The Official PS4 Thread - Part 2

[Benstamania]

Not me.. And here's why..

They came out tried to screw their customers over. they got
their asses kicked in pre-orders and instead of saying "sorry we did wrong" they came out with "hey we listen to you guys and we're gonna make xbone amazing now"

It also makes people like phil harris and major nelson look like tools with their constant comments like "it's impossible! it can't be done! this console is for the future!" and then two days later they flip flop on everything. some one needs to sort out their PR department.

Sony' done nothing but good.. I'd be a fool to do a 180 myself and once again support MS.

 

[X Knight]

well, to each their own.

right now, since the playing field has become more or less equal now, it's going to come down primarily to the games and exclusives.

and also which console performs better and has less issues.

that's why I'm still going to wait at least a year before buying either console.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

At no point did Microsoft every try to 'screw their customers over'. That's just the silly, knee jerk reactionary thinking that should have stayed at E3. Did they have a major failure of communication? Yes. Did they blow at selling their message? Big time.

But I don't think they ever intended anything wrong. Nothing in their intentions was ever money grubbing... They were genuinely attempting at making a console that endured the future and it backfired, because people want a console that appeals to them NOW not 5 years from now and Microsoft didn't give them a strong reason to feel otherwise.

 

[X Knight]

oh, don't get me wrong, I do feel MS was getting greedy and tried to have their cake and eat it too.

they figured they could just put whatever they wanted it out there and their customers would just eat it up and buy their new console.

their PR was also a total disaster.

However, to their credit, it looks like they are listening to their customers. And that's the smart thing to do.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Someone explain to me where Microsoft was 'greedy'. I'd like to know where any of their policies involved them personally making MORE money at the expense of the consumer?

The only plausible case anyone could have made with this argument would have been the DRM blocking of used games, except Microsoft had confirmed that they wouldn't even impose that on Microsoft Games...

There's a difference between greed and incompetence. We saw a great deal of PR incompetence but I defy anyone who actually asserts greed or any other pejorative motive.

 

[X Knight]

well, maybe arrogant is the better word.

MS certainly did come into this acting like the "top dog." like they were going to put this new console out there, and you were going to like it. if not, tough luck.

MS was knocked off of their high horse fairly quickly.

and now the playing field is pretty much equal.

the one advantage Sony really has now is the $100 cheaper price.

 

[Tron Bonne]

How did their policies try to preserve the future? I don't understand this part.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I never said 'preserve the future'... Mainly because that makes no sense, you can't preserve the future.

But the DRM model that people raged about, which was basically steam, would have ensured over time that games were cheaper to buy and cheaper to make and work with for developers.

Also, the always online functionality would have allowed a much greater control for updating games. Devs would have been able to patch games and release those updates whenever they want, rather than on arbitrary 'release dates'. It would have fostered a more direct relationship between the developer and the gamers.

And the whole console infrastructure, like the cloud processing, allowed wiggle room for future software etc.

I've had many indie devs come on my radio show and express sincere disappointment about the Xbox 180, especially now that they've backtracked on their indie games policy. That combined with the original DRM model would have been nurturing the game developers towards a much better future.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I never said 'preserve the future'... Mainly because that makes no sense, you can't preserve the future.

Well, I didn't quote you, did I? My own paraphrase baby

But the DRM model that people raged about, which was basically steam, would have ensured over time that games were cheaper to buy and cheaper to make and work with for developers.

Steam games can be played offline at any point, though. Wasn't one of the DRM features of the One that it couldn't be used offline if not checked in at a certain time.

Also, the always online functionality would have allowed a much greater control for updating games. Devs would have been able to patch games and release those updates whenever they want, rather than on arbitrary 'release dates'. It would have fostered a more direct relationship between the developer and the gamers.

And the whole console infrastructure, like the cloud processing, allowed wiggle room for future software etc.

I've had many indie devs come on my radio show and express sincere disappointment about the Xbox 180, especially now that they've backtracked on their indie games policy. That combined with the original DRM model would have been nurturing the game developers towards a much better future.

You're going to have to walk me through this, because I'm not sure I understand this. What's preventing these developers from releasing patches when they need to? Just because there's a certain day of the week when the online services update? Is that restriction so huge? And being online all the time helps this connection how? I can see that for a MMO situation, but in other instances I'm hazing.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean in that last paragraph. MS' originally policy on indie development, I thought, was heavily criticized and their backtracking to something more along the lines of what Nintendo and Sony are doing with their own was very much lauded.

 

[Poetic Chaos]

The 24 hour check in was necessary because you could sell digital content. So basically they needed to check that you actually still owned the games you were playing.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Steam games can be played offline at any point, though. Wasn't one of the DRM features of the One that it couldn't be used offline if not checked in at a certain time.

That was one of the main points that was poorly articulated. It never stopped you from playing the game, you simply weren't going to benefit from the many updates or the games (like Sunset Overdrive) that seemed to base large parts of their gameplay around regular updates (rotated weapons, missions etc)

You're going to have to walk me through this, because I'm not sure I understand this. What's preventing these developers from releasing patches when they need to? Just because there's a certain day of the week when the online services update? Is that restriction so huge? And being online all the time helps this connection how? I can see that for a MMO situation, but in other instances I'm hazing.

Well because at the moment, especially with 360, developers are limited by the certain times of day or week that they can update games. Also, 360's policy has been that all devs get one free patch but every game update/patch there after, they have to pay for.

MS was criticised for their policy on indies games, but not for the DRM issue. The DRM was protecting the indie games and developers, ensuring more money from games was going directly to them. The only people who were negatively effected by that from a business stand point were the retailers. Over time, this would have led to the same model as steam.

Also, I don't use Steam much but I'm pretty sure they didn't offer the game sharing feature that XB1 was going to offer either.

Sony has always been praised for their policy on indie game developer autonomy but they were still limited by the consoles servers and online routine. Xbox One would have allowed huge amounts of freedom for Indie self publishing.

I think if they'd announced their change to the Indie dev policies BEFORE the original 180, they would have had a lot more dev support.

The 24 hour check in was necessary because you could sell digital content. So basically they needed to check that you actually still owned the games you were playing.

That's exactly right. Being able to resell games BACK to the devs would have been a fantastic feature.

 

[Tron Bonne]

That was one of the main points that was poorly articulated. It never stopped you from playing the game, you simply weren't going to benefit from the many updates or the games (like Sunset Overdrive) that seemed to base large parts of their gameplay around regular updates (rotated weapons, missions etc)

Ah, I see.

Well because at the moment, especially with 360, developers are limited by the certain times of day or week that they can update games. Also, 360's policy has been that all devs get one free patch but every game update/patch there after, they have to pay for.

MS was criticised for their policy on indies games, but not for the DRM issue. The DRM was protecting the indie games and developers, ensuring more money from games was going directly to them. The only people who were negatively effected by that from a business stand point were the retailers. Over time, this would have led to the same model as steam.

Also, I don't use Steam much but I'm pretty sure they didn't offer the game sharing feature that XB1 was going to offer either.

Sony has always been praised for their policy on indie game developer autonomy but they were still limited by the consoles servers and online routine. Xbox One would have allowed huge amounts of freedom for Indie self publishing.

I think if they'd announced their change to the Indie dev policies BEFORE the original 180, they would have had a lot more dev support.

I'm not sure I completely understand this, but I get the gist of it. I'll trust your word.

That's exactly right. Being able to resell games BACK to the devs would have been a fantastic feature.

You could resell games back to devs? I don't think I heard about this.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Yeah, you could resell and share games online. It basically just cut out the retailers.

This is my biggest problem with MS. There were some amazing implications of the always online and DRM and Kinect but they did NOTHING to explain why people should care.

If Don Mattrick had come on stage at E3 and said "Xbox One will be online, 24 7, so you can do THIS, THIS AND THIS" and actually outlined the benefits, they might had stood a chance.

All they did was tell people the requirements and ignore the benefits.

 

[StrainedEyes]

Digital Steam-like sales are still a possible future on both platforms. Microsoft reversing their DRM policies doesn't stop it. Developers, at least the indie ones, are responsible for the price and release, and can push updates for free.

Sony and MS would have to be pretty blind to not see the success that Steam sales have, and both have been supporting pretty good sales the last few months (both had pretty great summer sales).

Microsoft's DRM stuff was complicated and their explanaitions were confused, I'm sure they had their hearts in the right place but they really bungled the delivery to the public.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Digital Steam-like sales are still a possible future on both platforms. Microsoft reversing their DRM policies doesn't stop it. Developers, at least the indie ones, are responsible for the price and release, and can push updates for free.

Sony and MS would have to be pretty blind to not see the success that Steam sales have, and both have been supporting pretty good sales the last few months (both had pretty great summer sales).

Microsoft's DRM stuff was complicated and their explanaitions were confused, I'm sure they had their hearts in the right place but they really bungled the delivery to the public.

You're negating the many deals that MS and Sony have in place with the retailers. There's already a fragile relationship there.

The MS DRM stuff would have amounted to more than sales, it would have allowed the developers to directly determine their own pricing. Direct interaction between dev and consumer would have led to a much better model.

 

[Electro UK]

I think MS have done their best to level the playing field (at this rate it wouldn't even surprise me to see a pre-launch price drop), but Sony still have a few advantages over the Xbox One.

I think the PS4 is still going to be seen as the more open platform, largely thanks to Sony's PS3 and Vita efforts. Unreal Tournament III allowed for PC mods, Portal 2 had Steam and cross-plat play, etc. I think MS would like to present that image too but it's going to take a while for them to come out of their shell and make sacrifices on their control on that part.

Same goes for indie devs. Microsoft burned a lot of bridges in the run up to self-publishing and even now there are indies not happy with the new setup. Thanks to the Vita, Sony's on steady ground in this department.

And then there's the whole internal exclusives thing. Sony has more studios, simple as that. I'd bet that, similar to this gen, MS's exclusive plans will only be short-term before they go back to last on Halo, Gears and whatever new IP proves most successful this gen.

Granted in the perception of the general public, this will matter little in the face of exclusive CoD deals and FIFA DLC, but it's these reasons that have me staying with PS4.

 

[Havok83]

thanks for bringing this thread back to the PS4. Way too much MS talk in here. Here's a new article about Drive Club and how the developers are approaching it

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2013/aug/07/ps4-driveclub-future-game-visuals

 

[StrainedEyes]

I currently have Watch Dogs and Battlefield 4 pre-ordered, but I think I'm going to cancel BF4 and wait to download it digitally instead, since that's a game that would be good to always have on the HD at the ready (and will be supported well for a year with Premium).

Hopefully stuff like pre-order bonuses on digital games will be figured out quickly in this generation. I want BF4 digitally, but will miss out on the pre-order DLC being offered (though it is a map pack, and I will be buying Premium anyway, so it's not that big of a deal).

I'm definitely going to be buying more digital games this generation. PS+ has spoiled me with having a bunch of games on my HD.

 

[Havok83]

my thing with that is that I find myself playing games less if I have them digitally. With the physical disc, Im more proned to try and complete it order to try and get rid of it while the resale value is still high. With digital games, Im more likely to just let them sit in my HDD and get back to them at a later date as their value doesnt depreciate. Problem is my library increases in the meantime and I dont get back to them.

I cant wait to hear what they have planned with Gaikai bc I would be willing to get rid of some of my physical PS3 discs in favor of having them in a digital library. Especially older stuff I have like Burnout Paradise, Uncharted 1. I wouldnt mind using a streaming service for stuff like that since I dont play them all that often, but still would like access to them if I did want to

 

[Benstamania]

I can see myself going mostly digital this gen, I trade games far too much then I end up buying them back when they're like 20 bucks. This way.. I'll just keep my collection and stop wasting money.

 

[badgrammar]

At no point did Microsoft every try to 'screw their customers over'. That's just the silly, knee jerk reactionary thinking that should have stayed at E3. Did they have a major failure of communication? Yes. Did they blow at selling their message? Big time.

But I don't think they ever intended anything wrong. Nothing in their intentions was ever money grubbing... They were genuinely attempting at making a console that endured the future and it backfired, because people want a console that appeals to them NOW not 5 years from now and Microsoft didn't give them a strong reason to feel otherwise.

Well, if games are going to be all digital, then fine, You had to be an idiot to not see that coming, but being dependent to a internet connection to play a single player game that is already installed in your hard drive is not the future. What is the point of that? That is like having to have a constant internet connection to drive your car. You don't need that. It makes your car less reliable, and you probably wouldn't feel like you own your car, if your car required internet connection to be able for you to drive it.

I have no problem with Streaming systems like OnLive.

Microsoft should of went that direction if that was their intent in the first place. They could of gutted out the X-Box 1 and gave us a streaming system that plays next gen games for a price that is 75 percent cheaper than the PS4.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Or an Internet connection to update your iPhone or computer?



So, does anyone know if my BF premium account that I have on 360 would carry to PS4? Is it independent on console through origin?

 

[StrainedEyes]

Or an Internet connection to update your iPhone or computer?

So, does anyone know if my BF premium account that I have on 360 would carry to PS4? Is it independent on console through origin?

I'm pretty sure the premium accounts will be game specific, i.e. BF4 premium will be another $50 no matter where you buy it, it won't just roll out of your BF3 premium. You can already link your origin account to your PS3/360 accounts.

 

[badgrammar]

Or an Internet connection to update your iPhone or computer?

What???
Was that a reply to my post?



Your computer can work perfectly with no updates for a long time in a post apocalyptic world, as long as you have a power source to charge your battery, such as a portable solar panels .
Your X-box 1 can't. It will be a brick

 

[Benstamania]

PS4 to launch on October 21st?