PlayStation 4 Console Thread

[PaB]

If only they streamed old games and allowed you to pay £12 a month for privilege.

That's the way to do BC for any sensible company. Get some revenue to pay for the outlay, give the infrastructure for the PS4 game streaming a live test, because on its own, the ROI on BC is not there. It never has been

[Alex W.]

It's easy. It's not a selling point. It never ever has been. A "number of people" on here (that number being what, 5? 10? 50?) is not going to make massive dent in Sonys lead. They could have full BC and it won;t make a jot of difference. It would be a cool feature to have, sure, but people buy consoles to play the latest games, not the ones they can already play, and it has always, always been this way.

It doesn't matter whether people use it, it only matters that people choosing between getting a PS4 or an Xbox One look at the latter and say "hey, I can play my old games on it" and choose to buy that system. The two consoles are so similar that a differentiator like that, taking advantage of Microsoft's success this generation, counts for something.

[Clipper]

Oh yeah sensible for the company who are trying to make money, shitty for the average user.

So yeah I'm happier with the one that doesn't cost me money and benefits the end user as I don't have shares in MS or Sony.

I'd hope most end users would agree with that.

[Alex W.]

That's the way to do BC for any sensible company. Get some revenue to pay for the outlay, give the infrastructure for the PS4 game streaming a live test, because on its own, the ROI on BC is not there. It never has been

If backwards compatability is a tough sell as a built-in feature for a console it's going to die on its arse at £150 a year on top of the price of the console.

[PaB]

It doesn't matter whether people use it, it only matters that people choosing between getting a PS4 or an Xbox One look at the latter and say "hey, I can play my old games on it" and choose to buy that system. The two consoles are so similar that a differentiator like that, taking advantage of Microsoft's success this generation, counts for something.

People have already made the choice; 30 million PS4's sold, maybe double that of Bone. No BC.

Success breeds success. Do i buy a PS4 cos all my friends have to so I can play online with them?, Or do I want BC? No prizes for guessing what wins.

[Revival]

Surely it is a selling point as it's sending out a clear message that if you invest in games digitally then the company has plans in place to support your investment in the future allowing you to continually play your previous purchases without having to pay twice.

It's purely a move to give more confidence to the userbase. It's basically them saying if you invest in our infrastructure we will have a stable, reliable and consistent digital library in the future.

[PaB]

If backwards compatability is a tough sell as a built-in feature for a console it's going to die on its arse at £150 a year on top of the price of the console.

So what if it does die? Its a test bed for PS4 game streaming.

Oh yeah sensible for the company who are trying to make money, shitty for the average user.

So yeah I'm happier with the one that doesn't cost me money and benefits the end user as I don't have shares in MS or Sony.

I'd hope most end users would agree with that.

You have paid the cost. When PS4 launched it launched at a cheaper price with a better spec. If BC was built in, you would have got a lesser machine for more money, as BC is never free.

[Stanley]

It doesn't matter whether people use it, it only matters that people choosing between getting a PS4 or an Xbox One look at the latter and say "hey, I can play my old games on it" and choose to buy that system. The two consoles are so similar that a differentiator like that, taking advantage of Microsoft's success this generation, counts for something.

But even Microsoft have said in the past that very few users bother with it, so just how much of a difference, if any, will it make?

[Alex W.]

People have already made the choice; 30 million PS4's sold, maybe double that of Bone. No BC.

Success breeds success. Do i buy a PS4 cos all my friends have to so I can play online with them?, Or do I want BC? No prizes for guessing what wins.

So your argument is that although it's a selling point for the console, Microsoft might as well not bother because they're already losing?

[Kryptonian]

Pete - It is a selling point if it leads people to buy it, that's kinda the definition of it. It doesn't only count as a selling point if they overtake Sony.

Stanley - people aren't buying the Xbox One just to play 360 games. I didn't say that and I'm sure you don't think that as you're not daft. It is a plus point as they were going to buy a current gen console and it has the added feature of being able to play some of last gens games that they already own, with more to come. You clearly don't care about the feature so don't worry about it, other people do though and despite these reports that MS have produced saying no one cares about it either, some people are actually using it. Bizarre, I know.

[PaB]

Surely it is a selling point as it's sending out a clear message that if you invest in games digitally then the company has plans in place to support your investment in the future allowing you to continually play your previous purchases without having to pay twice.

It's purely a move to give more confidence to the userbase. It's basically them saying if you invest in our infrastructure we will have a stable, reliable and consistent digital library in the future.

No. Its not. PS4 sales say people don't give a fuck whether they can transfer digital purchases or not when it comes to games. That may change in the future, but is certainly true for Gen 7>Gen 8

[Stanley]

If backwards compatability is a tough sell as a built-in feature for a console it's going to die on its arse at £150 a year on top of the price of the console.

You don't need a console to use PS NOW, that's the difference. It's a not a selling point for the PS4 it's a service in its own right.

[PaB]

So your argument is that although it's a selling point for the console, Microsoft might as well not bother because they're already losing?

I'm saying its not a selling point. I don't care if MS have it or not, and I'm sure some people find it a nice feature, and it is a nice feature. But it won't sell any significant extra consoles.

[Kryptonian]

No. Its not. PS4 sales say people don't give a fuck whether they can transfer digital purchases or not when it comes to games. That may change in the future, but is certainly true for Gen 7>Gen 8

What about cross play? Why do they do that if people 'don't give a fuck'?

[PaB]

Pete - It is a selling point if it leads people to buy it, that's kinda the definition of it.

It won't. Not in any signifiant numbers.

[Clipper]

You have paid the cost. When PS4 launched it launched at a cheaper price with a better spec. If BC was built in, you would have got a lesser machine for more money, as BC is never free.

Ummmm I haven't paid a cost , up until the announcement no one knew they were getting BC for free on Xbox one.

Ps4 launched cheaper and more powerful for different reasons, in no way did Xbox one launch more expensive and less powerful due to BC! They went out of their way to tell us there was no BC , keep your Xbox 360

[Kryptonian]

I'm saying its not a selling point. I don't care if MS have it or not, and I'm sure some people find it a nice feature, and it is a nice feature. But it won't sell any significant extra consoles.

That's 2 different things again. It is a selling point, your personal measure of what you think is a significant number of sales is irrelevant. I think you're getting bogged down in that it needs to be a feature to exceed PS4 sales to be classed as a selling point or something?

[MW_Jimmy]

It's purely a move to give more confidence to the userbase. It's basically them saying if you invest in our infrastructure we will have a stable, reliable and consistent digital library in the future.

You have no idea if that will be the case or not though. The generation change has shown us that there are no guarantees with your digital library, and choices made by companies in the past have little bearing on the future. Assume nothing.

[Yoshimax]

Some people didn't own a 360. It has also had the neat side effect of making gold (already regularly 50% cheaper than PSN) a way better value proposition with 4 games a month all playable on the one system.

Are we ignoring the fact also that most people who buy one system ultimately end up with both? That's where the XB1 sales will come from and that's how PS3 managed to pull back last gen. If you're telling me the ps4 only owners who've maybe had one eye on an XB1 but didn't see enough to tempt them aren't now wondering about the fact they could end up with a sizeable free extension to their library through BC then that's pretty ignorant. It probably appeals to them more than anyone else.

[Alex W.]

Well, I think I've put forward a nice argument as to why it will sell consoles (or at least why it might, or why Microsoft might find that convincing enough to try), so short of saying "will" "won't" "will" "won't" for six hours I think the discussion's settled.

[Stanley]

Stanley - people aren't buying the Xbox One just to play 360 games. I didn't say that and I'm sure you don't think that as you're not daft. It is a plus point as they were going to buy a current gen console and it has the added feature of being able to play some of last gens games that they already own, with more to come. You clearly don't care about the feature so don't worry about it, other people do though and despite these reports that MS have produced saying no one cares about it either, some people are actually using it. Bizarre, I know.

My guess is that people are buying Xbox One's to play games like Halo 5, Forza 6 and Tomb Raider, with more to come. That's why it's selling.

[Kryptonian]

It won't. Not in any signifiant numbers.

Jeez, just so I know, for something to be listed as a 'selling point', what volume of sales needs to be achieved?

My guess is that people are buying Xbox One's to play games like Halo 5, Forza 6 and Tomb Raider, with more to come. That's why it's selling.

You either didn't read my post or failed to comprehend it.

[Alex W.]

You don't need a console to use PS NOW, that's the difference. It's a not a selling point for the PS4 it's a service in its own right.

How is that relevant in the context of whether backwards compatibility will help shift consoles?

[Revival]

No. Its not. PS4 sales say people don't give a fuck whether they can transfer digital purchases or not when it comes to games. That may change in the future, but is certainly true for Gen 7>Gen 8

That's just brain-dead/anti consumer backwards logic.

If you're using PS4 sales figures as the defining factor of what works and what doesn't then I guess it also means more people want worse customer service, Less online security, Less investment in first party output and online services all because sales.

Surely you'd want the console and infrastructure to be the best it can be not the most complacent?

[PaB]

Jeez, just so I know, for something to be listed as a 'selling point', what volume of sales needs to be achieved?

That's 2 different things again. It is a selling point, your personal measure of what you think is a significant number of sales is irrelevant. I think you're getting bogged down in that it needs to be a feature to exceed PS4 sales to be classed as a selling point or something?

Why do you think MS are offering BC? Because they love you? What do you think the aim of the decision to invest man hours in it is?

[Stanley]

How is that relevant in the context of whether backwards compatibility will help shift consoles?

Because you said it's £12 per month "on top of the price of the console" which is missing the point of PS NOW entirely. BTW I don't care about PS NOW and don't believe it will contribute to any significant amount of PS4 sales.

[PaB]

I guess it also means more people want worse customer service, Less online security, Less investment in first party output and online services all because sales.

I think you'll find that sales for the highest return, on the lowest outlay is the only thing that matter to MS and Sony....and pretty much every company that ever existed.

[Stanley]

You either didn't read my post or failed to comprehend it.

I read it, I understood it. I don't believe BC will contribute significantly to MS sales. MS themselves have already admitted this in the past. If BC was important to shift consoles it would have been there day one, offering full BC.

[Alex W.]

I read it, I understood it. I don't believe BC will contribute significantly to MS sales. MS themselves have already admitted this in the past. If BC was important to shift consoles it would have been there day one, offering full BC.

Yeah, and in the past Microsoft believed that we wanted an always-on console with disk DRM and mandatory Kinect, so I wouldn't say they're the most reliable authority on what sells Xboxes.

Because you said it's £12 per month "on top of the price of the console" which is missing the point of PS NOW entirely.

I'm not talking about the merits of PS Now in general, though.

[Stanley]

The merits of PS NOW isn't what I was discussing. I never brought it up. It isn't even backwards compatibility. It's a rental service available across numerous devices including smart phones, tvs etc.

I agree with what you say about DRM, and would transfer that over to BC. It's too little too late to make any kind of q,difference