Sony Announces the PlayStation 4

[Warren_Paul]

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]

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]

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?

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?

Secondly, the 360 is about 50% backwards compatible.

And the PS3 is 100% *not* compatible.

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.

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

Bit hard since Sony own Naughty Dog.

Sorry, meant Insomniac.

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.

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.

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).

Bottom line for me: given a minimum of 90% correlation in game libraries and what looks to be virtually identical internal hardware, and I'd guess very close online services as well, there's even less of a reason to be a partisan in the "console wars" than ever before.

Like I said, I'll probably get the Xbox 720 because my friends all play on XBL and that makes my life easier. But aside from that, I doubt there will be much of a reason to pick one over the other--there's going to be almost no meaningful difference between the consoles.

 

[Cayal]

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).

Bottom line for me: given a minimum of 90% correlation in game libraries and what looks to be virtually identical internal hardware, and I'd guess very close online services as well, there's even less of a reason to be a partisan in the "console wars" than ever before.

Like I said, I'll probably get the Xbox 720 because my friends all play on XBL and that makes my life easier. But aside from that, I doubt there will be much of a reason to pick one over the other--there's going to be almost no meaningful difference between the consoles.

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]

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]

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?

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

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]

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).