# Sony Announces the PlayStation 4



## Lenny (Feb 21, 2013)

It's late, and I want to get the information out there before I fall asleep and forget, so this post is just going to be quotes and links. Tomorrow I'll give my thoughts and probably find some of the trailers and tech demos.

---

One of the best resources I've found for technology news is The Verge, not least because they apply threading to news stories and link them together as updates to a particular event: http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/20/4010774/sony-playstation-4-dualshock-4-everything-you-need-to-know

---

*The Hardware*



> As introduced by lead system architect Mark Cerny, the PS4 is based on a "supercharged PC architecture," with an X86 processor, enhanced PC-style GPU, and 8GB of GDDR5 unified high-speed memory. The controller is called, unsurprisingly, the DualShock 4, and features the Vita-style touchpad we'd heard about, and a light bar on the back to identify players. Each PS4 will contain a 3D camera to track the various controllers using the bar. The PS4 contains 8 CPU cores, providing almost 2 teraflops of computational performance. The power allows for 30,000 polygons to be rendered in real time (by way of comparison, Heavy Rain on the PS3 utilized 15,000). "Overall, our goal has been to architect the system to support a breadth of experiences," said Cerny.



http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/20/4009410/sony-playstation-4-ps4-announcement/in/3774815

---

*Social Aspects*



> At its PlayStation 4 event, Sony announced that its new console will feature unique video-sharing features, including the ability to stream video from games as you play them and watch other people's games over the PlayStation Network. Sony says that its "goal is to make sharing of video as popular in PS4 as screenshots are today." Sony says the PS4 features dedicated, always-on video compression that can seamlessly upload gameplay as you use the console.
> 
> The console will allow users to watch friends on PSN play games, and the new PlayStation controller has a dedicated button that lets users share their live broadcast. The PS4's video sharing capabilities will also allow players to do more than just spectate: Sony says friends can look over your shoulder, interact with you while you play, and post to your screen if you allow them. The system will even let you allow friends to take over your controller.
> 
> Sony is also integrating the video-sharing feature into social networks, and has partnered with Facebook and Ustream to allow users to broadcast their games to a broader audience.



http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/20/4009860/sony-ps4-playstation-4-video-sharing/in/3774815

---

*Games*

I urge you to read this article, as it provides a nice round up of the newly announced games, games we already know in development that will be on the PS4, and some of the tech demos shown.

Whilst there are graphical improvements over the previous generation (PS3, Xbox 360), the biggest improvements are in the little things that the new system architecture affords, such as: advanced lighting, complex particle effects, staggering depth of field.

The computational power is so great that, in one of the games, the developers have been able to create fibre maps for seat covers, that realistically catch the light... whilst not affecting the level of gameplay.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/20/4008586/sony-playstation-4-first-games-revealed/in/3774815

---

The actual console was not shown, but we were told that it will be coming "Holiday 2013" - this probably means Christmas 2013 for America and Japan, Spring 2014 for Europe, Summer 2014 for Australia, and 2015 for everywhere else.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 21, 2013)

> the new console will in fact _not_ be backwards-compatible with current PlayStation 3 titles


I would have thought Sony would have learned after the debacle with the PS3.

By not providing backwards compatibility, Sony are simply killing user loyalty. 

There is absolutely no reason to buy a standalone games console that won't play any of your games, and no reason to buy into Sony Playstation products if every release means your games no longer work.

There is a reason why Sony have lost out to the Xbox after beating the Sega, and why Sony hasn't made a profit in 4 years, and this is very much part of the reason.

I'm speaking as someone had had the PS1 from release, a PS2 and PS3, but now has an Xbox as well.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Feb 21, 2013)

I've had the three playstation generations too.

The lack of backwards compatibility is disappointing. Does Xbox offer this sort of thing?

I'm something of a hoarder so I still have my consoles (including a Mega Drive) and a fair number of games, but sooner or later I'm probably going to have to sell them or bin them.


----------



## Lenny (Feb 21, 2013)

I honestly don't see the need for backwards compatibility in the PS4, for two reasons:

1. The PS3 still has life left in it. Studios will have invested massive resources into learning to build for the PS3 architecture and will be releasing games for years to come. People are going to hang on to their old consoles.

2. Unlike the jump from PS2 to PS3, where we saw massive changes in the television market, the jump from PS3 to PS4 doesn't change video output. Like the PS3, the PS4 outputs video via HDMI at full HD (and is rumoured to be able to go up to 4K resolution, or full 1080p 3D). Both consoles work with current televisions, and the PS3 will likely keep up for a number of years, until UltraHD sets are down to a reasonable price. The PS3 is still a playable machine, unlike the PS2 was on HD televisions - there's no need to play the games on a console that can output the right video because the PS3 already does that.

---

As for the current state of backwards compatibility, whilst the PS3 had hardware backwards compatibility built-in at launch for the PS2 (and software compatibility for the PS1), the PS2 chips were taken out to bring down costs as early as the end of 2007.

The Xbox 360 released with very limited backwards compatibility with about 280 original Xbox games. That list increased to over 450 games, but no more were added after November 2007.

So whilst backwards compatibility is nice to have, it's not actually been important for five years.

The PS3 infrastructure isn't going anywhere, so why do we need backwards compatibility in the PS4?


----------



## Lenny (Feb 21, 2013)

I'm awake now, and more information has trickled out as I slept. So here goes!

---

*Hardware*

Missing last night were details on how PS4 games would be delivered - a lot was said about game streaming and game downloading, but nothing was mentioned about discs. I was getting slightly worried that the threats would be true and the console would be all-digital, but thankfully Sony have released a full spec sheet that confirms the existence of a Blu-ray drive!

The console also comes with USB 3.0, Ethernet, b/g/n wireless, and Bluetooth. AV output is the standard HDMI, Analog-AV, and optical out.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/20/4009940/playstation-4-tech-specs-hardware-details

My first thoughts about the hardware, after they were confirmed as being close to PC design, is that this console is far more developer-friendly than the PS3. Whilst the Cell processor in the PS3 is extremely powerful, which we're still seeing evidence of six years later, it was entirely new to developers and presented a steep learning curve. With an x86 processor and PC-style graphics, the console is opened up to a far greater number of developers, including the hordes of indie devs, something which may prove essential if Sony want to return to the dominance they had with the PS2.

The controller has been changed somewhat, although it is obviously still a DualShock controller.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/20/4006374/playstation-4-dualshock-4-controller-detailed

My worry, when the controller bar peripheral was shown with the controller, was that you would have to play with the controller in clear sight of the bar (similar to the sensor on the Wii). However, it has been confirmed that the controller uses Bluetooth 2.1 for communication, so should work in a similar way to the SIXAXIS and DualShock 3 controllers (it will be interesting to see if it also works on the PS3).

The light bar on the bag is most intriguing. It obviously uses the same technology as the PS Move (which was confirmed in MediaMolecule's presentation to work with the PS4, although official news has yet to be released), which means it can be tracked to fantastic precision, but we've not had an explanation as to why it's there. I've seen rumours that it will be used to help deliver 3D sound, but it's not been officially announced.

One glaring omission from the press event was the console itself. The controller was shown, but not the box. My immediate reaction was, "OK, Microsoft have little choice but to respond in kind, so Sony is holding the console back to be announced at the same time". Interestingly, one of the Polygon reporters managed to ask the President of Sony Worldwide Studios, Shuhei Yoshida, who said this:



> "We need something to show off later," he said, half kidding.
> 
> Will it be shown at E3, I asked.
> 
> ...



http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/21/4011972/sony-explains-why-the-ps4-was-a-no-show-at-its-own-debut

So I wonder, does this mean that the console won't be as great a feat of engineering as the PS3 was? If the star of last night's show was to be the controller, with it's sharing capabilities, then the focus of the PS4 is truly on social (which is evidenced by everything announced by Gaikai). With it's traditional architecture, too, we could very well be looking at a console with a launch price that does match the rumours of £300. Of course, this is all speculation without solid foundations.

---

I'm going to split things into multiple posts, else I run the risk of my first published novel being a blow-by-blow account on the PS4 press event.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 21, 2013)

Apologies if I sound unduly negative, Lenny. Not my intention - am just stating an opinion but will try not to sound so ventive. 



Lenny said:


> The PS3 infrastructure isn't going anywhere, so why do we need backwards compatibility in the PS4?



Because Sony think they have the luxury of demanding users run the PS3 and PS4 together, when they don't.

But if the PS4 offers no backwards compatability, then Sony are actually bringing to the market a completely new standalone games console. 

The big question is: why should anyone buy into a completely new standalone games console from _any _company? That it connects with Facebook isn't a reason, that it sync with the PS Vita just isn't a reason.

Next generation games consoles should be seen as upgrades and treated as such, IMO.

I have invested a lot of money in PS games since the PS1 launched, so when Sony tells me I will not be allowed to play any of these with their new console, why should I buy that and not a next generation xbox?

Point is Sony are presuming they have consumer loyalty here, a mistake they made with the PS3. I think the lack of backwards compatability has a huge amount to do with why the xbox now reigns supreme in the home console market - a lead that the Playstation used to have, but lost.

The question Sony should be asking is why they lost that lead, and address the answers.

Here they don't seem to be.

In the meantime, I have 3 HDMI ports on my TV, and I can promise Sony I will not dedicated most of these just to different PS versions.

Hope I'm not ranting too much. 

PS: The kids keep nagging for me to get the PS2 back out so they can play some of their favourite classics like Ratchet and Clank, Spyro, and Jak and Daxter. If I want the latest video games console, must I therefore have a PS4, PS3, and PS2 hooked up to the TV just so that we can play our existing games catalogue, and any future ones??


----------



## Lenny (Feb 21, 2013)

I disagree, of course, but they're fair points (unless the kids are playing the PS2 versions of Spyro - nothing can compare to the original PS1 games from Insomniac!).

My views on console gaming all come from what I see as the main difference between the PC and a console: you *always* know that you will be able to play a game that has been developed for your console. Regardless of the age of the console, or the age of the game, the game will always play on the console it was developed for.

In my mind, it makes sense that each new box have totally different hardware - these things are designed to last for at least five years, and if the cost of high-end processors in the PC world is anything to go by, it's far cheaper to design better performing chips with brand new architectures than try to squeeze more power out of an older architecture. 

To play a previous generations games you need either the architecture, the original hardware, or sufficiently powerful hardware for software emulation (I think the accepted figure is that hardware needs to be eight times as powerful as the hardware that is being emulated by software).

To keep the same architecture and push enough juice out of it to last another five years is crazy expensive. To design circuits that use both the new hardware and the old hardware is crazy expensive (it's the cost of the old console, with the new console, and the design to make them work together). To emulate the hardware and software of the old console is crazy expensive in computational power (and money, for hardware that can achieve it). 

We console players are a cheap lot -- for a few hundred pounds, we can buy a system that will be playing games five years from now without any trouble. For a few thousand pounds, I can build a computer that will simply handle games five years from now.

If I have the old console and the means to connect it up to a display device, why should I want expense to be added to a new console so that it can play the old console's games? Particularly when both consoles use the same display devices.

I would much rather have a separate system that plays separate games on completely different hardware, that still keeps up with PC gaming in five years, and six years, and seven years.

*My meandering point*, for what it's worth, is that so much more can be achieved with brand new architecture, far more cheaply than if the same was attempted with existing architecture just to allow old games to be played on a new system.

At the end of the day, the investment is still there - you have a system that is not subject to change, that will always play the games you have bought for it. Why should you need a new system to support the old system?

There's no assurance that Microsoft will have backwards compatibility in their next console, either. There is, however, talk of them implementing a system that locks pre-owned games out of the new console (just rumour, mind), which is something that Sony have confirmed they will not do.

---

My thoughts on why Sony lost their dominance: they overestimated what the developers were willing to do, rather than what gamers were willing to do. By creating a system with such a weird architecture (the Cell processor was a completely new design that Sony, Toshiba, and IBM worked on) that was different to everything out there, Sony were forcing the developers to spend time learning before developing. Microsoft, on the other hand, had a console with a more conventional design that was far easier to develop for (reports from devs suggest that it compares favourably to developed for a PC). With the costs of game development always increasing (and estimated to be hundreds of millions for a single game last generation), who can blame the dev studios for supporting the system that was more likely to give them a return for their money?

Not only did Sony not have the same level of support from developers as they did in the PS2's generation, but the initial launch price did rankle a lot gamers.

With the PS4, Sony have adopted what looks almost like a PC in terms of architecture. And from the off, it looks like they've been courting developers, with almost every major dev, including a number of indie devs, currently building games for the PS3.

---

Of course, if someone has sold all of their old games and consoles, Sony have you covered - they introduced PS Classics to the PS Store for the PS3, and with the PS4 Gaikai are working towards bringing the entire game libraries of the PS1, PS2, and PS3 to the PS4 and other devices.

All you've got to do is buy the game again**. 

---

Talking about games and Gaikai, I'll be adding more information later tonight (I've just realised that I've been sat at my computer reading articles, threads, and replying to posts since half ten this morning, and I'm yet to have breakfast...).

**Which I don't agree with, let it be said. I have the games in front of me, why can't Sony implement a system that realises this and gives digital copies to me for free?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 21, 2013)

I can certain understand the argument about hardware architecture. To me, the issue is simply one of providing an emulator or similar in new releases if compatibility is an issue. 

I mean, if Sony are considering providing older games via Gaiko, then why not simply provide these via an emulator so we can play what we've already bought, rather than buy all the games again?

The dealbreaker to me is: if Microsoft announce the next gen xbox will be backwards compatible by design. That will decide which sells, IMO.


----------



## Lenny (Feb 21, 2013)

We know that software emulation for the PS1 is possible, as it was part of the PS3 software from day one - why that's not included, I'm not sure.

With PS2 emulation, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony decided that the resources they would need to port the PS2 instruction set to the PS4 and to write an emulator far outweighed the possible return for the that investment. Which is a shame, because there are emulators available for Windows that run PS2 games with few problems.

All we know about Gaikai is that they currently have plans to bring every previous PlayStation game to the PS4 and other devices (and I think they're starting with the PS3). How they plan to do it, and the pricing structure, are unknown.

We similarly know little about the new PlayStation network. It may be that something similar to PS Plus is introduced, that will allow users to stream games from Gaikai for free (maybe with limits to a certain number per month, or maybe cheaper than for customers who don't subscribe with the added bonus of letting you add a new game from their catalogue to yours for free each month).

My money is on the subscription model, with so much a month (or yearly) giving you access to a catalogue with limits, and so much more giving you unlimited access. For non-subscribers, a one-off fee gets you the game (priced to make the subscription model more compelling if you're going to buy multiple games).

It's unlikely, but Sony might decide to give PS1 games away for free, on account of their age and how little computational power they need to run.

Hopefully, it will all be announced at E3.


----------



## Warren_Paul (Feb 22, 2013)

The reason Sony lost out wasn't because of customer loyalty or backwards compatibility. It was the same reason that the Saturn failed. After beating Sega, Sony clearly didn't learn from Sega's huge mistake. The Saturn was a superior console to the PS1, but it was a nightmare to develop games for. The developers abandoned it in favour of the much easier to program PS1. Now Sony goes and makes the same mistake with the PS3. Lenny is right in pointing out that the Cell processor is what caused the PS3 to fail. It costs far too much to produce, it is far too complicated to program for and developers can't afford to put the time and effort required into making games for it. The other reason is business contracts some of the major names in the industry had with Microsoft. Read on to see what's changed there.

I think Gaikai is their answer to backwards compatibility. The previous PS3/2/1 games -- or at least the popular ones -- are planned to be re-released as classic games to play over the cloud. I imagine the PS2/1 games will be incredibly cheap, like a few dollars -- or pounds. Sega did this with their classic Mega Drive/Genesis games on the PS3, so I'm not surprised to hear that Gaikai intend to do it as well. If Gaikai are putting the games on the cloud, then I don't see the need to provide an emulator in the actual console. 

Truly, backwards compatibility is such a non-issue that's just used in console wars arguments. The majority of gamers couldn't care less about backwards compatibility. If you still want to play those games, then just keep the old console and put it beside your new shiny PS4. The other reason it is a non-issue is the secondhand games market. Most people sell their games on when they are done with them and put that money towards buying a new game. No point being backwards compatible if the person doesn't have their old games to play on the console in the first place.

I watched through the live event, and I have to say, I came out of it feeling quite positive about the PS4. I believe they've done a lot of things right with it, and I'm very excited to see how the cloud computing side of the console works out. 

There are three winning factors to consider which will be very damaging to Microsoft.

#1: Square are planning to release their next final fantasy exclusively on the PS4 this year -- which, considering the launch date of the PS4, means it may well be a launch title. I can only speculate that this Final Fantasy title will be the highly anticipated Final Fantasy Versus 13 which was originally planned for the PS3. We can thank the failure and effort put into rebooting FFXIV for Verses 13's delay that now sees it on the PS4 instead. Verses 13 was always intended to be a Sony exclusive title, and nothing seems to have changed in that regard.

#2: Bungie, one of the big name console developers (responsible for the Halo franchise) is returning to Sony to make their new IP, Destiny, an exclusive title on the PS4. What was shown and spoken of about the game was amazing.

#3: Blizzard. Enough said. They are a phenomenon in the gaming industry and finally, after years of being possibly the leading PC development studio, they are coming back to their console roots. They are starting with Diablo 3 on the PS4, but any game they release will sell consoles. Fact.

Major development studios making games exclusively for one console are a deciding factor -- why do you think Microsoft went through that phase of buying out studios? Bungie sounded pretty happy to be independent from Microsoft again in the live event. And to be honest, many console players will go where Bungie goes, and right now, that is directly towards the PS4.

But the true deal breaker is this:

While it is still rumoured that the Xbox won't be able to play secondhand games, Sony has confirmed that the PS4 *WILL* be able to play secondhand games. If Microsoft doesn't follow suit, then Sony will be laughing at them all the way to the bank. But I'm sure after that announcement, Microsoft will drop their plans for the one time use codes. It would be suicide not to.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Feb 22, 2013)

Yeah, the rumours of giving every game a one-time use code so that the second hand market effectively ends were most displeasing. I also agree with you that even if Microsoft planned it they'd be nuts to go ahead with it now.

Interesting points on games/developers, though I wonder just how big a deal Final Fantasy is now. I've played most of them (ordered retro-copies of the first few for the playstation and bought VII-XII (not XI) as they came out) and they just don't seem to stand up much to the likes of Dragon Age (well, Origins), Elder Scrolls or even Dragon's Dogma (generic world but fantastic gameplay). They're too linear and too focused on graphics.


----------



## Warren_Paul (Feb 22, 2013)

The Final Fantasy series is an iconic game in the console industry and still has a huge following. On it's very first day of launch, Final Fantasy 13 sold over a million copies, and that is just in Japan.  It sold another million copies in its first month in the US. And last recorded sales of FFXIII was just short of 10 million copies -- which also happens to be the last known number of Skyrim copies sold. So they are on par with each other. Although it should be noted that most of Skyrim's sales came from Steam, which is the PC version.

But it's a different sort of RPG to Elder Scrolls, catering to different players tastes. And after Dragon Age 2, Bioware is on rocky ground with their IP.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 22, 2013)

I said:


> I would have thought Sony would have learned after the debacle with the PS3.
> 
> By not providing backwards compatibility, Sony are simply killing user loyalty.
> 
> ...



Sorry but no.

First of all, Sony haven't lost out on anything. They've recently announced they've sold more than the 360 has.

Secondly, the 360 is about 50% backwards compatible.

Putting these two together, BC isn't as big as people make it out to be. The 360 has no issues with it, the PS3 had no issues with it when it was completely removed. They both still sold and sold well.

BC was never going to be possible since they changed the whole structure of the system.

If you want to play your old games, play them on the system or don't get a next-gen system. The whole point of these consoles is to move forward, not stay stagnant.

The Wii U is backwards compatible and it's struggling big time.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 22, 2013)

I said:


> why should I buy that and not a next generation xbox?



Because you're going to have to buy new games for that anyway? So either way you're spending money.

Also, what makes you think the new xbox will be any different? If the rumours are true, they are going to have a whole new set of problems.



> Point is Sony are presuming they have consumer loyalty here, a mistake they made with the PS3. I think the lack of backwards compatability has a huge amount to do with why the xbox now reigns supreme in the home console market - a lead that the Playstation used to have, but lost.



Myth.

Nintendo are number one, Wii will have sold the most when it is all said and done.

Number 2 and 3 is more up in the air but the Xbox does not, in any way, reign supreme



> The question Sony should be asking is why they lost that lead, and address the answers.
> 
> Here they don't seem to be.
> 
> In the meantime, I have 3 HDMI ports on my TV, and I can promise Sony I will not dedicated most of these just to different PS versions.



Actually they are addressing this. They have made the PS4 more user friendly for both devs and consumers. To do this, they had to change the structure of the system which is why it will not be able to play PS3 games.



> PS: The kids keep nagging for me to get the PS2 back out so they can play some of their favourite classics like Ratchet and Clank, Spyro, and Jak and Daxter. If I want the latest video games console, must I therefore have a PS4, PS3, and PS2 hooked up to the TV just so that we can play our existing games catalogue, and any future ones??



How often?


----------



## Cayal (Feb 22, 2013)

Warren_Paul said:


> But the true deal breaker is this:
> 
> While it is still rumoured that the Xbox won't be able to play secondhand games, Sony has confirmed that the PS4 *WILL* be able to play secondhand games. If Microsoft doesn't follow suit, then Sony will be laughing at them all the way to the bank. But I'm sure after that announcement, Microsoft will drop their plans for the one time use codes. It would be suicide not to.



I think the deal breaker will be the "always online" component. Firstly because not everyone has the internet and secondly because that, with Kinect built in, will give some (of the more paranoid) people the Big Brother is Watching feel.
There is also the rumour that they will use Kinect to count people watching a movie and charge a per person license fee (which is utterly ridiculous). 

I don't think any of this will happen btw. It would be suicide as you said.


----------



## Abernovo (Feb 22, 2013)

Cayal said:


> I think the deal breaker will be the "always online" component. Firstly because not everyone has the internet and secondly because that, with Kinect built in, will give some (of the more paranoid) people the Big Brother is Watching feel.



This, I feel, is very true. I've seen the news reports, all going on about how you'll be able to connect with other users and play on cloud. Sorry, not interested. That takes Broadband, which isn't available everywhere; nor will it be in the foreseeable future. So, I'm more interested in what the console can do in terms of processing and graphics, the games that will be on them, and (last, but not least) the price.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 22, 2013)

What I think Sony did right is that the whole social integration thing they pushed isn't mandatory.

While social media has it's place in gaming and basically it is where the world is going these days, not everyone wants to share everything they do.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 22, 2013)

thaddeus6th said:


> Yeah, the rumours of giving every game a one-time use code so that the second hand market effectively ends were most displeasing. I also agree with you that even if Microsoft planned it they'd be nuts to go ahead with it now.
> 
> Interesting points on games/developers, though I wonder just how big a deal Final Fantasy is now. I've played most of them (ordered retro-copies of the first few for the playstation and bought VII-XII (not XI) as they came out) and they just don't seem to stand up much to the likes of Dragon Age (well, Origins), Elder Scrolls or even Dragon's Dogma (generic world but fantastic gameplay). They're too linear and too focused on graphics.



They've dropped the ball with 13. I loved 12 (though I know many didn't) and Versus 13 looked to be promising/more open world but that game is in the wilderness.

Hopefully 15 and whatever else they bring out will return the game to its roots.


----------



## Warren_Paul (Feb 23, 2013)

Final Fantasy 13 still had the best launch in the franchise's history. And after the complaints about the beginning of the game, another 5 million people went on to purchase its expansion. That doesn't say to me that "Square dropped the ball" at all. Sure, the beginning of the game was criticised for being too linear, but it was still a very popular title. I think this is the same thing as the backwards compatibility argument. It's a minority of people being overly vocal about their negative opinions while the rest of the world are happily enjoying the game.

You see this all the time. Take a look at the World of Warcraft forums at some point. It's full of negative complaints, yet somehow the game still keeps its millions of subscribers. The point is, most of those millions are completely satisfied with the way the game is and are enjoying themselves too much to even comment on the forums.



Cayal said:


> What I think Sony did right is that the whole social integration thing they pushed isn't mandatory.
> 
> While social media has it's place in gaming and basically it is where the world is going these days, not everyone wants to share everything they do.


 
Yeah, Microsoft doesn't understand that not everyone wants what they do. They are the typical bullies of the industry. They push their weight around to get what they want. And when they face opposition, they open the check book (Buying Bungie's loyalty. Fact: Bungie made the Xbox a success).


----------



## Cayal (Feb 23, 2013)

Warren_Paul said:


> Final Fantasy 13 still had the best launch in the franchise's history. And after the complaints about the beginning of the game, another 5 million people went on to purchase its expansion. That doesn't say to me that "Square dropped the ball" at all. Sure, the beginning of the game was criticised for being too linear, but it was still a very popular title. I think this is the same thing as the backwards compatibility argument. It's a minority of people being overly vocal about their negative opinions while the rest of the world are happily enjoying the game.



Well it's not really the minority when there are 100 million PS360s out there and only 10 million bought FF13.



> Yeah, Microsoft doesn't understand that not everyone wants what they do. They are the typical bullies of the industry. They push their weight around to get what they want. And when they face opposition, they open the check book (Buying Bungie's loyalty. Fact: Bungie made the Xbox a success).



Microsoft owned Bungie didn't they? I don't think this is bad business, Sony and Nintendo have bought a lot of studios. It helps build a solid list of exclusives to help sell your console.


----------



## Warren_Paul (Feb 23, 2013)

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. But no, Microsoft didn't "own" Bungie. They had an exclusive contract with them. When Bungie announced they were making Halo for PC, Microsoft saw how much potential the IP had and forked out a bucket load of cash to bring Bungie in as a 2nd party developer to ensure they had a blockbuster development studio behind the Xbox. There is a solid belief out there in the press that without Bungie, the Xbox would have failed. But Bungie would never have gone to Xbox if Microsoft hadn't paid them a massive amount of money to do so.

So yes, it was a very smart move by Microsoft. And it is good business strategy. But it was frowned upon by gamers at the time who were used to seeing Bungie on the PlayStation. But when Bungie went to Xbox, their loyal fan base followed them.

Just last year Bungie passed on rights to Halo, ending their contract with Microsoft so that they could go work with Activision -- which allows them to start making games for PlayStation again.


10 million copies is a fantastic figure to reach. FFVII sold 10 million copies in its entire lifespan, and it was considered to be the best Final Fantasy in existence. Perhaps do some research into sales. Last verified sales statistics say that Skyrim only sold 10 million as well and how many PCs are out there in the world? Not to mention Skyrim was also on consoles as well as PC. So, 10 million copies is easily considered a success. Or do you want to say that Skyrim failed?


----------



## Cayal (Feb 23, 2013)

Warren_Paul said:


> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. But no, Microsoft didn't "own" Bungie. They had an exclusive contract with them. When Bungie announced they were making Halo for PC, Microsoft saw how much potential the IP had and forked out a bucket load of cash to bring Bungie in as a 2nd party developer to ensure they had a blockbuster development studio behind the Xbox. There is a solid belief out there in the press that without Bungie, the Xbox would have failed. But Bungie would never have gone to Xbox if Microsoft hadn't paid them a massive amount of money to do so.
> 
> So yes, it was a very smart move by Microsoft. And it is good business strategy. But it was frowned upon by gamers at the time who were used to seeing Bungie on the PlayStation. But when Bungie went to Xbox, their loyal fan base followed them.



Actually you are incorrect



> On June 19, 2000, soon after Halo's preview at Electronic Entertainment Expo 2000, Microsoft announced that it had acquired Bungie Software and that Bungie would become a part of the Microsoft Game Division under the name Bungie Studios.







> 10 million copies is a fantastic figure to reach. FFVII sold 10 million copies in its entire lifespan, and it was considered to be the best Final Fantasy in existence. Perhaps do some research into sales. Last verified sales statistics say that Skyrim only sold 10 million as well and how many PCs are out there in the world? Not to mention Skyrim was also on consoles as well as PC. So, 10 million copies is easily considered a success. Or do you want to say that Skyrim failed?



FFVII sold 10 million on one console.

Final Fantasy XIII sold 4.93m on PS3 and 1.93m on 360 which is just under 7 million in total.

Now to see how much SquareEnix dropped the ball, look at the sales of the sequel:
PS3 version of FF13-2 sold 2.28m (54% drop off) and 360 version sold 0.62m (73% drop off) for a total of 3.30m total sold.

That is huge. Not many games see such a drop off and I can guarantee you it was because of how un-Final Fantasy-like XIII was.

Reference: http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?nam...sher=&platform=&genre=&minSales=0&results=200

Not sure what the sales of Skyrim have to do with anything when they're different types of RPGs and have caters to different groups (one is Western the other is Japanese). 
But for that argument, Skyrim destroyed it's predecessor, Oblivion, in sales.

http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?nam...sher=&platform=&genre=&minSales=0&results=200


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 23, 2013)

Warren_Paul said:


> the Cell processor is what caused the PS3 to fail. It costs far too much to produce, it is far too complicated to program for and developers can't afford to put the time and effort required into making games for it.



I don't recall hearing of any major publishers or games releases boycotting the PS3 - every major release I see covers PC, Xbox, and PS3 format. Yes there are exclusives to both the xbox and PS3, which proves that money can do wonders for development.

I haven't been that close to the grapevine on PS3 news, though, so I could have easily missed it.

I'd suggest a big contributor that killed the Saturn was simply that the PlayStation had better games. Tekken blasted Virtua Fighter out of the water, and both games were flagship products. 

On the subject of studio agreements - Namco used to produce exclusively for the Playstation, not least with leading titles such as Tekken and Ridge Racer. Odd to see Namco produce for both the PS3 and xbox. That's another reason to reconsider buying a PS3. 

Also, lots of talk about Sony building relationships with developers, but isn't that as much because they've sacked their own in house development teams? Studio Liverpool, anyone?





Cayal said:


> First of all, Sony haven't lost out on anything. They've recently announced they've sold more than the 360 has.



Don't confuse shipping figures and trade sales with actual retail sales, though.

So far as I'm aware, the hard fact is that for any new game release for the PC/Xbox/PS3, the real life sales will be 10%/60%/30% respectively.

In other words, when you cut through all the corporate posturing, the xbox market outsells the PS3 market by 2 to 1. 

Remember my point was that the PlayStation used to dominate home consoles?




Cayal said:


> Secondly, the 360 is about 50% backwards compatible.



And the PS3 is 100% *not* compatible.



Cayal said:


> If you want to play your old games, play them on the system or don't get a next-gen system. The whole point of these consoles is to move forward, not stay stagnant.



No, it's arrogance on the part of the suppliers.

Can you imagine the PC's working if, with every new Windows or OSX release, you had to buy a completely new desktop? Neither Microsoft nor Apple would survive. And, yes, the hardware is usually very different, too.

The lack of backwards compatibility is solely arrogance on the part of Sony, and the fact that the xbox allows 50% BC perhaps explains why that consoles sells 50% more games than the PS3? 

Virtualisation means there is absolutely no excuse for lack of BC. A cloud solution could be a good idea, but I have 37 PS2 games on the shelf, and I would resent any suggestion Sony might make that I should buy these again.




Cayal said:


> Also, what makes you think the new xbox will be any different? If the rumours are true, they are going to have a whole new set of problems.



I don't deny that - Microsoft are very good at dropping the ball - I can see that by their performance of online services.

I have no loyalty to MS - my point is that I used to be a loyal Sony consumer, and bought the original PlayStation at launch (a friend had demonstrated a Japanese import months earlier). And now I'm a very unhappy Sony customer who now has an Xbox as well, and has absolutely no reason to buy any more PlayStation products.

If the next gen xbox is BC, I'm sold. If it isn't, I might just buy a big new graphics card for my PC instead.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Feb 23, 2013)

Cayal said:


> Also, what makes you think the new xbox will be any different? If the rumours are true, they are going to have a whole new set of problems.



Which rumors would those be?



Cayal said:


> Myth.
> 
> Nintendo are number one, Wii will have sold the most when it is all said and done.



Technically true, but a problematic statement nonetheless. You don't make money off of consoles--you make it off of game sales and licensing fees. Microsoft (and Sony) have seen rising revenues from their console gaming divisions even as Nintendo's have dropped off and overall game sales have declined. Xbox 360 has made the most revenue and most profits over the course of this console generation. 



Cayal said:


> Actually they are addressing this. They have made the PS4 more user friendly for both devs and consumers. To do this, they had to change the structure of the system which is why it will not be able to play PS3 games.



...by moving towards using the same internal architecture as Microsoft will likely use. That ends up being a boon for developers, but it's also another nail in the coffin for console exclusives. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so, because it means more choices for everyone. But the days of it really mattering all that much which console you choose are over. 

I'll probably get the Xbox 720, because that's what most of my friends have (and so making it easier to play online multiplayer games together), but I really don't see much else of a reason to choose Microsoft over Sony, or Sony over Microsoft.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 23, 2013)

I said:


> I would resent any suggestion Sony might make that I should buy these again.



Just thinking about it, a simple way to address the BC issue for the PS4 would be to offer a subscription service to play games from the cloud - pretty much as how Netflix works with film.

This way a user can play old favourites, try new ones (after they've been through a period of buy only) and feel like they're buying into something useful.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 23, 2013)

I said:


> On the subject of studio agreements - Namco used to produce exclusively for the Playstation, not least with leading titles such as Tekken and Ridge Racer. Odd to see Namco produce for both the PS3 and xbox. That's another reason to reconsider buying a PS3.



Most companies aren't doing exclusive games anymore because it isn't cost effective.



> Also, lots of talk about Sony building relationships with developers, but isn't that as much because they've sacked their own in house development teams? Studio Liverpool, anyone?



They've removed 2, of which they moved most of the employees moved on to other teams. They've also added another team to Guerilla Games and Naughty Dog has a second team.

They still have 14 - 16 in-house studios they own and recently bought Sucker Punch and Media Molecule.




> Don't confuse shipping figures and trade sales with actual retail sales, though.



No one has official sale figures. vgchartz is about as close you can get but it's, as best, a guide.



> So far as I'm aware, the hard fact is that for any new game release for the PC/Xbox/PS3, the real life sales will be 10%/60%/30% respectively.



lolwat? Where did you get that from?

Look at my Final Fantasy XIII figures. PS3 version outsold the 360 by a lot.
Assassin's Creed 2 and 3 sold more on PS3 than 360
Resident Evil 5 and 6 sold more on PS3 than 360

etc.

Not saying this is how it always goes, but 10/60/30 is utter nonsense.



> In other words, when you cut through all the corporate posturing, the xbox market outsells the PS3 market by 2 to 1.



Yeah...if we are making up numbers.



> And the PS3 is 100% *not* compatible.



They are all PS1 backwards compatible I believe.



> No, it's arrogance on the part of the suppliers.



Obviously it isn't because, and despite the fact it release a year/year-and-a-half later than the 360 the PS3 has outsold it.



> The lack of backwards compatibility is solely arrogance on the part of Sony, and the fact that the xbox allows 50% BC perhaps explains why that consoles sells 50% more games than the PS3?



Well considering that 50% is incorrect I suggest it isn't.



> Virtualisation means there is absolutely no excuse for lack of BC. A cloud solution could be a good idea, but I have 37 PS2 games on the shelf, and I would resent any suggestion Sony might make that I should buy these again.



Then keep your PS2. It's that simple.



> Can you imagine the PC's working if, with every new Windows or OSX release, you had to buy a completely new desktop? Neither Microsoft nor Apple would survive. And, yes, the hardware is usually very different, too.



Well except the entire purpose of a PC is to run a desktop\OS, it's not an add-on. The entire purpose of the PS4 is to play PS4 games.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 23, 2013)

Nerds_feather said:


> Which rumors would those be?



http://kotaku.com/5982986/we-know-all-about-the-next-xbox-from-someone-who-says-theyve-got-one

And I take this with a grain of salt and even if true, I suspect the PS4 event will have them changing some things.




> Technically true, but a problematic statement nonetheless. You don't make money off of consoles--you make it off of game sales and licensing fees. Microsoft (and Sony) have seen rising revenues from their console gaming divisions even as Nintendo's have dropped off and overall game sales have declined. Xbox 360 has made the most revenue and most profits over the course of this console generation.



Not if you subtract the 3 billion+ they've had to fork out for the RROD fiasco.




> ...by moving towards using the same internal architecture as Microsoft will likely use. That ends up being a boon for developers, but it's also another nail in the coffin for console exclusives. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so, because it means more choices for everyone. But the days of it really mattering all that much which console you choose are over.



Only for 3rd party exclusives and where Sony will (at this stage) always have the edge is the superior number of studios they own and have working on dedicated PS3/4 games.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 23, 2013)

I said:


> Just thinking about it, a simple way to address the BC issue for the PS4 would be to offer a subscription service to play games from the cloud - pretty much as how Netflix works with film.
> 
> This way a user can play old favourites, try new ones (after they've been through a period of buy only) and feel like they're buying into something useful.



I'm thinking that is the purpose of Gaikai. Well, it is the purpose, that is what they said and they are hoping to do it. 
I suspect it won't be hard for PS1 and 2 games. PS3 games on the other hand is going to need an extreme broadband connection which won't work too well in A LOT of countries.


----------



## Lenny (Feb 23, 2013)

OK then! Let's move on from the madness of backwards compatibility and talk about the present.

I'm a couple of days later than I said I'd be, but I've been waiting for the trickle of PS4 articles into my RSS reader to slow down.

---

*Social Aspects, Gaikia, and the Network*

The biggest news has arguably got to be Sony's vision for the PS4. Whilst the PS3 was a crazy-powerful gaming machine cum media centre, the PS4 is a crazy-powerful gaming machine cum media centre cum _social beast_. I'm sure we all remember that it took a number of months before Sony added in-game chat capability to the PS3's XMB, and that PS Home was a late arrival.

Social is far more integrated with the PS4 than it ever was with the PS3, so much so that there's a button on the DualShock4 just for sharing! Using a dedicated chip that handles video compression and decompression, the PS4 will constantly record you as you game. Press the "Share" button, and you'll be able to share your gaming videos on Facebook or UStream, as well as stream them in real-time.

Not a bad idea, considering that more and more people on the internet are livestreaming their gaming sessions (on Minecraft, for instance), and creating "Let's Play" videos.

A cool addition to the streaming is that friends who are watching you playing will be able to offer assistance if you find yourself stuck in the game - accept and you can hand over control to them remotely.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/20/4007764/playstation-4-sharing
http://www.engadget.com/gallery/ps4-ui/5655109/
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/20/4009860/sony-ps4-playstation-4-video-sharing/in/3774815

Sony announced their acquisition of Gaikai, a cloud-based gaming service almost a year ago, and the internet has been rife with rumour since, with many people believing that it meant Sony had plans for all-digital game delivery.

Turns out that this was almost spot-on. As well as dealing with the streaming parts of the infrastructure, Gaikai are on-hand to let you instantly start playing a demo from within the PlaySation Store.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/20/4006146/playstation-4-streaming-ps3-games-playstation-cloud-gaikai
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/20/4...e-gaikai-game-streaming-technology/in/3774815

We know far too well that the PS4 won't support past PlayStation games, which brings us to another use for Gaikai - streaming PS1, PS2, and PS3 games. Whilst it's just an aspiration at this point, with no solid details on what will be ready when the PS4 launches, Sony and Gaikai one day want people to be able to stream any past PlayStation game on the PS4 (and other devices such as the PS Vita, which also supports full remote play of any PS4 game).

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/22/4017222/sony-says-ps4-cloud-features-are-aspirational
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/20/4010604/PS4-will-not-support-PS3-games/in/3774815
http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/20/4005960/playstation-4-vita-connectivity
http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/20/playstation-4-supports-remote-play-on-playstation-vita/

In other news, players will be able to play games they are downloading before they've finished downloading. Gaikai showed off a similar service to this last year, but Sony have said they are not using Gaikai's service, instead there are secondary background processors in the console that allow it.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/20/4010466/sony-playstation-4-games-downloadable-play-ps4/in/3774815

And the usual crowd of media streaming services will be included, such as Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu Plus. For non-US markets, that will probably include whatever the PS3 has in your territory, too (for example LoveFilm in the UK).

http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/20/4010856/playstation-4-apps-netflix-amazon-hulu-plus


----------



## Nerds_feather (Feb 23, 2013)

Cayal said:


> http://kotaku.com/5982986/we-know-all-about-the-next-xbox-from-someone-who-says-theyve-got-one
> 
> And I take this with a grain of salt and even if true, I suspect the PS4 event will have them changing some things.



I would definitely take that with a grain of salt, since it's based on an anonymous source who claims to have a dev kit...not an actual device. It's hard to understand how someone can claim you won't be able to play games without a kinect sensor turned on based on the dev kit. 

I would guess, though, that a kinect sensor comes with the console and that some games can't be played without using the kinect, but the rumor that you can't turn it off is dubious at best...why alienate so many customers when the competition isn't doing it too? Bad business. 



Cayal said:


> Not if you subtract the 3 billion+ they've had to fork out for the RROD fiasco.



The most reliable estimates are that it has cost just over $1b. Even still, that's not a lot considering Xbox division made $3.77b in revenue just last year. And more than $4b the year before. 



Cayal said:


> Only for 3rd party exclusives and where Sony will (at this stage) always have the edge is the superior number of studios they own and have working on dedicated PS3/4 games.



Always? Really? I seem to remember PS1 having a much larger set of exclusives than PS2, and PS2 having a much larger set of exclusives than PS3. 

The trend is away from exclusives, and that is very clear to see. Naughty Dog is going to be making games for Xbox 720; Bungie is going to be making games for PS4. There will still be a few exclusives published by Sony and Microsoft, but that number is and will continue to shrink. Why on Earth would anyone develop a game for one console when the internal organs of the two consoles will be nearly identical and the potential for revenue doubled? Again, this would be very bad business.

The console exclusive is an endangered species.


----------



## Lenny (Feb 23, 2013)

And as an added extra to my post above about Social, Gaikai, and the Network, here's a gallery of shots of the new UI!

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/20/4...amps-its-user-interface-for-the-playstation-4

---

I'm wondering if we'd be better discussing the minutiae of the game development industry, why Sony "lost" the last generation, and new Xbox rumours in news thread? 

I had intended this thread to be a collection of information and news about the PlayStation 4 console from Sony (posted by anyone, I might add), which people would be able to visit and see the facts without having to trawl through opinion, rather than the arguments about backwards compatibility or who sold more consoles that we all seem to have become embroiled in.

Don't get me wrong, I expected light opinion and small disagreements spanning a few posts, but not full out assault. I guess I've forgotten how bad gaming fanboys are since I stopped really following gaming news. On par with iPhone and Android fanboys...


----------



## Nerds_feather (Feb 23, 2013)

Lenny said:


> I guess I've forgotten how bad gaming fanboys are since I stopped really following gaming news. On par with iPhone and Android fanboys...



It's all in good fun in this case, I'd say.

Besides, my own posts came from the perspective of someone who doesn't really see the point of being a fanboy for a gaming console anymore. This generation 90% of games have been available on both and look/play almost exactly the same. The trend is towards console convergence (with Nintendo marching to its own drummer to a degree). It will be interesting to see what the next generation provides, but I doubt there will be that many meaningful differences between PS4 and Xbox 720, and one would probably have an equal amount of fun with either option. 

And in a competition that boils down to small details, whether or to what degree a console is backwards compatible might be very meaningful to some people. I don't know if it's meaningful to me, to be perfectly honest. I thought it was last time, but I think I played one Xbox game on my 360 (Psychonauts) and that's it.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 24, 2013)

Nerds_feather said:


> Always? Really? I seem to remember PS1 having a much larger set of exclusives than PS2, and PS2 having a much larger set of exclusives than PS3.



I said "at this stage", with less and less third party exclusives they will come from the in-house studios. More studios = more exclusives.

But don't forget the competition has changed now and development costs have increased which is why 3rd party exclusives are not as frequent as they were on PS1/2.



> The trend is away from exclusives, and that is very clear to see. Naughty Dog is going to be making games for Xbox 720;



Bit hard since Sony own Naughty Dog.



> Bungie is going to be making games for PS4.



They will, but that is only because they are no longer owned by Microsoft.



> There will still be a few exclusives published by Sony and Microsoft, but that number is and will continue to shrink. Why on Earth would anyone develop a game for one console when the internal organs of the two consoles will be nearly identical and the potential for revenue doubled? Again, this would be very bad business.



The number won't shrink, it will level. Like I said, they each have their own inhouse studios and they aren't going to make games for the competition.

For independent developers I agree. There is no need, and if any do come, it will most likely be because Sony/Microsoft threw money at them to keep it exclusive.



> The console exclusive is an endangered species.



No, it really isn't.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 24, 2013)

Lenny said:


> I had intended this thread to be a collection of information and news about the PlayStation 4 console from Sony (posted by anyone, I might add), which people would be able to visit and see the facts without having to trawl through opinion, rather than the arguments about backwards compatibility or who sold more consoles that we all seem to have become embroiled in.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I expected light opinion and small disagreements spanning a few posts, but not full out assault. I guess I've forgotten how bad gaming fanboys are since I stopped really following gaming news. On par with iPhone and Android fanboys...



Meh.

When people are giving out wrong information, they should be corrected.

Also arguing a point or correcting someone doesn't make you a fanboy. I care not for Microsoft and won't get their next-gen console (unless it has games I really want) but I have not bashed them in this thread. I have not said "Microsoft sux!!!!!!! Sony rulez"


----------



## Cayal (Feb 24, 2013)

Lenny said:


> And as an added extra to my post above about Social, Gaikai, and the Network, here's a gallery of shots of the new UI!
> 
> http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/20/4...amps-its-user-interface-for-the-playstation-4



I hope it runs smoother than what the PSN Store does otherwise it will fail.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Feb 24, 2013)

Cayal said:


> I said "at this stage", with less and less third party exclusives they will come from the in-house studios. More studios = more exclusives.



Sure but how many in-house studios do Sony and Microsoft have compared to the total number of developers worldwide? It's a paltry percentage, and so are exclusives--in this generation and certainly in the next. 

That isn't to say there won't be a small number of cool exclusive titles--in this gen, I wish I'd been able to play the Uncharted games. But compared to how many exclusives there were last time around? Again, the word paltry comes to mind. 



Cayal said:


> But don't forget the competition has changed now and development costs have increased which is why 3rd party exclusives are not as frequent as they were on PS1/2.



Totally agree. And the console manufacturers can't force developers to be exclusive like they used to be able to do. This is a good thing. 



Cayal said:


> Bit hard since Sony own Naughty Dog.



Sorry, meant Insomniac. 



Cayal said:


> They will, but that is only because they are no longer owned by Microsoft.
> 
> And because it no longer makes any sense to do otherwise.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cayal (Feb 24, 2013)

Nerds_feather said:


> Sure but how many in-house studios do Sony and Microsoft have compared to the total number of developers worldwide? It's a paltry percentage, and so are exclusives--in this generation and certainly in the next.



I wouldn't say it's paltry. But probably in the 10 - 15% range.



> Totally agree. And the console manufacturers can't force developers to be exclusive like they used to be able to do. This is a good thing.



Definitely. I bought an original Xbox for KOTOR I & II and a 360 for Mass Effect (which eventually went multi-plat) but it would be nice not to have to get a second console for a select number of games I want to play.





> Sorry, meant Insomniac.



They are an interesting case, a long with Quantic Dream and some others. Both are not owned by Sony and with Insomniac they're moving onto some multiplatform games (they did say they want to have their own IP, Sony usually owns the IPs that they get studios to create for them so you won't see Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter etc on other consoles unless Sony says it is ok) but they have a close working relationship with Sony so it will be interesting to see how they go.



> That's a fair argument, but at the least it won't increase, and that still leaves us with 90% non-exclusive. That means the choice between a PS4 and an Xbox 720 comes down to either brand loyalty or basing a console choice on a very thin slice of available titles.
> 
> And I'm deeply skeptical of this theory, even in the narrow form of "it will level," as every one of the last--what, four--generations has been marked by decreasing exclusivity. Maybe it has bottomed out, but maybe not. If development costs are indeed rising, then it makes less and less sense for Sony and Microsoft to own studios, and more sense to divest themselves of them (as happened with Bungie).
> 
> ...



See, I think on the other side of the coin in that Sony/Microsoft should keep their in house studios so they can have exclusives that will give their console an edge over their competitor.
They have to give the consumer a reason to purchase their console, exclusives are one reason for it.

The dev costs may be rising (but I also think that may level as the technology will level out as well, won't see such a giant graphical leap), but when a game like Uncharted or God of War sells 4,5,6 million, they meet the costs and make a profit and also it serves as a system seller so they get more money from consoles being bought because people want to play God of War, Uncharted, Killzone, whatever they have under their umbrella.


----------



## TheTomG (Feb 24, 2013)

The cycle of console generations may be coming to an end. Really the only thing a console offers me now that a PC does not is the ability to sit on my couch and play it on my TV set, rather than at my desk on a monitor. However, with Valve's approach to consoles in the form of the Steam Box / Piston, there might be a best of both worlds. It's basically a small PC that sits next to your TV set, and is modular.

So, that would mean no buying a new console to keep up with changes in technology, just replace a module (eg for more hard drive space, better graphics processor, etc). My old games remain playable, and I can get the new ones too. New games will run on older technology, but run better on the newer modules, so I'm not excluded from "next gen" games and am left with the choice on whether to upgrade for maximum experience or not.

It also opens up the ability to have mods for your game, which PC owners get the benefit of for Skyrim and the like, but console players never get to experience.

There's also the rise of the "cell phone games console" with things like Ouya offering a low price Android based machine.

So, hardware ain't what it used to be, and I think consumers are moving away from being locked into one hardware platform, particularly a platform that they have to throw away ever so many years. Whether or not the Piston or Ouya take off, I think they mark the demise of consoles as they have been known, and I think the PS4 and next Xbox will mark the last ever consoles in this form.

Funny too that as technology grows and remove the need for me to be locked into a CD to play my game, I'm actually being locked more and more into limitations on how I play. If I buy a game (or piece of music, or movie) I'm really buying a license to play / listen / watch that item, not buying a physical item. If I buy a movie, I really ought to be able to watch it on my TV, my console, my phone, and my PC, since I own a license to watch it and no reason why technology shouldn't free me up that way.

Instead, we find "one time install codes" so that your game is locked to your console and can't be used anywhere else ever again - the more technology frees us, the more licensing restricts us.

We'll see what consumers think to that, along with the need to keep an old console running to play their old games (if I hadn't just got rid of the Wii recently, due to it's total lack of interesting games, I wouldn't actually be ABLE to run another console - a PS3, a PS4, an XBOX and a next XBOX I also won't be able to run, so the concept of "just keep your old one" is based on me being a fan boy who only owned that brand of console so have plenty of input space left without mucking around with cables), or needing to buy them all over again.

I think these will be interesting years ahead for the console market, and while I'm not sure exactly what direction will triumph, I do think this is the death knell of the old form of consoles. And I don't think Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo have clued into that yet.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 24, 2013)

Cayal said:


> Quote:
> So far as I'm aware, the hard fact is that for any new game release  for the PC/Xbox/PS3, the real life sales will be 10%/60%/30%  respectively.
> lolwat? Where did you get that from?
> 
> ...



I got the figures from a friend who works as a freelance journalist for UK computing and gaming magazine. He also does a lot of gaming reviews (as well as hardware and general software). 

I was surprised by the figures, too, but when I think about it, I'm hard pressed to think of other PS3 owners among my friends - they are more likely to have an Xbox.

I'm not sure if the figures have a geographical basis, though.

You mentioned Final Fantasy sales figures, and that it sold more on the PS3 than xbox, and suggest this means the PS3 is the biggest seller.

However, your links for Skyrim sales from the same site show that it sold nearly 50% more units on the Xbox than PS3.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Feb 24, 2013)

Skyrim figures could be skewed by a buggier PS3 version and a loooong delay for PS3 DLC as well as early Xbox DLC (compared to the PC version).


----------



## Brian G Turner (Feb 24, 2013)

It's the same with the figures for Oblivion, though.

And I personally find Skyrim on the Xbox crashes _easily _more than the PS3 version!

I did try to look up other games for comparison, but I'm not into the big shooter/hack games so am not sure what to compare.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Feb 24, 2013)

Not sure I understand why it matters if one game does better on console A and another does better on console B. The reasons for this have nothing to do with quality--FF is a Japanese series, and has a long history on the PS platform (and was long a PS exclusive); Elder Scrolls is an American series with a longer history on the Xbox platform than PS. In the end, both made a lot of money by being sold cross-platform that wouldn't have been made if they had been console-specific.


----------



## Warren_Paul (Feb 24, 2013)

Earlier in the thread, the simple reason for comparing them was to determine how many copies of a game sold was considered a success. Skyrim was definitely a successful game, but it's sales were not all that different to Final Fantasy. Elder Scrolls came from PC though, not Xbox.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 24, 2013)

I said:


> It's the same with the figures for Oblivion, though.
> 
> And I personally find Skyrim on the Xbox crashes _easily _more than the PS3 version!
> 
> I did try to look up other games for comparison, but I'm not into the big shooter/hack games so am not sure what to compare.



Oblivion came out not long after the PS3 was released and the 360 was out for a year by then so that's probably why the figures are skewed.

Earlier games I expect the figures will be a different story but now that the PS360 are about even in terms of sold consoles, the differences are most likely going to be minimal on either side for most cases.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 24, 2013)

Nerds_feather said:


> Not sure I understand why it matters if one game does better on console A and another does better on console B. The reasons for this have nothing to do with quality--FF is a Japanese series, and has a long history on the PS platform (and was long a PS exclusive); Elder Scrolls is an American series with a longer history on the Xbox platform than PS. In the end, both made a lot of money by being sold cross-platform that wouldn't have been made if they had been console-specific.



It doesn't really, I was just saying to I, Brian that the sales of 30/60/10 for PS3/360/PC isn't entirely correct.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Feb 25, 2013)

Warren_Paul said:


> Earlier in the thread, the simple reason for comparing them was to determine how many copies of a game sold was considered a success. Skyrim was definitely a successful game, but it's sales were not all that different to Final Fantasy. Elder Scrolls came from PC though, not Xbox.



Sure, but it has been on the Xbox longer than it has been on the PS, and that's what we're talking about here. (The first Xbox Elder Scrolls title was Morrowind, and the first PS title was Oblivion--but only significantly after it came out on the Xbox 360 and, thus, when it was no longer "cutting edge.") 

That means the series has had a "running start" in building up an Xbox user base (compared with on the PS). FF is the opposite. So I just don't think it's surprising that Skyrim would sell better on the Xbox 360 or that the latest FF title would sell better on the PS4.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 26, 2013)

Microsoft are holding a similar event in April, but I think it goes for 3 days.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Feb 26, 2013)

Yep. Don't expect too many surprises, but do expect a lot of empty talk. The two systems will be mostly the same, with a few advantages going one way or the other, but in the end the games will likely play basically the same way.

The one thing that concerns me is the rumor about "always online" DRM to kill the used game market. I'm skeptical about this, as it makes little sense for one company to do it and the other to not--that would just drive people to the other console. That said, it wouldn't be the first time a large corporation made a stupid decision. 

However, I've got four alternative ideas of about this rumor:

1. It could be something floated by Sony as a way to create "negative buzz" for their chief competitor

2. It could be something floated by Microsoft to see what the reaction would be, to test the waters, so to speak

3. It could be partially true, in the sense that Microsoft will generally require activation codes for online multiplayer (as many publishers have started doing)

4. It could just be bad information, as many console rumors are just that

I'd guess #3 or #4 are the most likely. I guess we'll find out in April, but if the rumor is true, then that _would_ constitute a reason for me to switch to PS4--after all, I sell back around 60% of games I buy. But again, I have a feeling this will end up not being true. Or at least not entirely true.


----------



## Warren_Paul (Feb 26, 2013)

The thing is, before the Sony live event, the rumour was that both consoles were not going to be able to play used games. So I don't think it's #1.

Sony has a patent that lead people to believe the PS4 would also be blocking used games with one-time codes, but at an interview after the event, they claimed that the patent was for something other than the PS4. It could well have been that they changed their mind based on the public reception to the discovery of the patent, and that by saying it was something else makes them look better than saying, 'oh, no we aren't doing that anymore.'

I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up being true for Microsoft though, but at this point I think it's just people worrying needlessly. We will know for sure in April. I think. I'm going with a partially true. There will probably be codes for online activation, considering the game will be tied into your Xbox Live account.

But yeah, a 3 day long event...? That is going to be a lot of gasbagging and marketing with very little meat -- which was what most of the PS4 live event was like as well.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Feb 26, 2013)

My best guess would be that they either both do it or neither does. If only one does, it's a major disadvantage in a market where most end-users aren't hugely brand-loyal. Not quite suicide, but a major blunder that would almost certainly help the competition.

Again, wouldn't be the first bonehead move by a console manufacturer, but I'd wager the stakes are too high for that. So I think, even if Microsoft have been considering it, they'll take it out if Sony doesn't include it.


----------



## Cayal (Feb 27, 2013)

Nerds_feather said:


> My best guess would be that they either both do it or neither does. If only one does, it's a major disadvantage in a market where most end-users aren't hugely brand-loyal. Not quite suicide, but a major blunder that would almost certainly help the competition.
> 
> Again, wouldn't be the first bonehead move by a console manufacturer, but I'd wager the stakes are too high for that. So I think, even if Microsoft have been considering it, they'll take it out if Sony doesn't include it.



I think Sony will force Microsoft to make some changes, nothing major, but the used-game thing will be a defining point if one console removes the ability to use it.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Mar 2, 2013)

Hey Cayal (and everyone else who is interested in the PS4): our video game blogger, Brad, just did a post on the PS4 announcement (he is excited).


----------



## thaddeus6th (Mar 3, 2013)

Cheers for the link


----------



## Lenny (Jun 11, 2013)

Sony's E3 press conference starts imminently!

Rather than create a few posts and edit them as the event goes on (if it's more than an hour, then I'll lose the ability to edit, which will be a terrible thing!), as I did with the Xbone E3 event, I'm going to make notes and come back and make the posts.

Some thoughts before it begins: this poor thread was overrun with a lot of negativity towards the lack of backwards compatibility in the PS4, as well as general arguments about Sony losing (what is now) the previous generation. With Microsoft appearing to drop the ball on so many things with the Xbone (no BC, which isn't a surprise, really; the new Kinect must be plugged in; the console must go online every 24 hours; publishers may be able to charge people for secondhand games; a price tag of $499/€499/£429), how has this changed people's opinions towards the PS4?

As for games... this is not going to be a generation of big exclusives. Microsoft had only a couple (most of which will also appear on Windows, one would assume). Sony have their own army of first party studios, so we're going to see some exclusives, obviously, but unlike MS, Sony are allowing indie developers to self-publish games for the PS4. Personally, I think that is huge, particularly as indie games improve in quality and concept, and are starting to appeal to mass markets more and more.

If Sony can deliver at around the $399/€399/£329 mark, then we've got a real battle on our hands.

---

What I'm hoping to see and hear:

* The console! I'm not particularly fussed about looks (as long as it's not beige)
> Also, some more on specs. The Xbone has a non-removable hard drive - tell us the same isn't so for the PS4!

* A price! As above, the £329 point would be sweet. I'm happy to go up to £400, but any more and it turns sour (but hell, who am I kidding, I'll pay whatever to get it on launch day)

* A release date (November in the UK/Europe! Don't make us wait again)

* What Sony are going to do about DRM and secondhand games (no daily authentication, and no fees to play a secondhand game would be superb)


----------



## Lenny (Jun 11, 2013)

OK, I have to post the design:







It's... different. Not at all what I was expecting. I do like the glossy finish juxtaposed with the matte finish, though.

I wonder where the discs go.

Source: https://twitter.com/PlayStation/status/344267609140764672

EDIT: And more: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013/06/10/playstation-4-hardware-revealed-at-e3/

I think I was expecting more detail on it. I'm kind of getting the urge to dress up in a monkey suit and to bang the ground in front of it with bleaches bones.

EDIT2: Hard to see at this size, but the disc slot is like the PS3's, and is on the left, with two USB ports (possibly USB3) on the right:






http://www.flickr.com/photos/playstationblog/sets/72157634059061302/

EDIT3: OK, that's kind of cool - the dividing chrome between the glossy and matte on the front are the eject (bottom) and power (top) buttons. Not sure how easy they'll be to press (in the other photos, they look a bit recessed). Maybe they'll be touch/hover activated?


----------



## Lenny (Jun 11, 2013)

Awesome games? Check.
Console? Check.
Price? Check (and it feels like I've pulled a muscle in my shoulder from punching the air).
Release date? More or less.
Stance on DRM, etc? Check.

---

I have a lot of notes, and it's late, so I'll apologise in advance for the briefness of this. I'll do it in two posts - games, and system details.

Games first!

---

An exclusive new IP called *The Order: 1886* that looks graphically amazing, and appears to be inspired by things like Van Helsing. Could be fun.
http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/10/4417214/the-order-1886
http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2013...ls-the-order-1886-exclusive-for-playstation-4


Weird tech demo from Quantic Dream called "The Dark Sorceror". The less said the better.


Indie, indie, indie! I said it might be big, and it looks like Sony are really pushing it. Exclusive to the PS4, we're getting games such as *Transistor* (from the studio who  made *Bastion*) and *Octodad*, as well as a full HD remake of the original *Oddworld*! Along with *The Witness*, which was revealed at the event back in April, Sony have announced ten indie games for the platform.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2013/06/10/transistor-coming-to-ps4-from-the-creators-of-bastion/
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2013/06/11/sony-detail-indie-strategy-for-ps4/


I may have wet myself with happy juice when Square Enix showed off their videos: FF Versus XIII has been rebranded as *FF XV* (still exclusive), and an incredibly good looking trailer was shown for it, which included a good look at gameplay - fully explorable environments, vertically as well as on the ground, and even inside buildings, and a fighting style reminiscent of Kingdom Hearts. And talking about KH, *Kingdom Hearts III* was briefly teased!
http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/10/final-fantasy-xv-and-kingdom-hearts-3-coming-to-ps4/
http://www.ps3attitude.com/new/2013/06/e3-13-kingdom-hearts-iii-revealed-ps4/
http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/10/4416910/final-fantasy-15-versus-13-square-enix-sony-ps4
http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/10/4416822/kingdom-hearts-3-ps4
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2013/06/11/final-fantasy-versus-xiii-xiv-and-xv-heading-to-playstation/
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2013/06/11/kingdom-hearts-3-announced/


What I always find interesting at these sorts of events is which platform devs of multi-platform games give their demos on. For Ubisoft, the answer was the PS4, with live demos of *Assassin's Creed 4* (admittedly with some worrying freezing in the game. Nothing else did, thankfully) and *Watch_Dogs*. Both games are visually impressive. AC4 had a nice jungle environment, and seamless transitions from land, to ship, to boarding and fighting on another ship, whilst WD showed off the incredible hacking mechanics (they aren't lying when they say everything is hackable - the use of cameras in the demo was insane!).


*The Elder Scrolls Online* was announced, with an exclusive beta coming to the PS4.
http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/10/4417424/elder-scrolls-online-coming-to-ps4


And finally (well, there were other games, but the ones above are the biggies), we got the world's first look at Bungie's *Destiny*, and it did not disappoint! My best description is that it's a Mass Effect MMO on Earth.
http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/10/4416986/destiny-gameplay-premiered-at-sonys-pre-e3-press-conference


----------



## Lenny (Jun 11, 2013)

As for system content, let's see.

Sony Studios (or whatever they're called... the guys who produce shows such as _Community_ and _Breaking Bad_) are creating original programming for the PS4.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/10/4416934/sony-pictures-playstation-4-original-programming


PS Plus membership will carry onto the PS4, and members will continue to get free games each month. Something that was mentioned, but made nothing of, was that for "less than $5 a month", you can get a membership, which allows you to play your games online. I'm not sure if this means that you can't go online without being a PS Plus member or not. I'll post an update when I find out.
http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/10/4417462/playstation-plus-memberships-being-extended-to-ps4


More context was given to Gaikai, with a lot being made of "the PlayStation library in the cloud". Details are still thin, but we know it will be launching it 2014, initially in the US, and will provide full access to PS3 games, streamed to both the PS3 and PS4 (and the Vita, down the line). No pricing yet.
http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/10/4417530/gaikai-ps4-2014

---

And now the fun:

Sony are putting no restrictions at all on used games. They put up a slide that explicitly said (of games): "You can trade it in; Sell it to another person; Lend it to a friend; Keep it forever". They also made it clear that you don't need a connection to play PS4 games, or require online authentication, and that the PS4 won't stop working if you haven't checked in for 24 hours. This was met with rapturous applause, obviously.
http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/10/4417158/playstation-4-used-games
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/sony-playstation-4-wont-restrict-game-discs/

---

And the news we've all been waiting for: price.

Remember that the Xbone is launching for $499/€499/£429. Well, the PS4 is launching, this holiday season (in the US and Europe/UK), for:

*$399/€399/£349*

http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/10/4416916/playstation-4-price-release-date

---

As in the Xbone thread, here's a link to Polygon's timeline of stories:

http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/10/4417134/sony-playstation-4-e3-2013-news

---

I think I've covered everything I wanted to.

Sony really knocked this one out of the park. They declared that they want to continue to be an open platform gamers can trust, and it appears that they're going to back that up with actual action.

For me, it's a no-brainer - I'm much more interested in the games Sony has to offer, as well as their positioning of the console as a games console (rather than a media centre), and a much lower price than the Xbone.

---

How do people feel now that they've seen both consoles, heard what's to offer, and heard how the ecosystems will operate?


----------



## Glisterspeck (Jun 11, 2013)

Having to have PS+ for multiplayer stinks. Otherwise, looks like a pretty sweet console with a focus on serious gaming. Folks at the GameSpot (US chain of game stores) will be relieved that they didn't kill used games.


----------



## Lenny (Jun 11, 2013)

And confirmed: http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/10/44...player-playstation-plus-subscription-required

Disappointing, but cheaper than Microsoft (who have forced gamers to pay for online for eight years), and by $10. Not much cheaper, but at least the difference will add up over the years.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jun 11, 2013)

Been a Playstation gamer since Sega dropped the ball after the Mega Drive, and I'm generally pleased with how things have gone during the reveal.

One downside, for both consoles: why the hell do Britons have to pay over the odds? The Xbone costs over £100 more than it should, given exchange rates, and the PS4 is similar.

I do plan on getting a PS4, but not at release.


----------



## devilsgrin (Jun 11, 2013)

> One downside, for both consoles: why the hell do Britons have to pay over the odds? The Xbone costs over £100 more than it should, given exchange rates, and the PS4 is similar.



its a brand value thing. If they charge the equivalent exchange rate, it can devalue the item (in this case the ps4) and actually make it seem less appealing. I don't necessarily think its fair, but i know consumers, and its a spot on marketing strategy. Too expensive, no one can afford (but still desperately want, so have to save to buy). Too cheap and no-one wants it.


----------



## Lenny (Jun 11, 2013)

The madness has died down, and various news outlets have been able to confirm details, so here are some updates!

---

Firstly, the PS4 is region-free for games (like the PS3). Films and PSN content will be region-locked (again, like the PS3).
http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/11/4417948/ps4-region-free-report


Specs-wise, the PS4 has a 500gb HDD that the user can upgrade, two USB 3.0 ports on the front, and power, ethernet, HDMI, optical, and aux (for the camera) on the back (no composite means that the PS4 will only support HDTVs, much like the Xbone).

The $399/€399/£349 gets you, in the box: the console, a controller, a mono headset (that plugs into the controller), a power cable, a USB cable, and an HDMI cable.

If you want a second controller, they will be priced at $59/€59/£54, and if you want the camera it will cost you $59/€49/£44.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/11/sonys-playstation-4-eye-is-a-59-add-on-ps4-packs-a-500gb-hdd/
http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2013/06/11/playstation-4-hardware-in-detail/
http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/11/44...-hardware-specificaations-hard-drive-size-eye


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jun 11, 2013)

Hmm. Got an HD-Ready TV. Presumably that's ok? It takes an HDMI cable, so I'd guess so.

Also, the pictures make it appear quite small. Given the PS3 takes up quite a chunk of space (I've got the fat version) that would be very welcome.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 11, 2013)

thaddeus6th said:


> One downside, for both consoles: why the hell do Britons have to pay over the odds?



So far as I understand it, the UK price is VAT inclusive - however, the US prices are a base price which will be modified by state sales prices, which are often a similar rate (and make prices more comparable to the UK when factored in).

Also, the PS4 does look more attractive now by comparison to the Xbox One. However, I really don't see a need to abandon my PS3 and "upgrade" to something that is basically a small PC with a lot of RAM that won't play anything I've already bought under the Playstation banner (really, how hard is it to build in an emulator?). 

Will see how the games develop, as the PS3 did have some nice exclusives (Little Big Planet is amazing for kids) but I hope the Namco titles become a sales exclusive, even if Tekken has been going downhill for some time.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jun 11, 2013)

As usual, I won't buy a new console (the PS4 in this case) in the near future, but if there's a decent stock of games I probably will. Very glad Dragon Age 3 is coming for the PS3, as I'm looking forward to that, but not enough to justify buying a console.

I've heard about US sales tax before. Apparently lots of tourists are perplexed and sometimes annoyed to pick up something with a $30 price tag only to get charged more at the till.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Jun 11, 2013)

I'm still leaning towards the Xbox One but it's getting close. The cheaper price and lack of charges for selling used games are enticing me to the PS4. However, I've used my 360's media options more than I've used it for gaming and unless Sony can come up with comparable, then that's a big advantage for Microsoft.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Jun 11, 2013)

Wait...so yesterday Sony bashes Microsoft's used games policy, then today tells us _they have the exact same policy_. DOH.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Jun 11, 2013)

thaddeus6th said:


> I've heard about US sales tax before. Apparently lots of tourists are perplexed and sometimes annoyed to pick up something with a $30 price tag only to get charged more at the till.



Sales tax is set by the states and, to a limited degree, by cities. There's no universal sales tax like a European VAT. 

In Los Angeles, we pay just over 10% in sales tax. Delaware, by contrast, has no sales tax. Guide here.


----------



## Lenny (Jun 11, 2013)

Nerds_feather said:


> Wait...so yesterday Sony bashes Microsoft's used games policy, then today tells us _they have the exact same policy_. DOH.



Ah, The Verge. As much as I like the site, their yellow journalism really annoys me.

Polygon have written a far better article that is clearer in explaining Sony's stance. 



> "Similar to PS3, we will not dictate the online used game strategy (the ability to play used games online) of its publishing partners," a Sony representative told Polygon. "As announced last night, PS4 will not have any gating restrictions for used disc-based games. When a gamer buys a PS4 disc they have right to use that copy of the game, so they can trade-in the game at retail, sell it to another person, lend it to a friend, or keep it forever."



Much like with the PS3, Sony are not going to dictate the _online used game strategy_, which means that people like EA can still force customers to buy an Online Pass to play a secondhand game online. In terms of single-player, there are no charges, and Sony aren't implementing anything like Microsoft.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/11/44...ty-publishers-can-dictate-their-own-drm-terms

Tretton was being an idiot and not making it clear when talking to GameTrailers.

In complete contrast, Microsoft's policy requires daily check-ins, and restricts the lending of games (if a friend plays your disc on their console, they have to pay). I have a feeling they're also restricting which shops can resell games, and have the ability to remotely disable game data.

At the end of the day, Sony aren't changing a thing, and instead are continuing with the status quo, and following the same model as previous generations. Microsoft, on the other hand, are moving into brand new territory and getting it wrong.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Jun 11, 2013)

Hmm, unfortunately I'm dubious. The fact is that it's in all the producers' interests to go the DRM route. Publishers hate used game sales, after all, and you know both Sony and Microsoft would just love to control all the retail a la iTunes. This is made the more acute by the industry's recent contraction. 

If Sony is already "clarifying" their position to converge with Microsoft's, then more convergence is possible--and probably in the wrong direction. I'd hope Microsoft would be the one converging and away from DRM. But let's just say I'm pessimistic about it. 

If Sony does stay on the good end of things, that's a compelling argument in favor of the PS4. One console maker seems to act with hubris every generation, and I guess historically speaking it is Microsoft's turn for that. But we'll see. Again, I'm pessimistic about this aspect of things.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jun 11, 2013)

We'll have to wait and see to be certain, but I don't think Sony's position is the same as Microsoft's.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Jun 11, 2013)

thaddeus6th said:


> We'll have to wait and see to be certain, but I don't think Sony's position is the same as Microsoft's.



Yeah, apparently it's not--right now. But it's already 50% closer than it was 13 hours ago. #nottrendingintherightdirection


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jun 11, 2013)

Is it? From Lenny's post it sounds like being the same as the approach for the PS3.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Jun 11, 2013)

thaddeus6th said:


> Is it? From Lenny's post it sounds like being the same as the approach for the PS3.



It went from no restrictions on the use of used games to "letting the publishers decide." That's basically what Microsoft says they will do as well, though Sony is at present stating that it only pertains to multiplayer components. My hope is that if Sony sticks to this, at least, Microsoft will feel compelled to cave to this position. 

That said, I'm just very cynical about the whole thing. Long-term, the used game market is contra the interests of Sony, Microsoft and game publishers. Since the US games market contracted by nearly 20% last year, this is obviously of major significance. 

If publishers push Sony to cut closer to Microsoft on DRM, I think it's more likely that Sony will eventually comply. Why wouldn't they? The only reason is to grab market share. If--actually when--it turns out that this is an issue that resonates more with the cognoscenti (like us) than the masses, I expect them to start introducing or "facilitating" the inclusion of more DRM. 

I hate to say it, because I hate DRM, but I see the industry headed in that direction.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jun 11, 2013)

I don't know whether that'll happen in the short term, but I agree with you, sadly, that in the long-term that seems to be the way that the industry wants to move.

Digital possessions does raise some interesting issues around ownership. I like gaming (I still remember, just, cassette videogames with a 30 minute loading time), but DRM, always-online requirements and an always-on camera are really unpleasant features. Happily the PS4 looks ok from that perspective, but I do wonder how long that'll last.


----------



## Warren_Paul (Jun 12, 2013)

Nerds_feather said:


> Wait...so yesterday Sony bashes Microsoft's used games policy, then today tells us _they have the exact same policy_. DOH.


 

Like Lenny has already pointed out, what you read there is misleading. The media got it wrong by misunderstanding what Tretton was talking about and overreacted without thinking.

The used game policy in place for the PS4 is exactly the same as what the PS3 has had all this time.

When it comes to online play, there are security measures that developers have to take, especially with MMOs, but it is up to them to implement those systems, not Sony. In the end, nothing will be different to how it is on the PS3 -- and in case you are still worried, the "up to the developer" phrase was used back when the last generation was first released. "Up to the publishers/developers to decide" has been thrown around for many years now. It means nothing. 

What does mean something is games and xbox machines being tied to the player's Xbox Live Account. What does mean something is a friend having to be on your Xbox Live Account's friendslist for 30 days before you can trade a game to them, and you can't get it back. You're giving them the game permanently, not lending it to them. They cannot use your xbone game discs unless you do this. That is completely different to Sony's approach. What you should be worried about is that Microsoft are encouraging developers to lock out the used game market. Sony isn't.


This about sums it up -- and digs the knife a little deeper: Official Playstation 4 used games instructions.



Trust me, there is a reason IGN and Gamespot polls are voting in PS4's favour by 80%. I said earlier in this thread that Microsoft taking this direction would be suicide. Those polls show the truth of it. Gamespot twitter poll*


There is no question about it for me: I'm getting a PS4. E3 was a knockout win for Sony. 


*Although interesting to note the region of a large portion of votes in that poll so perhaps some legitimacy of it is a bit skewed. Although other polls have much the same results in favour of the PS4.


----------



## Cayal (Jun 14, 2013)

Should check out the Amazon poll. The numbers are laughable.


----------



## Lenny (Jun 17, 2013)

It's Cheese Central, but here's an advert from Sony showing off the PS4 UI:






Interesting things of note:

* You can drop out of a game entirely to use the PS4 OS (which includes talking to people, watching videos, and using the store)
* Multi-recipient messages
* What looks like full access from phones (using the PlayStation Suite/PlayStation Mobile/whatever it's called)

Slightly worrying:

* It looks like Facebook, Twitter, and G+ went on an all-night bender and vomited the UI


----------



## Lenny (Oct 30, 2013)

Just ordered mine!

Thought I would have missed out by waiting to order it until I had the cash, but today day one stock of the Killzone bundle (though sadly not the one with a second controller and the camera) popped up on a handful of sites.

If anyone really doesn't want to wait until after Christmas for a PS4, have a look at sites like ShopTo.net and Zavvi, who are both claiming to have stock available (I went with Zavvi, because they're a few quid cheaper).


----------



## Dr Zoidberg (Oct 31, 2013)

I've had mine ordered for a good while now and will get killzone the second controller. 
It's been quite interesting seeing the first proper comparisons of games on this and the XBone as well. Looks like MS might have cocked up a bit here.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Nov 2, 2013)

Dr Zoidberg said:


> I've had mine ordered for a good while now and will get killzone the second controller.
> It's been quite interesting seeing the first proper comparisons of games on this and the XBone as well. Looks like MS might have cocked up a bit here.



Do you have links to reputable sites that show this? 

All I've heard so far is that BF4 _has been confirmed_ to run at a higher res on the PS4 (900 vs. 720p). But this is based on accounts of beta, when games are being tested for bugs. Both systems can run 1080p, so I'm fairly sure that's what games like BF4, CoD: Ghost, etc. will run at when launch comes. I have trouble believing there will be significant differences in multi-platform games at launch.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Nov 2, 2013)

That said, I'm waiting until early 2014 to get a console. I was solid X1, then solid PS4 then back to "not sure." I want to see how things shake out, see tests of actual shipped games, find out how the online experiences compare, etc. before plunking down the money for a new console.


----------



## Dr Zoidberg (Nov 2, 2013)

Yep, there's plenty of sites confirming that the ps4 is doing much better. 

Call of duty ghosts is 720p on the XBone and 1080p on the ps4.
Battlefield 4 has a similar difference. 

Call of Duty: Ghosts 720p on Xbox One, 1080p on PS4 &bull; News &bull; Xbox One &bull; Eurogamer.net

The PS4 trumps the Xbox One for Call of Duty: Ghosts | Technology | theguardian.com


----------



## Nerds_feather (Nov 4, 2013)

First, on CoD: Ghosts, the output is 1080p in both cases--just native 1080p on the PS4. This is good for console fanboy points-scoring online, and bad PR for Microsoft with hardcore gamers, but in reality very few people will be able to tell the difference. Second, the fact that CoD: Ghosts is not native 1080p on the Xbox One is a function of developers being unfamiliar with the platform and having to work with a very different hardware setup in a short window (rumor is the eSRAM is making things difficult, a la Sony's Cell Processor at PS3 launch, and the resolution issue will be fixed with a patch). These are familiar launch title problems--the Xbox 360 wasn't even capable of 1080p at launch, though it eventually would be. 

Key quote from one of the CoD producers:



> First launch, first time at bat at a new console is a challenging one.  That's just the way it is. For people fearful one system is more  powerful than the other or vice versa, it's a long game.



I think trying to turn bits of information about launch titles into proof that one system is "inherently better" is a bit wrongheaded. We're going to have these consoles for at least 5 years, and probably more like 8, and developers are going to squeeze a lot out of them that isn't apparent now--just like they always do. 

My feeling is that the PS4 has a small-to-moderately higher ceiling for graphics, but that this will barely register on multiplatform games over the long-term--exactly how it's been this generation. 

For me, this isn't a reason to buy the PS4. Price and value, however, potentially are. Online network may be a reason to get an Xbox One. We'll see.


----------



## Dr Zoidberg (Nov 4, 2013)

There's a very noticable difference between 720p upscaled to 1080p and native 1080p, and I know it's a new hardware environment they are having to get used to but that applies equally to both consoles.

The simple fact is that the hardware specs on the PS4 are significantly better than the XB1 and that's not going to change.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Nov 4, 2013)

Dr Zoidberg said:


> There's a very noticable difference between 720p upscaled to 1080p and native 1080p, and I know it's a new hardware environment they are having to get used to but that applies equally to both consoles.
> 
> The simple fact is that the hardware specs on the PS4 are significantly  better than the XB1 and that's not going to change.



I've watched the videos--there are differences, but on BF4, at least, they are mitigated to a degree by better anti-aliasing on the Xbox One. And I'd also point out that you are not the typical console gamer, but rather part of a very small subset of console gamers who will both notice the differences and care. Very few people will notice the difference or even have a baseline for knowing one exists. 

As for difficulty developing for new launch titles applying "equally to both consoles"--that's just not true. If you paid attention to the gaming press for the 360/PS3 launches, and I assume you did, then you _know_ that systems are not equally difficult to develop for. PS3 anyone? Cell processor? 

As I mentioned earlier, the issue with the Xbox One at present appears to be eSRAM, and that developers are struggling to apply it. That being the eSRAM that evens out the discrepancy in memory between the consoles. 

Again, the PS4 architecture should convey a small-to-moderately higher ceiling for graphics over the long-term. But _both consoles_ are going to produce significant strides in output over the next 5 years, and I sincerely doubt that any of these will be major. As with this console generation, I suspect Sony's graphical advantages will be mostly apparent on exclusive titles.  

Now, I do see some reasons to pick the PS4 over the Xbox One--better price, no forced motion-sensor bundle, cheaper online service. And I think if you couple this with the small-to-moderately higher ceiling for graphics and arguably better slate of exclusives, it does appear to be a better value. I'm not completely sold on that yet, but at present I'm leaning that way.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Nov 11, 2013)

Just heard that the Xbox One will need a day one patch (which I already knew) but that without it the console is essentially a doorstop. Apparently it won't even play games.

So, if you don't have internet access then you can't get the patch, which you need to allow the console to be played if you don't have internet access.

Did Microsoft let Sony design this process for them?

However, the PS4, I think, also needs a day one patch. Hopefully that's not quite as awful and irrational. [I'll probably buy a PS4 eventually. Whilst I have internet access I think the way Microsoft was trying to behave was both stupid and unreasonable].

Edited extra bit: on the PS4, there will be a day one patch. The console *will* play games offline without it, however. The patch will be needed to do most other stuff (background download then a quick restart).


----------



## Nerds_feather (Nov 12, 2013)

You would think that it was possible to ship a product that works out of the box without tinkering.

That said, in all honesty, it's not really going to affect most users--except to be a mild pain-in-the-ass.


----------

