Sony Announces the PlayStation 4

[Lenny]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

"We're still trying to decide that," he said.

Yoshida then went on to explain the thinking behind Sony's decision to have the controller at the event but not the console that uses it.

"The console is just a box," he said. "The controller was very important to show because it has the share button, but the console is just a console."

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.