The Official PS4 Thread - Part 1

[Doc Ock]

The PS4 now has 3 F2P games. Planetside 2, DC Universe Online and Warframe. I hope they add Marvel Heroes to the mix. What other F2P games would be a good fit on the PS4?

Marvel Heroes would be sweet, I'd like Team Fortress 2 if possible. I think TOR would be really sweet!

 

[Benstamania]

Oh man...I'd be extremely happy if TOR came to the PS4.

 

[zenith16]

Features



Sony E3 Predictions (Feature)

Victor and Scott go over their E3 Predictions for Sony. .

source:EPD.TV/ROTR

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Ok, Sony has answering of their own to do now, at least more substantive.

"Playstation 4 can still be enjoyed old school without an Internet connection at all " --senior VP of worldwide studios

http://www.officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk/2013/03/20/michael-denny/

"Do you want us to [block used games]?"

"That's the general expectation by consumers" "They purchase physical form, they want to use it everywhere, right? So that's my expectation."

"So, used games can play on PS4. How is that?"

--Sony Worldwide Studios boss

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...gamer-playstation-4-will-not-block-used-games

On possibility of PS4 blocking used games

Yoshida: When you purchase the disc-based games on PS4, it should work on any hardware. So that's what I'm saying.

On activation codes for secondhand PS4 titles

Yoshida: It's a publisher decision. We are not talking about it. Sorry.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/yoshida-talks-all-things-playstation-4-6404291

Now, with the competing Xbox One platform, they designed the console around giving the publishers internet DRM to restrict it to what they wanted. If the PS4 doesn't require internet ever, then it's hard to imagine Sony building all these similar hooks into PS4. Because in order to do all these checks and verification would require an internet connection. So we'll see. It either needs internet or it doesn't. There are other quotes out there of them saying it doesn't need internet but I'm too tired to search it all out right now.

Third parties technically could block their own pre-owned games on PS3 if they wanted but they'd be on their own to implement it and they could make their offline PS3 games require an online connection. Right now publishers have resorted to blocking the online portions of used games until the online pass fee is paid.

There are some edge cases where Capcom requires an internet connection in order to play their offline digital titles on PSN. Atlus is one of the companies that has region-locked a game on PS3 (Persona 4 Arena).

 

[Donut]

& this is info is probably why I will wait at least a year before deciding on buying a PS4. If a publisher actually decides to use this . I want to see how its handled with the fan base etc. It does not seem worth it to be an early adopter

 

[UnionJack]

I'm gonna try and get one at launch, second hand games don't really matter much to me, only ones I get are games I don't think are worth the full price tag in the first place.

As it is my PS3 turns itself on everyday at 10 to check for updates or do its thing.
I just hope the internet is better, the downloads on PS3 take far too long as it is.

 

[Destructus86]

I don't see most publishers using DRM just because it DOES draw in bad press.

 

[Doc Ock]

I don't see most publishers using DRM just because it DOES draw in bad press.

Doesn't stop from companies like EA and Ubisoft from doing it on their PC titles.

 

[Benstamania]

Eh and Unisoft are the only ones that really do it.

 

[Donut]

I don't see most publishers using DRM just because it DOES draw in bad press.

This is probably why EA stopped Online Passes. They will probably do something even crappier on the PS4

 

[hippie_hunter]

Eh and Unisoft are the only ones that really do it.

Exactly. The others that tried to fight the used games market (Warner Bros., Sony, Activision) quickly dropped their plans when they saw that it just didn't work. EA and Ubisoft on the other hand, just keep trying and trying and trying to find some way to fight the used games market.

 

[Havok83]

Exactly. The others that tried to fight the used games market (Warner Bros., Sony, Activision) quickly dropped their plans when they saw that it just didn't work. EA and Ubisoft on the other hand, just keep trying and trying and trying to find some way to fight the used games market.

Sony still uses online passes for their first party titles and chances are could very well implement something with the PS4.

 

[Solidus]

Oh they won't. Sony has seen the anger over this. They won't do that. Especially for their first party stuff and the president pretty much confirmed that.

 

[Benstamania]

Exactly. The others that tried to fight the used games market (Warner Bros., Sony, Activision) quickly dropped their plans when they saw that it just didn't work. EA and Ubisoft on the other hand, just keep trying and trying and trying to find some way to fight the used games market.

I just noticed my auto correct typo... Eh and Unisoft. Ha.

 

[Havok83]

Oh they won't. Sony has seen the anger over this. They won't do that. Especially for their first party stuff and the president pretty much confirmed that.

actually it hasn't been confirmed. This thing is most likely publisher based with both MS and Sony receiving pressure from them to do it. Sony's system wont be as invasive and inconvenient as MS, but I really think there is a strong chance they will utilize their own method to control used games. I think its a bit naïve to just assume there wont be anything.

 

[Thundercrack85]

So you guys think we'll see a PS3 price drop at E3?

I've read suggestions of 250 at E3, and then 200 when the PS4 goes out.

 

[Havok83]

So you guys think we'll see a PS3 price drop at E3?

I've read suggestions of 250 at E3, and then 200 when the PS4 goes out.

250 wouldn't really be a drop as it dropped to that price like 2-3 years ago. I guess if they unbundled the super slims, they could make them sell at that price again, but that's not exactly something impressive to boast at E3. I imagine there will only be one price drop this year but that it wont happen till maybe summer. I don't think they'd do at the launch of the PS4, as to not undercut sales of the new console at that same time. At E3, I think the Vita is more likely to get a price drop announcement.

 

[Iceman]

I wonder if there will be any combined PS4 Vita deals given how linked up they're going to be. I'd probably want that although it would probably end up too expensive in one go to be that popular.

 

[Benstamania]

I wonder if there will be any combined PS4 Vita deals given how linked up they're going to be. I'd probably want that although it would probably end up too expensive in one go to be that popular.

Maybe we could see that as a 2nd sku? If the predictions of 349.99-400 for the PS4 holds true.. I could easily see them having an ultimate bundle with the 4, Vita and a game or two for each at like 499.99-549.99.

It all goes back to pricing though and I really think Sony's gonna be very careful with that this time around... And I'm not sure if bundling a Vita with a 4 would allow for that.. Unless of course the system without the Vita does release at 349.

 

[UnionJack]

Exactly. The others that tried to fight the used games market (Warner Bros., Sony, Activision) quickly dropped their plans when they saw that it just didn't work. EA and Ubisoft on the other hand, just keep trying and trying and trying to find some way to fight the used games market.

It's not like it is really a bad thing, they make little to no money from the used game market.
Games are costing more and more to develop.
So it if sells poorly, yet lives on well in the used game market that doesn't mean it will get another game.

I wouldn't mind paying say £5 ontop of the used game price knowing it goes back to the developers.

If so many people only play games used that really isn't the developers fault, they can't just come out and sell all new games for £15-20 because people are cheap.
No one would get paid, or would get a crap wage.

 

[Benstamania]

I hate the argument that developers need to get paid...even a little...Again..When someone buys a game used. Bull****. Are we really going to get to a point where NOTHING we own is ours anymore? Everything we have is more or less loaned to us and if we decide to sell it again then the original makers of the product should get a cut?

I don't feel bad for developers every time I buy a used game (which, isn't much) because they originally got paid for the product anyway. I'm really tired of this boo-hoo sob story I'm getting fed by them.

 

[Thundercrack85]

By this logic we should feel bad for the guys in the lighting department when we give our old DVDs to someone else.

Do people realize how little it actually costs to make the individual units that we are buying for 60 dollars?

 

[UnionJack]

I hate the argument that developers need to get paid...even a little...Again..When someone buys a game used. Bull****. Are we really going to get to a point where NOTHING we own is ours anymore? Everything we have is more or less loaned to us and if we decide to sell it again then the original makers of the product should get a cut?

I don't feel bad for developers every time I buy a used game (which, isn't much) because they originally got paid for the product anyway. I'm really tired of this boo-hoo sob story I'm getting fed by them.

Why shouldn't they get paid, the retailer is making money from the second hand marked but the people who make the product aren't. How is that fair. Its' not like the people making the games are on awesome money to begin with.

Cheap people are getting to play all the games they want and not helping the development of further games, then moan when new games don't come out.

I'm tired of people thinking games should be super cheap and still be high quality. You need the money for development, a big team to help create games. If a game is praised and doesn't sell enough it won't get a sequel ... yet might live on and get a following later, that counts for nothing.

 

[Fading]

Why shouldn't they get paid, the retailer is making money from the second hand marked but the people who make the product aren't. How is that fair. Its' not like the people making the games are on awesome money to begin with.

Cheap people are getting to play all the games they want and not helping the development of further games, then moan when new games don't come out.

I'm tired of people thinking games should be super cheap and still be high quality. You need the money for development, a big team to help create games. If a game is praised and doesn't sell enough it won't get a sequel ... yet might live on and get a following later, that counts for nothing.

It's completely fair, and legal. I buy Skyrim for $60, that copy is mine to do with whatever I want. At this point, the developer is owed nothing more, period. They made their sale, they got their money for their product. I then take Skyrim to Gamestop, they buy it from me. That particular copy now belongs to Gamestop, they can legally sell it to whoever they want. Again, the developer is still owed nothing.

It's like saying, "It's not fair that Ford doesn't get anymore money when you sell your truck on Craigslist." Or, "It's not fair 20th Century Fox doesn't get anymore money when you sell your Aliens DVD in a yardsale". I get what you're saying, you want the game developers to do well so they can keep making games. However there's nothing unfair about it. They sold their product, and are due no more money on that particular unit. No other entertainment product enforces what you're trying to defend, not movies, TV, books, or anything else.

The fact is, this is law, and it's common sense. When you buy a product, that particular unit of the product is yours. Now if you were to rip the data from your game, and distribute it to others over the net, then you're in the legal, and moral wrong. Obviously your rights to the product only count for that 1 unit. Unless, of course, you agree to a user end agreement to waive these rights.

 

[SpideyVille]

Its funny because I've only heard people say to support the developers when it comes to buying a game or getting it illegally somehow. Like the whole problem with used game sales is not that people are selling their game, its that they're selling their games to places that sell the game to someone else, therefore the person who is buying used is not supporting the developer. But I don't see anything wrong with selling a game.

Its really the buying of used games that is the problem since the middle man is the only one who stands to benefit, especially if they buy low and sell high. The only thing that a person who sells their game is doing is adding to the used game market.