Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Joyrex-J9

PS4 and next Xbox at this year's E3

2034 posts in this topic

It seems like games companies want it all their own way. They spend ridiculous amounts on development, want it to stay at full price as long as possible, don't want you buying second hand but make no promises about being able to purchase it years down the line, if online features will still be active or if it's even backwards compatible.

Yet they want to compete with DVD, music and books as a medium and for our money. It's bad enough region locking is still a thing, you can't buy a multiregion player like you can with DVDs and you can't backorder a game. They just want to continually sell us the same thing over and over again, most of the time with barely any work done to improve it. Gamers may be more loyal to their hobby but they're also the most rabid when it comes to feeling like they're being shafted.

Me personally, I just wouldn't buy a console that was 'time limited'. I still hook up the Saturn/N64/PS2 and play old versions of games or simply games that aren't playable on current consoles. It's not a PC so you can't download a patch to play something offline. If they genuinely want to offer us a 'service' then you should be able to access it in every form - so if I buy a disc version, I should be entitled to the digital version and it should always work on the service. Since they can't guarantee that, they shouldn't try and force the issue.

What I want to know is what games sales were like in the 8 bit and 16 bit eras. Obviously the effort needed to make a game would be less by today's standards but relatively speaking...
5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Dudley' timestamp='1333014110' post='8525271']
I can't imagine requiring all sellers of used games from charity shops up to have secure connection terminals to Sony is going to get terribly far.
[/quote]

There's going to be a multitude of details which could well unravel the potential in any such idea, and I'm certainly not claiming to have given the whole concept a great deal of thought, but if Sony release this console in 2014, then I imagine the pay off from turning the second hand market into an active revenue stream, is going to be worth the expense of losing the support of retailers who are on the fringe of the industry, and end users who simply have no means of connecting their system online. I imagine gamers who can't activate their games via the PS4 itself, will have other - less convenient - options open to them.

By it's nature, any such scheme is going to cause some upset to both retailers and end users, but the goal of making money from second hand sales is surely so lucrative for them, that they would likely be prepared to lose some support along the way.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='wretcherd' timestamp='1333014381' post='8525282']
Your PS3 plays PS3 games though.
[/quote]
Yes, the point was just that I won't be upgrading that particular console if its successor doesn't play the same games. I already have a PS3 and a PC. I'd possibly phase the PS3 out over time, and then just stick to PC games, which can be played through the TV anyway, and support all PC games ever released.

But, as mentioned, I don't think they'll actually drop BC.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Alex W.' timestamp='1333014530' post='8525287']Non-transferable games is a whole new paradigm. It works on the iPhone and XBL because [i]everything else[/i] about the purchasing experience is also completely new. It's not going to fly as a tweak to the disk-based experience, any more than non-rippable CDs did.[/quote]

But it already has done on PC with stuff like Steamworks on retail games?

I bet we'll get a bunch of people go "if this is true I'm getting a PC" as if that would make any amount of sense in response.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Dudley' timestamp='1333014110' post='8525271']


Yep, and last I saw half of 360s had NEVER been online.

[/quote]

Higher than you might think. Of course I expect these numbers have dropped as the 360 has gone further mass market.

http://www.destructoid.com/higher-percent-of-net-connected-ps3s-than-other-consoles-170797.phtml
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='RubberJohnny' timestamp='1333014796' post='8525303']

But it already has done on PC with stuff like Steamworks on retail games?
[/quote]

I think people with a good enough net connection only buy them when they're cheaper than Steam. It's not so much a change of the market for physical media as a discount code that happens to be redeemed by buying a disc.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='RubberJohnny' timestamp='1333014796' post='8525303']


But it already has done on PC with stuff like Steamworks on retail games?
[/quote]

You're hardly talking about a representative slice of the console owning audience though.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Alex W.' timestamp='1333014671' post='8525291'] Thing is, it doesn't have to be as cheap as possible, not for the first year anyway. Early adopters will buy anything. Would be surprised if v1.0 didn't have hardware back compatibility and then later revisions ditched it for a dongle or nothing at all. [/quote]

I'd be all for that, but I think one of the big challenges the console manufacturers are facing this time around, is that die shrinks are going to be much more difficult this time around, due to how small they currently are. Die shrinks are one of the key areas where costs are saved in revised models, so unless chip stacking or some other type of fabrication process offers a chance of significantly reducing manufacturing costs further down the line, I think we'll see the consoles launch cheaper than we're used to, but stay at that price for longer.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Alex W.' timestamp='1333015017' post='8525314']You're hardly talking about a representative slice of the console owning audience though.[/quote]

I don't think Steam brought in massive turmoil to the PC market right away. It got early adopted by the tech-savvy, as new consoles will, and slowly grew, until this stuff became the norm.

I mean, the fact at the start of this gen people were freaking out over a £2 cosmetic item, and now we're at the point of a million pre-order bonuses, £70 special editions, day 1 DLC cut from the game, and multiple post-release DLCs with microtransactions on top that push the average cost of a game up to ~£65 shows how easy it is to change what's expected.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='bcass' timestamp='1333014721' post='8525295'] Quite the opposite actually. Cell is designed to be highly scalable, potentially easing the pain of console generational improvements. The problem only arrises if they do drop Cell, which I have trouble believing. [/quote]

Totally, but I'm commenting in the context of them jumping to a x86 CPU. Current rumors aside, I still think a beefed up Cell chip would make sense for a lot of reasons, not least would be backwards compatibility, and all the libraries they've already built up around the architecture.

My gut tells me that if they are indeed going all in with AMD, then it's because of financial incentives from AMD, and the promise of being able to link the two chips up in a more efficient manner than if they were dealing with multiple vendors.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='RubberJohnny' timestamp='1333015207' post='8525322']


I don't think Steam brought in massive turmoil to the PC market right away. It got early adopted by the tech-savvy, as new consoles will, and slowly grew, until this stuff became the norm.

I mean, the fact at the start of this gen people were freaking out over a £2 cosmetic item, and now we're at the point of a million pre-order bonuses, £70 special editions, day 1 DLC cut from the game, and multiple post-release DLCs with microtransactions on top that push the average cost of a game up to ~£65 shows how easy it is to change what's expected.
[/quote]

I could certainly see them [i]trying[/i] something like this, inasmuch as publishers would be willing to give it a go, but the end-to-end store-integrated catch-all system described for the PS4 is a total fantasy.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing about Steam is that it existed alongside the old paradigm, competed with it, had to differentiate itself and they did that with easily supporting multiple computers, with good sales, with good communication. Over time people realised this might work and slowly started to transfer to it etc. All without ever changing their hardware.

With consoles it'll be all or nothing. That's so much more of a risk and that's even if Sony are willing to have sales where you can get 2 year old games for a fiver to download like you can on Steam. I think we all think that the chances of Sony selling say, Uncharted 2 for a fiver this easter online are somewhat remote.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Downloadable software was supposed to reinvigorate long-tail sales. Instead it killed it.

(On consoles)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Dudley' timestamp='1333016136' post='8525358']The thing about Steam is that it existed alongside the old paradigm, competed with it, had to differentiate itself and they did that with easily supporting multiple computers, with good sales, with good communication.

With consoles it'll be all or nothing.[/quote]

It won't though, the competition will be the Wii U and existing consoles.

People have this bizarre myopic idea that suddenly everyone who has a console will instantly switch over the moment it's announced (which they believe because they themselves plan to do this). They won't, it took years for the current crop (excluding the meteoric success of the Wii) to build up a decent userbase. Sales were fucking slow! PS3s were in stock everywhere, they couldn't shift them for 9 months until they cut the price, etc!

I don't see it being any different next time around.

[quote name='Alex W.' timestamp='1333016368' post='8525370']Downloadable software was supposed to reinvigorate long-tail sales. Instead it killed it.

(On consoles)[/quote]

Long tale sales were killed by the social networking effect of the online services, and exacerbated by the increasingly disposable nature of most blockbuster games. "Oh everyone on my friends list is playing this, I'll get that". Listen to some gaming podcasts from like 2007 and you can hear people puzzling over this new phenomenon of people playing a game online for like a month and switching to the next one. It's got nothing to do with stuff like XBLA or PSN. And Steam has been good for longer term sales.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it difficult to believe they wouldn't stay with the Cell+Nvidia combo. Going from 1 Cell + 1 Nvidia GPU to a solution of a couple of Cell's combined with Nvidia's most recent cards - slimmed down.... BC would be easier to achieve, and the investment in Cell could be written off over an even longer period.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='RubberJohnny' timestamp='1333016432' post='8525375']
It won't though, the competition will be the Wii U and existing consoles.

People have this bizarre myopic idea that suddenly everyone who has a console will instantly switch over the moment it's announced (which they believe because they themselves plan to do this). They won't, it took years for the current crop (excluding the meteoric success of the Wii) to build up a decent userbase. Sales were fucking slow! PS3s were in stock everywhere, they couldn't shift them for 9 months until they cut the price, etc!

I don't see it being any different next time around.
[/quote]

Yes but when you make the switch, you make the switch.

Whereas on PC you can combine both models all you like.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just lock games to the PSN account, and put a time-limit on the number of machine migrations you can do. Can't have the same account on multiple machines, when you move it to another machine then you have to wait a month before you can move it to another machine. That's not intrusive to 95% of users, and should limit piracy nicely.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Stingo' timestamp='1333016601' post='8525386']
I find it difficult to believe they wouldn't stay with the Cell+Nvidia combo. Going from 1 Cell + 1 Nvidia GPU to a solution of a couple of Cell's combined with Nvidia's most recent cards - slimmed down.... BC would be easier to achieve, and the investment in Cell could be written off over an even longer period.
[/quote]

Cell is dead, man.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Dudley' timestamp='1333017523' post='8525418']Yes but when you make the switch, you make the switch.

Whereas on PC you can combine both models all you like.[/quote]

Not really, if a game is Steamworks or includes other online activation DRM at retail, there's no version which doesn't allow you to play without online registration. You opt in based on what's available.

I mean, what new PC games are retail and don't include online activation DRM at this point? Valve, Blizzard, Ubisoft, EA, Activision out, small indie stuff out, all the F2P online stuff out, MMOs out - I can't think of anything.

Similarly, not everyone is going to sell their old consoles the second they get a new one (especially if they're not backwards compatible), and it's not like the old consoles will see their new releases dry up the instant a new one launches - look at this gen, the majority of the software lineup for the first year was up-ports. I think you're projecting your actions (buy new instantly, sell old instantly) onto the majority of the population, which prior experience makes not seem likely, but then giving them different attitudes, and then using that as a description of why it will fail.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could see MS doing something like the suggest always-online DRM activation. Their business model and roadmap for the 360 and successor is founded in it being an entertainment hub. Not the old idea of a device that can plan CDs, DVDs and games, but a PC-lite that has all the 3rd party online services like Netflix, Facebook etc. While there must be a significant subset of 360s that have never been brought online, a big part of MS revenue stream comes from Live subscriptions. It wouldn't surprise me if the numbers where there to dump the offline customers to focus on the online, service using ones. As such, the anti-used game suggestions would play into this, as they would know all their customers are online and would be able to buy online passes or need to activate games.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='mansizerooster' timestamp='1333020032' post='8525516']
Just lock games to the PSN account, and put a time-limit on the number of machine migrations you can do. Can't have the same account on multiple machines, when you move it to another machine then you have to wait a month before you can move it to another machine. That's not intrusive to 95% of users, and should limit piracy nicely.
[/quote]

It's intrusive to someone like me who uses more than one 360 all the time.

It's also death the second EA/Sony/Whomever decide they've made enough money and switch that off.

[quote name='RubberJohnny' timestamp='1333022328' post='8525586']
Not really, if a game is Steamworks or includes other online activation DRM at retail, there's no version which doesn't allow you to play without online registration. You opt in based on what's available.

I mean, what new PC games are retail and don't include online activation DRM at this point? Valve, Blizzard, Ubisoft, EA, Activision out, small indie stuff out, all the F2P online stuff out, MMOs out - I can't think of anything.

Similarly, not everyone is going to sell their old consoles the second they get a new one (especially if they're not backwards compatible), and it's not like the old consoles will see their new releases dry up the instant a new one launches - look at this gen, the majority of the software lineup for the first year was up-ports. I think you're projecting your actions (buy new instantly, sell old instantly) onto the majority of the population, which prior experience makes not seem likely, but then giving them different attitudes, and then using that as a description of why it will fail.
[/quote]

You're not quite getting me. My point was on PC they made that translation gradually on the same hardware. On PS4 as soon as they buy a PS4 they're all in.

Really though I think the key is that I have 0 confidence in Sony to provide the service and sales that Steam do.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Alex W.' timestamp='1333020166' post='8525521']
Cell is dead, man.
[/quote]
Has the Cell processor ever been used inside any products apart from the PS3?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah. Remember it's a co-designed chip with IBM and Toshiba, who have both put it in their products.

Sony recently sold off their stake in the Cell consortium and offloaded their Cell fabrication plant.

Cell is dead, man.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's be honest, Cell was designed the way it was to prevent code written for the PS3 (which Sony expected to dominate) to not work very well on anything else, thus locking quality versions of games to their platforms and further enshrining their success, as Gabe Newell noted.

In the end it was 1) ridiculously expensive, 2) barely more powerful than off the shelf components. The weird Cell championing is some "PS3 will win because X", fanboy bullshit from 2007 that's incredibly dated and obsolete nowadays.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really. Cell was well ahead of the curve at the time, and the PS3 was only hamstrung by the below par RSX. The times the PS3 outshines the 360 are due to graphical grunt work being offloaded to the Cell. It was always designed to be able to take on GPU tasks.

The only reason the 360 punched above its weight is that Xenon CPU was based on the same IBM designed PPEs that went into the Cell. It effectively used the billion dollar R&D from Sony to design the Microsoft CPU. The two CPU designs were being worked on in tandem, in the same building, with the Cell team kept unaware of the Xenon team's work. There's a good book by the lead designers at IBM that covers this. Suffice it to say, Sony were not happy when they found out, but legally, IBM had done nothing wrong.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.