tablets and whatnot, and the whole X86 side of things leads the narrative of being not unlike the Xbox's original goals of being a console with the power of a PC, or whatever.
Wondering what Microsoft wants to do now. I don't know if this is right, but Sony seems to want to head in a direction where you can stream your PS4 games remotely to your Vita, tablet, or smartphone and play them there (the latter ones, presumably with a Dualshock 4 you have with you). A 'stream anywhere' agenda is just about the only piece of tech I can imagine that is up for grabs between the big three. It's rather telling that Nintendo has built a console that is staunchly against this sort of thing.
Watch_Dogs is a multiplatform game. I fully expect it to look and play the same everywhere, with *slight* graphical upgrades for the people with crazy expensive rigs.
I am speaking more along the lines of Halo 5, Resistance, Uncharted, Whatever the Shadow of the Colossus guy decides to do, etc. These are the games that don't have to do anything but work on one thing, and they tend to be stunning as a result.
Halo 4 still impresses the hell out of me, and its running on a 7 year old dinosaur.
Agreed, Halo 4 is pretty nice for what it is - though unfortunately for me it does come at the cost of making split-screen multiplayer perform rather poorly in comparison.
The closest we have to an exclusive to look at is the Killzone demo, which is also impressive. I'm going to try my best not to make qualitative judgments because that's a bad road to go down, but other than the impressiveness of the scale of the set-pieces on display along with setting and art style, I'm not seeing much technically that you don't get in something like Crysis 3 maxed out.
That's just me, though.
PS - I also like that we're returning to bright and bloomy graphics. I'm actually semi-serious about that - I really like that lots of these games we're seeing aren't afraid of being bright.
Honestly my first impression of Killzone was, "This looks like a slightly sharper Crysis 2..."
Despite showing a variety of games running on the newly announced PlayStation 4, Sony PlayStation's US head Jack Tretton says the console's "still in development in terms of final specs and design." He told All Things D as much in an interview this morning; the PlayStation 4's specs were detailed in a press release by Sony last evening, which detail the internals as an 8-core 64-bit x86 "Jaguar" CPU built by AMD, a Radeon GPU comprised of 18 "compute units" which push out 1.84 TFLOPS, and 8GB of GDDR5 RAM.
Tretton also said he "hopes" that the PlayStation 4 won't cost $599 at launch (the PlayStation 3 launched in two models, at $499 and $599). "When I think about the console, you open it up, you look at it, you certainly look at it when you insert a disc, but for most people, it's behind a cabinet or on a shelf somewhere and you spend all your time looking at the screen," Tretton said.
Sony's focus last night, however, was all games. As for when we'll see the elusive box? "There will be multiple opportunities to share the look of the console between now and launch," he said, "We just didn't choose this first event as the time to show it." In speaking with Sony president of Worldwide Studios Shuhei Yoshida this morning, we confirmed that we'll get to go hands-on with the PlayStation 4 "by E3," which goes from June 11th to the 13th.
Which somewhat suggests Sony pulled the current specs out of their ass recently (maybe to match/exceed the leaked 720 specs) and now has no idea how to price the thing in a way that's not lolSony.
I don't even know what that guy is trying to say there, why is he their spokesman again? We're supposed to open the console? Look at it when the disc is in? What the fuck does that have to do with his previous statement of "uhh yeah we don't want to make it 599 dollars!"?
Allforce on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I would love to see the base model at 400, better model at 500, and a bundle with the better model and a wifi vita for 650.
I don't even know what that guy is trying to say there, why is he their spokesman again? We're supposed to open the console? Look at it when the disc is in? What the fuck does that have to do with his previous statement of "uhh yeah we don't want to make it 599 dollars!"?
I think that's the fault of the article's author. That quote was clearly in reference to the exterior design of the console, not the price, so should have been part of the following paragraph. He's saying that when you un-box the console you're looking at it, and when you go to put a game disc in you look at it, but most of the time it's just sitting in an entertainment center somewhere so who cares what it looks like.
My guess is that either they don't actually have a finalized case design yet or their last-second scramble to throw in more hardware (if that is a thing which has actually happened) makes them uncertain that their old design will still work so they don't want to show it yet.
PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The console design is fairly inconsequential unless it deviates from the precedent established by the generations of the last 15 years (save those by Nintendo).
I'm expecting a squarish, glossy, black box of some kind.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
The console design is fairly inconsequential unless it deviates from the precedent established by the generations of the last 15 years (save those by Nintendo).
I'm expecting a squarish, glossy, black box of some kind.
Sony has really pushed boundaries on bizarre designs over the years though.
The original PS2 was a rather bold design, and the PS3 at launch was a sexy behemoth of a box,
Last generation every console maker but Nintendo decided to make oddly shaped devices though - probably in response to the fact that if you stacked stuff on top of them like people used to do they would burst into flames due to lack of ventilation.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Will the PS4 limit the functionality of pre-owned games?
It looked yesterday as if the answer was a resolute “no”. Then this morning that had softened into a “hmm, no, probably not”. Now that seems to have become a hugely indistinct “who knows?”.
GameSpot asked Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida in a quickfire Q&A not if PS4 would block used games but whether second hand games will require an activation code on the console.
His answer: “It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.”
Now, this could mean two things. One, that publishers are obviously free to step up their existing online pass strategies to block more – or possibly all – game content from those who buy a pre-owned game without a code.
The second option is that Sony HAS incorporated tech into the PS4 that allows publishers to distinguish between new and pre-owned games. It’s then up to them if they choose to utilise it.
While seemingly denying the idea of a pre-owned block, Yoshida has certainly been seemingly elusive on the subject. In fact, the only direct evidence that such tech is definitely not included comes from an unsubstantiated comment from an anonymous Sony source on Eurogamer.
In the meantime, of course, rumours persist that Microsoft will adopt a pre-owned block strategy with its new machine.
This probably ends the conversation on whether or not used / borrowed games will ever possibly work as they used to, if it wasn't over already, meaning there will likely be some kind of technological intercessor that publishers can lean on. Obviously, PC gamers pretty much know the drill here.
As someone not yet sold on the Wii U, and generally unsold on the next tech from Sony and Microsoft, this doesn't phase me too much, but I would be curious to whom it would make a critical impact on your purchasing decisions if we had a landscape where there were strict limitations on what used or borrowed games you could play under what circumstances.
For instance, if we had a PS4, 720, Wii U cross platform game, and the Wii U version suffered visually in comparison to the big brothers, would the ability to easily pick up the game used later on, or, perhaps, to sell it later on impact your platform of choice?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Will the PS4 limit the functionality of pre-owned games?
It looked yesterday as if the answer was a resolute “no”. Then this morning that had softened into a “hmm, no, probably not”. Now that seems to have become a hugely indistinct “who knows?”.
GameSpot asked Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida in a quickfire Q&A not if PS4 would block used games but whether second hand games will require an activation code on the console.
His answer: “It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.”
Now, this could mean two things. One, that publishers are obviously free to step up their existing online pass strategies to block more – or possibly all – game content from those who buy a pre-owned game without a code.
The second option is that Sony HAS incorporated tech into the PS4 that allows publishers to distinguish between new and pre-owned games. It’s then up to them if they choose to utilise it.
While seemingly denying the idea of a pre-owned block, Yoshida has certainly been seemingly elusive on the subject. In fact, the only direct evidence that such tech is definitely not included comes from an unsubstantiated comment from an anonymous Sony source on Eurogamer.
In the meantime, of course, rumours persist that Microsoft will adopt a pre-owned block strategy with its new machine.
This probably ends the conversation on whether or not used / borrowed games will ever possibly work as they used to, if it wasn't over already, meaning there will likely be some kind of technological intercessor that publishers can lean on. Obviously, PC gamers pretty much know the drill here.
As someone not yet sold on the Wii U, and generally unsold on the next tech from Sony and Microsoft, this doesn't phase me too much, but I would be curious to whom it would make a critical impact on your purchasing decisions if we had a landscape where there were strict limitations on what used or borrowed games you could play under what circumstances.
For instance, if we had a PS4, 720, Wii U cross platform game, and the Wii U version suffered visually in comparison to the big brothers, would the ability to easily pick up the game used later on, or, perhaps, to sell it later on impact your platform of choice?
I could not care even the slightest bit about this. I actually support efforts to end used game sales though. . .
Hopefully Sony is just being coy up there, because if they honestly don't even have their specs finalized by now then holy shit.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Probably for short-term buying decisions, the only thing to come into play will be what consoles you own - I doubt people will actively factor in resale vs more impressive technology.
Over time, and unless MS and Sony do something to introduce quick, Steam-like price reductions, this may have a significant effect. With no used games, the price of gaming just went up even more for those who don't have the money to spend $60 (maybe more now?) on a ten-hour rail shooter.
I guess the question is how much of gaming is comprised of relatively low-income people and/or those without easy internet/credit card access (including kids and teenagers who don't have a credit card but do have a way to get to Gamestop).
You open the box and see it, and you look at it when you put a disk in, but in general you don't really need to interact with it. That's even more true if there's a focus on online play.
To be fair, it's a good point. I have a fair number of games that are fully digital, so I turn on the system with the controller and turn it off from there, never looking at the system. Handling on/off remotely is great, and the Wii was the first new console to do that (albeit generally limited to whatever game is already inserted). The Wii was really smart in that regard -- the console itself doesn't need to look like anything. It's a box. It can be a color, it can be a shape, but in general it should be designed to a) not overheat and b) have the right plugs. I'd be happy if they just turned into rectangles. The main reason they're funny shapes is the same reason the SNES was toploading -- so people didn't put other things on top of it.
Anyone who cares what the console looks like as a high priority is really grasping at straws. I have complaints against the Wii and Wii U, but the look of the console is not even relevant. Who cares?! It's going to have a place for disks, some USB slots, probably an SD slot, and AV plugs. Whoopee!
Will the PS4 limit the functionality of pre-owned games?
It looked yesterday as if the answer was a resolute “no”. Then this morning that had softened into a “hmm, no, probably not”. Now that seems to have become a hugely indistinct “who knows?”.
GameSpot asked Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida in a quickfire Q&A not if PS4 would block used games but whether second hand games will require an activation code on the console.
His answer: “It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.”
Now, this could mean two things. One, that publishers are obviously free to step up their existing online pass strategies to block more – or possibly all – game content from those who buy a pre-owned game without a code.
The second option is that Sony HAS incorporated tech into the PS4 that allows publishers to distinguish between new and pre-owned games. It’s then up to them if they choose to utilise it.
While seemingly denying the idea of a pre-owned block, Yoshida has certainly been seemingly elusive on the subject. In fact, the only direct evidence that such tech is definitely not included comes from an unsubstantiated comment from an anonymous Sony source on Eurogamer.
In the meantime, of course, rumours persist that Microsoft will adopt a pre-owned block strategy with its new machine.
This probably ends the conversation on whether or not used / borrowed games will ever possibly work as they used to, if it wasn't over already, meaning there will likely be some kind of technological intercessor that publishers can lean on. Obviously, PC gamers pretty much know the drill here.
As someone not yet sold on the Wii U, and generally unsold on the next tech from Sony and Microsoft, this doesn't phase me too much, but I would be curious to whom it would make a critical impact on your purchasing decisions if we had a landscape where there were strict limitations on what used or borrowed games you could play under what circumstances.
For instance, if we had a PS4, 720, Wii U cross platform game, and the Wii U version suffered visually in comparison to the big brothers, would the ability to easily pick up the game used later on, or, perhaps, to sell it later on impact your platform of choice?
I could not care even the slightest bit about this. I actually support efforts to end used game sales though. . .
Yes, but you're terrible.
Here, Sony, let me make this easy for you:
If I cannot play used games on your system, I will not buy your system.
Not only do I buy mostly used games, I also am fond of taking a game over to a friend's house to play. Pretending that this makes me some sort of thief does not exactly endear me to your brand.
So yeah, if MS and Sony decide to block used games, guess I'll be getting a WiiU as my primary gaming system.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Anyone who cares what the console looks like as a high priority is really grasping at straws. I have complaints against the Wii and Wii U, but the look of the console is not even relevant. Who cares?! It's going to have a place for disks, some USB slots, probably an SD slot, and AV plugs. Whoopee!
While I don't think anyone consciously decides which system to buy based on looks, there is a clear benefit to having a sexy piece of hardware. If there wasn't, every piece of electronics out there would be a sheet-metal gray box with all the inputs and outputs coming out the side, where they're easier to get at.
Aesthetics matter, probably more than we'd care to admit.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Anyone who cares what the console looks like as a high priority is really grasping at straws. I have complaints against the Wii and Wii U, but the look of the console is not even relevant. Who cares?! It's going to have a place for disks, some USB slots, probably an SD slot, and AV plugs. Whoopee!
While I don't think anyone consciously decides which system to buy based on looks, there is a clear benefit to having a sexy piece of hardware. If there wasn't, every piece of electronics out there would be a sheet-metal gray box with all the inputs and outputs coming out the side, where they're easier to get at.
Aesthetics matter, probably more than we'd care to admit.
Sony admitted it tactically. They pretty quickly scaled down the monster black box the PS3 originally was
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Will the PS4 limit the functionality of pre-owned games?
It looked yesterday as if the answer was a resolute “no”. Then this morning that had softened into a “hmm, no, probably not”. Now that seems to have become a hugely indistinct “who knows?”.
GameSpot asked Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida in a quickfire Q&A not if PS4 would block used games but whether second hand games will require an activation code on the console.
His answer: “It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.”
Now, this could mean two things. One, that publishers are obviously free to step up their existing online pass strategies to block more – or possibly all – game content from those who buy a pre-owned game without a code.
The second option is that Sony HAS incorporated tech into the PS4 that allows publishers to distinguish between new and pre-owned games. It’s then up to them if they choose to utilise it.
While seemingly denying the idea of a pre-owned block, Yoshida has certainly been seemingly elusive on the subject. In fact, the only direct evidence that such tech is definitely not included comes from an unsubstantiated comment from an anonymous Sony source on Eurogamer.
In the meantime, of course, rumours persist that Microsoft will adopt a pre-owned block strategy with its new machine.
This probably ends the conversation on whether or not used / borrowed games will ever possibly work as they used to, if it wasn't over already, meaning there will likely be some kind of technological intercessor that publishers can lean on. Obviously, PC gamers pretty much know the drill here.
As someone not yet sold on the Wii U, and generally unsold on the next tech from Sony and Microsoft, this doesn't phase me too much, but I would be curious to whom it would make a critical impact on your purchasing decisions if we had a landscape where there were strict limitations on what used or borrowed games you could play under what circumstances.
For instance, if we had a PS4, 720, Wii U cross platform game, and the Wii U version suffered visually in comparison to the big brothers, would the ability to easily pick up the game used later on, or, perhaps, to sell it later on impact your platform of choice?
I could not care even the slightest bit about this. I actually support efforts to end used game sales though. . .
Yes, but you're terrible.
Here, Sony, let me make this easy for you:
If I cannot play used games on your system, I will not buy your system.
Not only do I buy mostly used games, I also am fond of taking a game over to a friend's house to play. Pretending that this makes me some sort of thief does not exactly endear me to your brand.
So yeah, if MS and Sony decide to block used games, guess I'll be getting a WiiU as my primary gaming system.
I don't think it's even about piracy. I think its simply that the publishers don't want to lose sales to the used games market. The real question if whether the publishers get more from used game financed purchases than they lose from people buying used games instead of new games. Either way, PC gamers have been doing it this way for a very long time.
On the one hand I don't really buy used games so don't care if I can't do it anymore and I've never sold a game, so don't care if I can't do that anymore, either.
On the other hand I heartily dislike the idea of needing to connect to an authentication server to play my game and would be extremely dissatisfied with any authentication method that did not bind the game to my account instead of my hardware. Having to connect to Steam's server to play my Steam games that I haven't put into offline mode annoys me and my PC loses its internet connection a lot less often than my consoles.
Also, as someone duly noted in the G&T industry thread, if used games are kind of a big deal here or in the UK, they're absolutely vital to the Japanese market, given the legal situation around rentals there.
Microsoft probably doesn't give a shit about Japan as a market any more since they never had it to begin with. Sony, on the other hand? It'd basically be walking away from it and handing the keys over to Nintendo.
You open the box and see it, and you look at it when you put a disk in, but in general you don't really need to interact with it. That's even more true if there's a focus on online play.
To be fair, it's a good point. I have a fair number of games that are fully digital, so I turn on the system with the controller and turn it off from there, never looking at the system. Handling on/off remotely is great, and the Wii was the first new console to do that (albeit generally limited to whatever game is already inserted). The Wii was really smart in that regard -- the console itself doesn't need to look like anything.
Actually the 360 had Nintendo beat on that by about a year. Microsoft introduced the ability to turn on/off a console with the controller, nintendo and Sony copied that one.
On the one hand I don't really buy used games so don't care if I can't do it anymore and I've never sold a game, so don't care if I can't do that anymore, either.
On the other hand I heartily dislike the idea of needing to connect to an authentication server to play my game and would be extremely dissatisfied with any authentication method that did not bind the game to my account instead of my hardware. Having to connect to Steam's server to play my Steam games that I haven't put into offline mode annoys me and my PC loses its internet connection a lot less often than my consoles.
I hate authentication servers that aren't absolutely perfect. And by that, I mean I should NEVER know that it was there. I shouldn't have to put in a password or enter a username or whatnot. If it 'just works' wherever I go then thats ok.
I'm fine with them connecting my games to 'me' provided they make it trivial for me to be at a friends house and play my games if I have them with me. My thought though is that they will lock it to the console AND require always on connections. Which would suck
Will the PS4 limit the functionality of pre-owned games?
It looked yesterday as if the answer was a resolute “no”. Then this morning that had softened into a “hmm, no, probably not”. Now that seems to have become a hugely indistinct “who knows?”.
GameSpot asked Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida in a quickfire Q&A not if PS4 would block used games but whether second hand games will require an activation code on the console.
His answer: “It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.”
Now, this could mean two things. One, that publishers are obviously free to step up their existing online pass strategies to block more – or possibly all – game content from those who buy a pre-owned game without a code.
The second option is that Sony HAS incorporated tech into the PS4 that allows publishers to distinguish between new and pre-owned games. It’s then up to them if they choose to utilise it.
While seemingly denying the idea of a pre-owned block, Yoshida has certainly been seemingly elusive on the subject. In fact, the only direct evidence that such tech is definitely not included comes from an unsubstantiated comment from an anonymous Sony source on Eurogamer.
In the meantime, of course, rumours persist that Microsoft will adopt a pre-owned block strategy with its new machine.
This probably ends the conversation on whether or not used / borrowed games will ever possibly work as they used to, if it wasn't over already, meaning there will likely be some kind of technological intercessor that publishers can lean on. Obviously, PC gamers pretty much know the drill here.
As someone not yet sold on the Wii U, and generally unsold on the next tech from Sony and Microsoft, this doesn't phase me too much, but I would be curious to whom it would make a critical impact on your purchasing decisions if we had a landscape where there were strict limitations on what used or borrowed games you could play under what circumstances.
For instance, if we had a PS4, 720, Wii U cross platform game, and the Wii U version suffered visually in comparison to the big brothers, would the ability to easily pick up the game used later on, or, perhaps, to sell it later on impact your platform of choice?
I could not care even the slightest bit about this. I actually support efforts to end used game sales though. . .
Yes, but you're terrible.
Here, Sony, let me make this easy for you:
If I cannot play used games on your system, I will not buy your system.
Not only do I buy mostly used games, I also am fond of taking a game over to a friend's house to play. Pretending that this makes me some sort of thief does not exactly endear me to your brand.
So yeah, if MS and Sony decide to block used games, guess I'll be getting a WiiU as my primary gaming system.
I don't think it's even about piracy. I think its simply that the publishers don't want to lose sales to the used games market. The real question if whether the publishers get more from used game financed purchases than they lose from people buying used games instead of new games. Either way, PC gamers have been doing it this way for a very long time.
Nobody wants to lose sales to the used market, but that's irrelevant. You think Ford wants you to buy a used F-150 versus a new one? You think Panasonic wants you to buy your TV from a garage sale instead of from Best Buy? Of course not. But there's a reason that we consider banning garage sales to be a completely fucking crazy idea, and that reason is this: it's a completely fucking crazy idea.
I mean, I don't give a shit what publishers want. I'm sure EA would love to have congress pass a law that says every citizen must buy every new Madden game that comes out, but why the hell should I endorse that?
If you are concerned about piracy, I can kinda-sorta see an argument for some sort of authentication service, even if I think it's a stupid argument wholly without merit. At least the argument exists in some sort of logical-space that doesn't collapse into a singularity of complete lolderp. But if you don't give a shit about piracy and you are not EA and you still support banning used game sales, man, I don't even know if we're part of the same reality. Like, the sky over here is blue and water is wet, and the sky there is monkeyflops and water is :rotate:
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Will the PS4 limit the functionality of pre-owned games?
It looked yesterday as if the answer was a resolute “no”. Then this morning that had softened into a “hmm, no, probably not”. Now that seems to have become a hugely indistinct “who knows?”.
GameSpot asked Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida in a quickfire Q&A not if PS4 would block used games but whether second hand games will require an activation code on the console.
His answer: “It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.”
Now, this could mean two things. One, that publishers are obviously free to step up their existing online pass strategies to block more – or possibly all – game content from those who buy a pre-owned game without a code.
The second option is that Sony HAS incorporated tech into the PS4 that allows publishers to distinguish between new and pre-owned games. It’s then up to them if they choose to utilise it.
While seemingly denying the idea of a pre-owned block, Yoshida has certainly been seemingly elusive on the subject. In fact, the only direct evidence that such tech is definitely not included comes from an unsubstantiated comment from an anonymous Sony source on Eurogamer.
In the meantime, of course, rumours persist that Microsoft will adopt a pre-owned block strategy with its new machine.
This probably ends the conversation on whether or not used / borrowed games will ever possibly work as they used to, if it wasn't over already, meaning there will likely be some kind of technological intercessor that publishers can lean on. Obviously, PC gamers pretty much know the drill here.
As someone not yet sold on the Wii U, and generally unsold on the next tech from Sony and Microsoft, this doesn't phase me too much, but I would be curious to whom it would make a critical impact on your purchasing decisions if we had a landscape where there were strict limitations on what used or borrowed games you could play under what circumstances.
For instance, if we had a PS4, 720, Wii U cross platform game, and the Wii U version suffered visually in comparison to the big brothers, would the ability to easily pick up the game used later on, or, perhaps, to sell it later on impact your platform of choice?
I could not care even the slightest bit about this. I actually support efforts to end used game sales though. . .
Yes, but you're terrible.
Here, Sony, let me make this easy for you:
If I cannot play used games on your system, I will not buy your system.
Not only do I buy mostly used games, I also am fond of taking a game over to a friend's house to play. Pretending that this makes me some sort of thief does not exactly endear me to your brand.
So yeah, if MS and Sony decide to block used games, guess I'll be getting a WiiU as my primary gaming system.
I don't think it's even about piracy. I think its simply that the publishers don't want to lose sales to the used games market. The real question if whether the publishers get more from used game financed purchases than they lose from people buying used games instead of new games. Either way, PC gamers have been doing it this way for a very long time.
Nobody wants to lose sales to the used market, but that's irrelevant. You think Ford wants you to buy a used F-150 versus a new one? You think Panasonic wants you to buy your TV from a garage sale instead of from Best Buy? Of course not. But there's a reason that we consider banning garage sales to be a completely fucking crazy idea, and that reason is this: it's a completely fucking crazy idea.
I mean, I don't give a shit what publishers want. I'm sure EA would love to have congress pass a law that says every citizen must buy every new Madden game that comes out, but why the hell should I endorse that?
If you are concerned about piracy, I can kinda-sorta see an argument for some sort of authentication service, even if I think it's a stupid argument wholly without merit. At least the argument exists in some sort of logical-space that doesn't collapse into a singularity of complete lolderp. But if you don't give a shit about piracy and you are not EA and you still support banning used game sales, man, I don't even know if we're part of the same reality. Like, the sky over here is blue and water is wet, and the sky there is monkeyflops and water is :rotate:
Actually ford loves pre-owned sales because they need to support their dealer and parts networks and that's how those people make their money (selling parts for old fords) Even ford itself makes a healthy cut because they make some money when you get it serviced.
I'm kind of amazed Sony's playing this particular game of chicken, since last I saw Gamestop comprises upwards of two thirds of the entire U.S. video game market. (That's not hyperbole, though of course I can't find that article at the moment.) In fact Gamestop gave some official responses when the rumors first popped up and did some saber-rattling.
Of course there's some rumors out there that Microsoft is doing the same thing... having the two of them do something similar together might encourage them.
Man. The way things are shaping up, it's possible the Wii U might be the only next-gen console with used games, free online and backwards compatibility.
Will the PS4 limit the functionality of pre-owned games?
It looked yesterday as if the answer was a resolute “no”. Then this morning that had softened into a “hmm, no, probably not”. Now that seems to have become a hugely indistinct “who knows?”.
GameSpot asked Sony Worldwide Studios boss Shuhei Yoshida in a quickfire Q&A not if PS4 would block used games but whether second hand games will require an activation code on the console.
His answer: “It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.”
Now, this could mean two things. One, that publishers are obviously free to step up their existing online pass strategies to block more – or possibly all – game content from those who buy a pre-owned game without a code.
The second option is that Sony HAS incorporated tech into the PS4 that allows publishers to distinguish between new and pre-owned games. It’s then up to them if they choose to utilise it.
While seemingly denying the idea of a pre-owned block, Yoshida has certainly been seemingly elusive on the subject. In fact, the only direct evidence that such tech is definitely not included comes from an unsubstantiated comment from an anonymous Sony source on Eurogamer.
In the meantime, of course, rumours persist that Microsoft will adopt a pre-owned block strategy with its new machine.
This probably ends the conversation on whether or not used / borrowed games will ever possibly work as they used to, if it wasn't over already, meaning there will likely be some kind of technological intercessor that publishers can lean on. Obviously, PC gamers pretty much know the drill here.
As someone not yet sold on the Wii U, and generally unsold on the next tech from Sony and Microsoft, this doesn't phase me too much, but I would be curious to whom it would make a critical impact on your purchasing decisions if we had a landscape where there were strict limitations on what used or borrowed games you could play under what circumstances.
For instance, if we had a PS4, 720, Wii U cross platform game, and the Wii U version suffered visually in comparison to the big brothers, would the ability to easily pick up the game used later on, or, perhaps, to sell it later on impact your platform of choice?
I could not care even the slightest bit about this. I actually support efforts to end used game sales though. . .
Yes, but you're terrible.
Here, Sony, let me make this easy for you:
If I cannot play used games on your system, I will not buy your system.
Not only do I buy mostly used games, I also am fond of taking a game over to a friend's house to play. Pretending that this makes me some sort of thief does not exactly endear me to your brand.
So yeah, if MS and Sony decide to block used games, guess I'll be getting a WiiU as my primary gaming system.
I don't think it's even about piracy. I think its simply that the publishers don't want to lose sales to the used games market. The real question if whether the publishers get more from used game financed purchases than they lose from people buying used games instead of new games. Either way, PC gamers have been doing it this way for a very long time.
Nobody wants to lose sales to the used market, but that's irrelevant. You think Ford wants you to buy a used F-150 versus a new one? You think Panasonic wants you to buy your TV from a garage sale instead of from Best Buy? Of course not. But there's a reason that we consider banning garage sales to be a completely fucking crazy idea, and that reason is this: it's a completely fucking crazy idea.
I mean, I don't give a shit what publishers want. I'm sure EA would love to have congress pass a law that says every citizen must buy every new Madden game that comes out, but why the hell should I endorse that?
If you are concerned about piracy, I can kinda-sorta see an argument for some sort of authentication service, even if I think it's a stupid argument wholly without merit. At least the argument exists in some sort of logical-space that doesn't collapse into a singularity of complete lolderp. But if you don't give a shit about piracy and you are not EA and you still support banning used game sales, man, I don't even know if we're part of the same reality. Like, the sky over here is blue and water is wet, and the sky there is monkeyflops and water is :rotate:
Actually ford loves pre-owned sales because they need to support their dealer and parts networks and that's how those people make their money (selling parts for old fords) Even ford itself makes a healthy cut because they make some money when you get it serviced.
Done properly, publishers should love the used games market. They just need to do better at lowering their prices faster on new product. Given the choice between a new game at $50 or a used game at $25, I will take the used. Given the choice between the new at $30 and the used at $25, I'll probably take the new - $5 is a decent premium to pay for a package in mint condition. And they can still make mint off of DLC if they want - sell all the bonus maps and horse armor you want, dudes, nobody will begrudge you that (provided you don't try and be a cock about it and make basically your entire game DLC).
Publishers (and potentially Sony and MS) are trying to be greedy here and they're going to piss off a shit-ton of people in the process.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm kind of amazed Sony's playing this particular game of chicken, since last I saw Gamestop comprises upwards of two thirds of the entire U.S. video game market. (That's not hyperbole, though of course I can't find that article at the moment.) In fact Gamestop gave some official responses when the rumors first popped up and did some saber-rattling.
Of course there's some rumors out there that Microsoft is doing the same thing... having the two of them do something similar together might encourage them.
Man. The way things are shaping up, it's possible the Wii U might be the only next-gen console with used games, free online and backwards compatibility.
I imagine the Microsoft rumors are the reason that they're being vague. If MS comes out against used games then Sony can see how the market reacts and base their response on that. If the new xbox has no particular protections against used games then it would be suicidal for the PS4 to be the one next-gen console that does.
Edit:
Also, if it does turn out that Nintendo is the only console to allow used games I wonder how many publishers will be 'unable' to port their games to the Wii-U without 'some reason or other'?
There's no vagaries at all regarding used games on the PS4. Sony has stated they'll allow them. The Gaikai stuff is for the streaming and digital-only games.
Edit: Honestly, I think the "new purchase bonuses" are enough incentive for both publishers and consumers. If you buy it new, you get to download some crap. If you buy it used, your code has already been used. So you don't get a fancy constume or a special weapon.
I imagine the Microsoft rumors are the reason that they're being vague. If MS comes out against used games then Sony can see how the market reacts and base their response on that. If the new xbox has no particular protections against used games then it would be suicidal for the PS4 to be the one next-gen console that does.
Edit:
Also, if it does turn out that Nintendo is the only console to allow used games I wonder how many publishers will be 'unable' to port their games to the Wii-U without 'some reason or other'?
Oh lord, you may be right.
And @eggytoast, the reason people are worrying about Sony and used games is because, after the "we'll allow it" comment, different post-PS4 interviews had Sony officials nervously saying "we'll have more information about them at E3!"
Yeah, Sony is not, in fact, being clear. They are saying multiple things here.
So far the takeaway is "There's no reason used games can't work on the console. But publishers can turn that off if they want. Wait and we'll explain later."
I'm pretty sure Sony is waiting for MS to announce their plans before they come down one way or another on what place used games will have on the system.
I imagine the Microsoft rumors are the reason that they're being vague. If MS comes out against used games then Sony can see how the market reacts and base their response on that. If the new xbox has no particular protections against used games then it would be suicidal for the PS4 to be the one next-gen console that does.
Edit:
Also, if it does turn out that Nintendo is the only console to allow used games I wonder how many publishers will be 'unable' to port their games to the Wii-U without 'some reason or other'?
Oh lord, you may be right.
That sounds likely enough, though dependent on one question: does a publisher stand to make more money selling to a smaller market without used games, or to a larger market where one pillar can buy and sell used?
This might be a situation where Nintendo having a huge install base of Wii U owners could actually be good for every consumer.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I'm thinking the easy solution is to include activation codes with new games that, if your game is used, you can pay a nominal fee to activate it. Like, five bucks or so. And that's money that goes straight into the pockets of Sony or whoever.
The reason I think this is an easy solution is because this is already a thing. You can't play some EA games or access certain features without an activation code.
Posts
It is a foregone conclusion that directX will not be the middleware on this platform like it is for 99% of PC games; there will be specialized SDKs with optimized versions of OpenGL, Unreal Engine 3 and 4, and other middlewares that speak much closer to the metal than they are allowed to in the multiple-configuration hell that is the PC industry.
Remember that the original xbox was packing 64 megs of RAM and a 700 MHz celeron processor and could do this:
Consoles are not PCs, even if they use PC hardware off the shelf.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Mostly, I'm saying that most of what you are seeing that is impressive about these newer games is a function of production values, and not necessarily hardware.
Edit: Just for fun, though, I will add that the OXBox's GPU was again equivalent to about the very best consumer NVidia card you could buy at the time of its release.
Meanwhile, what this better hardware means is that games with similar visuals to Skyrim will have zero loadtimes, games like Minecraft can have massive worlds with 32 people logged in all doing stuff at the same time, running off a peer to peer server, games like Dead Rising can take the sense of scale and quantity of enemies to ridiculous levels... and chances are there will be things we can't even begin to imagine that a smart developer will crack because the power is there to be exploited.
PC game developers would be mad to require someone have a PC on the level of the PS4's announced specs (8 gigs of GDDR5 RAM, beefy if not top of the line processor, Beefy GPU), and will be mad to do so for another 3-4 years. so exclusive games on both of the next gen platforms are going to outpace similar PC games, at least for a brief window, even on the hardware that is inferior to a top of the line gaming rig.
There will be marginally prettier games on PCs costing 2-3x what the PS4 / xbox 720 will cost, but there won't be wildly different gaming experiences for some time, aside from obvious input device differences.
There were MUCH better gaming PCs when the xbox 1 dropped, and some of the exclusives could stand toe to toe with the best PC experiences of the time.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I haven't really brought Nintendo into it. If the PS4 is "meh", then the Wii U is basically "WTF?". The only impressive thing about the Wii U's hardware is that it consumes little power, generates little heat, and is relatively small for what it is.
But fine, if you think games like Watch_Dogs won't look as good on a high-end PC (which it was in fact running on at the PS4 event, by the way) as it eventually will on console hardware, be my guest.
Fights to the death about how the 360/PS3 would be horribly gimped because it lacked Blu-ray or cores or voxels or whatever shit and would be vastly inferior to the PS3/360.
And it turns out it didn't matter one goddamn bit.
I am speaking more along the lines of Halo 5, Resistance, Uncharted, Whatever the Shadow of the Colossus guy decides to do, etc. These are the games that don't have to do anything but work on one thing, and they tend to be stunning as a result.
Halo 4 still impresses the hell out of me, and its running on a 7 year old dinosaur.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Developers love consoles because they only have to target 1 platform. If you design for the PS3, you can assume that every PS3 is the same. Part of the reason developers have ignored Nintendo's peripherals throughout history is that it mucks up the previously easy design and architecture. Do I assume that every user as a Wii Balance Board? If so, I should just make a game that is specific to the balance board, rather than optional, because I don't want to test out tons of either-or scenarios.
If I design for the WiiU, I know every user will have the tablet and every hardware bit will be the same. Nintendo has made it clear that I can also design as if players 2-5 have Wiimotes. Easy! I don't need to run through testing 10 different video cards, 15 different CPUs, various resolutions, and more. That's why developers like developing for consoles. What's more, even with Nintendo's sub-optimal online gaming, the developer doesn't need to handle all the network code -- Nintendo handles that and the developer just plugs into it. If I go to a PC developer's website, their FAQs are full of very technical troubleshooting bits, and their forums are full of "I can't get this to run on [specs]."
If anything, I see Sony's use of x86 as a smart statement encouraging easier development and better compatibility. The PS3 is my multiplatform console, and it does irk me that developers start out on the x86 platforms and the PS3 version is the afterthought. That's not their fault, though -- it's Sony's for using an esoteric, weird CPU. But the Wii U still uses a PowerPC architecture, meaning now it's really the odd man out. That being said, the positive development for Nintendo is that they're not forcing developers to change everything -- I get the feeling that allowing off-screen play or rendering something to the tablet is relatively simple, in the scheme of porting, so it won't be as complex as switching a title over to the Wii.
As for the Smartglass stuff, we're still in early days for that. It only came out late last year, and yes, it does the same type of thing, but I think that's exactly right. Allow for smart phones to serve as an optional, add-on thing that enhances gameplay without being a necessary component. The difference between doing it via smartphone versus crafting a specific peripheral is that a large portion of the gaming community already owns smartphones. It's just savvy business sense to look at these devices that are becoming ubiquitous and, more important, are actually getting REAL support from a host of different industries.
I mean, my friend runs his thermostat from his iPhone. We're there.
Agreed, Halo 4 is pretty nice for what it is - though unfortunately for me it does come at the cost of making split-screen multiplayer perform rather poorly in comparison.
The closest we have to an exclusive to look at is the Killzone demo, which is also impressive. I'm going to try my best not to make qualitative judgments because that's a bad road to go down, but other than the impressiveness of the scale of the set-pieces on display along with setting and art style, I'm not seeing much technically that you don't get in something like Crysis 3 maxed out.
That's just me, though.
PS - I also like that we're returning to bright and bloomy graphics. I'm actually semi-serious about that - I really like that lots of these games we're seeing aren't afraid of being bright.
I really, really felt like the Playstation 4's intended goal is to be a better version of the XBOX 360. There were pretty demos and all this media integration stuff with apps and tablets and whatnot, and the whole X86 side of things leads the narrative of being not unlike the Xbox's original goals of being a console with the power of a PC, or whatever.
Wondering what Microsoft wants to do now. I don't know if this is right, but Sony seems to want to head in a direction where you can stream your PS4 games remotely to your Vita, tablet, or smartphone and play them there (the latter ones, presumably with a Dualshock 4 you have with you). A 'stream anywhere' agenda is just about the only piece of tech I can imagine that is up for grabs between the big three. It's rather telling that Nintendo has built a console that is staunchly against this sort of thing.
Honestly my first impression of Killzone was, "This looks like a slightly sharper Crysis 2..."
Which somewhat suggests Sony pulled the current specs out of their ass recently (maybe to match/exceed the leaked 720 specs) and now has no idea how to price the thing in a way that's not lolSony.
I think that's the fault of the article's author. That quote was clearly in reference to the exterior design of the console, not the price, so should have been part of the following paragraph. He's saying that when you un-box the console you're looking at it, and when you go to put a game disc in you look at it, but most of the time it's just sitting in an entertainment center somewhere so who cares what it looks like.
My guess is that either they don't actually have a finalized case design yet or their last-second scramble to throw in more hardware (if that is a thing which has actually happened) makes them uncertain that their old design will still work so they don't want to show it yet.
I'm expecting a squarish, glossy, black box of some kind.
Sony has really pushed boundaries on bizarre designs over the years though.
The original PS2 was a rather bold design, and the PS3 at launch was a sexy behemoth of a box,
Last generation every console maker but Nintendo decided to make oddly shaped devices though - probably in response to the fact that if you stacked stuff on top of them like people used to do they would burst into flames due to lack of ventilation.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
This probably ends the conversation on whether or not used / borrowed games will ever possibly work as they used to, if it wasn't over already, meaning there will likely be some kind of technological intercessor that publishers can lean on. Obviously, PC gamers pretty much know the drill here.
As someone not yet sold on the Wii U, and generally unsold on the next tech from Sony and Microsoft, this doesn't phase me too much, but I would be curious to whom it would make a critical impact on your purchasing decisions if we had a landscape where there were strict limitations on what used or borrowed games you could play under what circumstances.
For instance, if we had a PS4, 720, Wii U cross platform game, and the Wii U version suffered visually in comparison to the big brothers, would the ability to easily pick up the game used later on, or, perhaps, to sell it later on impact your platform of choice?
I could not care even the slightest bit about this. I actually support efforts to end used game sales though. . .
Over time, and unless MS and Sony do something to introduce quick, Steam-like price reductions, this may have a significant effect. With no used games, the price of gaming just went up even more for those who don't have the money to spend $60 (maybe more now?) on a ten-hour rail shooter.
I guess the question is how much of gaming is comprised of relatively low-income people and/or those without easy internet/credit card access (including kids and teenagers who don't have a credit card but do have a way to get to Gamestop).
To be fair, it's a good point. I have a fair number of games that are fully digital, so I turn on the system with the controller and turn it off from there, never looking at the system. Handling on/off remotely is great, and the Wii was the first new console to do that (albeit generally limited to whatever game is already inserted). The Wii was really smart in that regard -- the console itself doesn't need to look like anything. It's a box. It can be a color, it can be a shape, but in general it should be designed to a) not overheat and b) have the right plugs. I'd be happy if they just turned into rectangles. The main reason they're funny shapes is the same reason the SNES was toploading -- so people didn't put other things on top of it.
Anyone who cares what the console looks like as a high priority is really grasping at straws. I have complaints against the Wii and Wii U, but the look of the console is not even relevant. Who cares?! It's going to have a place for disks, some USB slots, probably an SD slot, and AV plugs. Whoopee!
Yes, but you're terrible.
Here, Sony, let me make this easy for you:
If I cannot play used games on your system, I will not buy your system.
Not only do I buy mostly used games, I also am fond of taking a game over to a friend's house to play. Pretending that this makes me some sort of thief does not exactly endear me to your brand.
So yeah, if MS and Sony decide to block used games, guess I'll be getting a WiiU as my primary gaming system.
While I don't think anyone consciously decides which system to buy based on looks, there is a clear benefit to having a sexy piece of hardware. If there wasn't, every piece of electronics out there would be a sheet-metal gray box with all the inputs and outputs coming out the side, where they're easier to get at.
Aesthetics matter, probably more than we'd care to admit.
Sony admitted it tactically. They pretty quickly scaled down the monster black box the PS3 originally was
I don't think it's even about piracy. I think its simply that the publishers don't want to lose sales to the used games market. The real question if whether the publishers get more from used game financed purchases than they lose from people buying used games instead of new games. Either way, PC gamers have been doing it this way for a very long time.
On the other hand I heartily dislike the idea of needing to connect to an authentication server to play my game and would be extremely dissatisfied with any authentication method that did not bind the game to my account instead of my hardware. Having to connect to Steam's server to play my Steam games that I haven't put into offline mode annoys me and my PC loses its internet connection a lot less often than my consoles.
Microsoft probably doesn't give a shit about Japan as a market any more since they never had it to begin with. Sony, on the other hand? It'd basically be walking away from it and handing the keys over to Nintendo.
Actually the 360 had Nintendo beat on that by about a year. Microsoft introduced the ability to turn on/off a console with the controller, nintendo and Sony copied that one.
I hate authentication servers that aren't absolutely perfect. And by that, I mean I should NEVER know that it was there. I shouldn't have to put in a password or enter a username or whatnot. If it 'just works' wherever I go then thats ok.
I'm fine with them connecting my games to 'me' provided they make it trivial for me to be at a friends house and play my games if I have them with me. My thought though is that they will lock it to the console AND require always on connections. Which would suck
Nobody wants to lose sales to the used market, but that's irrelevant. You think Ford wants you to buy a used F-150 versus a new one? You think Panasonic wants you to buy your TV from a garage sale instead of from Best Buy? Of course not. But there's a reason that we consider banning garage sales to be a completely fucking crazy idea, and that reason is this: it's a completely fucking crazy idea.
I mean, I don't give a shit what publishers want. I'm sure EA would love to have congress pass a law that says every citizen must buy every new Madden game that comes out, but why the hell should I endorse that?
If you are concerned about piracy, I can kinda-sorta see an argument for some sort of authentication service, even if I think it's a stupid argument wholly without merit. At least the argument exists in some sort of logical-space that doesn't collapse into a singularity of complete lolderp. But if you don't give a shit about piracy and you are not EA and you still support banning used game sales, man, I don't even know if we're part of the same reality. Like, the sky over here is blue and water is wet, and the sky there is monkeyflops and water is :rotate:
Actually ford loves pre-owned sales because they need to support their dealer and parts networks and that's how those people make their money (selling parts for old fords) Even ford itself makes a healthy cut because they make some money when you get it serviced.
Of course there's some rumors out there that Microsoft is doing the same thing... having the two of them do something similar together might encourage them.
Man. The way things are shaping up, it's possible the Wii U might be the only next-gen console with used games, free online and backwards compatibility.
Done properly, publishers should love the used games market. They just need to do better at lowering their prices faster on new product. Given the choice between a new game at $50 or a used game at $25, I will take the used. Given the choice between the new at $30 and the used at $25, I'll probably take the new - $5 is a decent premium to pay for a package in mint condition. And they can still make mint off of DLC if they want - sell all the bonus maps and horse armor you want, dudes, nobody will begrudge you that (provided you don't try and be a cock about it and make basically your entire game DLC).
Publishers (and potentially Sony and MS) are trying to be greedy here and they're going to piss off a shit-ton of people in the process.
I imagine the Microsoft rumors are the reason that they're being vague. If MS comes out against used games then Sony can see how the market reacts and base their response on that. If the new xbox has no particular protections against used games then it would be suicidal for the PS4 to be the one next-gen console that does.
Edit:
Also, if it does turn out that Nintendo is the only console to allow used games I wonder how many publishers will be 'unable' to port their games to the Wii-U without 'some reason or other'?
http://asia.cnet.com/ps4-will-support-used-games-says-sony-62220555.htm
Edit: Honestly, I think the "new purchase bonuses" are enough incentive for both publishers and consumers. If you buy it new, you get to download some crap. If you buy it used, your code has already been used. So you don't get a fancy constume or a special weapon.
Oh lord, you may be right.
And @eggytoast, the reason people are worrying about Sony and used games is because, after the "we'll allow it" comment, different post-PS4 interviews had Sony officials nervously saying "we'll have more information about them at E3!"
So far the takeaway is "There's no reason used games can't work on the console. But publishers can turn that off if they want. Wait and we'll explain later."
I'm pretty sure Sony is waiting for MS to announce their plans before they come down one way or another on what place used games will have on the system.
That sounds likely enough, though dependent on one question: does a publisher stand to make more money selling to a smaller market without used games, or to a larger market where one pillar can buy and sell used?
This might be a situation where Nintendo having a huge install base of Wii U owners could actually be good for every consumer.
The reason I think this is an easy solution is because this is already a thing. You can't play some EA games or access certain features without an activation code.