DLC.
Is the Playstation 4 About to be announced??
- Thread starter AlphaMan
- Start date
DLC.
^^^
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVCghLfdzsY[/yt]
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVCghLfdzsY[/yt]
The Playstation 4 is getting all the hype for this Feburary 20th announcement, but Sony isn't just in the console business. I'm far more curious about what Sony will announce for its portable system. The Vita is currently an abysmal failure barely above the Bandai WonderSwan (don't know what that is? Exactly), but it is backed by Sony. I love portable gaming, so I truly hope that Sony announces some strong third party support, a price drop, or a redesign. Hopefully all three.
The PS1 and the PS2 were the weakest consoles of their generations, that fact combined with great marketing, fun games and convincing the public that your technogically inferior but still adequate product is a must have made them the big winners. Nintendo did pretty much exactly the same thing with the Wii while Sony suddenly decided they needed a powerhouse to impress hardcore gamers.
They want the PS4 to be the winner of this generation? The solution is easy, make it 75% as powerful as the Wii U and add a gimmick that nobody truly needs but everybody wants. If it worked for the last three generations, why shouldn't it work again?
They want the PS4 to be the winner of this generation? The solution is easy, make it 75% as powerful as the Wii U and add a gimmick that nobody truly needs but everybody wants. If it worked for the last three generations, why shouldn't it work again?
I own 2 Vitas. It doesn't need a redesign, but a price drop and third party support would be great. Gearbox Software was willing to give up their code to another studio in order to bring Borderlands 2 to the Vita and Sony didn't take them up on the offer. I wish they would've.
The PS1 and PS2 were not that underpowered. I'd say the PS1 more than held its own agaisnt the Saturn and even the later N64. The PS2 was less powerful than the X-Box but again not leagues behind, certainly not Wii-level underpowered.
I'm really not a Sony fanboy but I just don't agree with these assessments from people. Though maybe I'm alone in that...
[QUOTE
The PS1 and PS2 were not that underpowered. I'd say the PS1 more than held its own agaisnt the Saturn and even the later N64. The PS2 was less powerful than the X-Box but again not leagues behind, certainly not Wii-level underpowered.
I'm really not a Sony fanboy but I just don't agree with these assessments from people. Though maybe I'm alone in that...[/QUOTE]
I love the Saturn more than anyone and I can admit that the PlayStation was capable(or at least actually produced on average) better 3D visuals. I think you can even make the case that PS1 games look better than N64 in a lot of ways(N64 has better FX like smooth texturing but really low poly counts, low frame rates and HORRIBLE low res textures) and the PS2 was an odd architecture with some bad design decisions but it was more powerful than the Dreamcast and held its own against the newer Xbox and Gamecube.
As for the new consoles Im open to the PS4 because of the LACK of rumors. Knowing absolutely nothing about it is better than the new Xboxes rumors of no used games, always on internet and stupid kinect, which Im pretty sure I cant even use in my living room because its too small.
However Sony really needs to get there crap together if they seriously want to compete. I've had a PS3 for 6 years and still haven't bothered buying a game for it and the PSP was probably the only game system I actually regretted buying.
The PS1 and PS2 were not that underpowered. I'd say the PS1 more than held its own agaisnt the Saturn and even the later N64. The PS2 was less powerful than the X-Box but again not leagues behind, certainly not Wii-level underpowered.
I'm really not a Sony fanboy but I just don't agree with these assessments from people. Though maybe I'm alone in that...[/QUOTE]
I love the Saturn more than anyone and I can admit that the PlayStation was capable(or at least actually produced on average) better 3D visuals. I think you can even make the case that PS1 games look better than N64 in a lot of ways(N64 has better FX like smooth texturing but really low poly counts, low frame rates and HORRIBLE low res textures) and the PS2 was an odd architecture with some bad design decisions but it was more powerful than the Dreamcast and held its own against the newer Xbox and Gamecube.
As for the new consoles Im open to the PS4 because of the LACK of rumors. Knowing absolutely nothing about it is better than the new Xboxes rumors of no used games, always on internet and stupid kinect, which Im pretty sure I cant even use in my living room because its too small.
However Sony really needs to get there crap together if they seriously want to compete. I've had a PS3 for 6 years and still haven't bothered buying a game for it and the PSP was probably the only game system I actually regretted buying.
Sony patented technology to block used games too. So it may well be both block used games. Would be a stupid move for both of them though.
Actually, I think it would be a pretty smart move for Sony and Microsoft to block used games.
There are no other gaming platforms that allow used games... and they all have flexible pricing. You see more and better sales on those platforms too. Secondly, if you're going to sell your console at a loss and your intent is to make up the difference by charging a royalty for games in your platform, then do you even want a customer who is going to buy primarily used games? They probably don't even make $1 off a customer like that. I'll bet they don't want those customers. But the thing is, where are you going to go if you want to game and want to buy/sell used games? If Microsoft and Sony shut that down (they'd have to do it together), where are you going to go to do that? There is nowhere else. For all of te bitching and moaning, I'd bet that most gamers would suck it up and deal with it over time.
There are no other gaming platforms that allow used games... and they all have flexible pricing. You see more and better sales on those platforms too. Secondly, if you're going to sell your console at a loss and your intent is to make up the difference by charging a royalty for games in your platform, then do you even want a customer who is going to buy primarily used games? They probably don't even make $1 off a customer like that. I'll bet they don't want those customers. But the thing is, where are you going to go if you want to game and want to buy/sell used games? If Microsoft and Sony shut that down (they'd have to do it together), where are you going to go to do that? There is nowhere else. For all of te bitching and moaning, I'd bet that most gamers would suck it up and deal with it over time.
Trouble is a lot of gamers get the money to pay for new games by trading in old ones. You take away the ability to trade in a game and those gamers will be less frequent customers. You also take away the opportunity for gamers to play rare old games that they've heard are fantastic but can no longer pick up new.
And it's dispute the fact they don't make money off gamers who buy or sell games second hand. There are a lot of ways in which they make money off them now, whether that's charging for the online pass or the DLC almost every game has now. Not to mention, as I pointed out, plenty of sales generated by the fact gamers can trade in the games they've finished in order to afford the new releases. And in the end what's better for publishers, being able to see a new release for £40 on day one or having customers wait 6 months and picking it up in a sale for half that?
And it's dispute the fact they don't make money off gamers who buy or sell games second hand. There are a lot of ways in which they make money off them now, whether that's charging for the online pass or the DLC almost every game has now. Not to mention, as I pointed out, plenty of sales generated by the fact gamers can trade in the games they've finished in order to afford the new releases. And in the end what's better for publishers, being able to see a new release for £40 on day one or having customers wait 6 months and picking it up in a sale for half that?
Maybe from a pure business side of things.. these aremeasures that usually would only come to mind by an economy major who's purely looking at the numbers and trying to improve them but forgets the bigger picture and the oddities of the branch they are working in.
Imagine a car manufactures who binds your new car to your ID card or something like that.. the whole car market would tank (not really comparable to video games i know).
And this is why Sony and maybe MS are even thinking about it however companies might miscalculate the gaming community (as Sony has proven with the release of the PS3).
If both of them block used games by whatever means then gamers would have no choice. If even one doesn't it might be the deciding factor in the next generation console wars given that technology wise both consoles are closer in capability and so it's once again down to taste and preference.
If (and it's a very likely if) Sony announces the PS4 on the 20th and rumors are true that they'll block used games MS has the chance to evaluate this move for a few months and decide what they will do.
People who buy second hand games are not going to start buying full price games simply because they can no longer play second hand games....all they are going to do is wait for then to go on sale or a GOTY edition........I have no idea were the gaming industry gets these crazy ideas from........next they will be going after steam for having game sales claiming its costing them all money. lol
But, as was stated upthread, Sony and MS already don't make money off of people who primarily buy used games. Knocking those out of the equation actually makes the consoles more profitable.
Although it's arguable whether driving Gamestop out of business is good for their profit margins.
I wasn't completely serious, I don't expect anyone at Sony to point at the Wii U and decree that the PS4 has to be less powerful. I just want them to remember that the PS1 and 2 were not successes because of their superior technology, it was a combinaton of great marketing, a great game library and various mistakes Nintendo made in their arrogance. The Wii's success is even more proof that you don't need to be the most powerful.
I knew the PS3 would be a failure compared to its predecessors when I heard the now legendary "599 US DOLLARS!", at that moment they became the Nintendo from a few years before, thinking they ruled and could do everything until they fell flat on their faces.
What's worse is that they apparently still plan to sell their consoles at a loss while at the same time blocking used games. Are they nuts? For most people there are two reasons to buy used games:
A) I can't get it new
B) I can't or don't want to pay the full price for this medocre looking game
If a game fits one of those categories I won't suddenly buy it new when it's not available new, I won't buy it at all. I'm also not interested in keeping games for eternity, I sell many of them after I finished them or lose interest, if I can't do that anymore I will become more picky and most likely buy less games in the future.
They've already had EA and others complaining that Steams sales devalue their products and hurt the industry as a whole depressing market prices.
But, as was stated upthread, Sony and MS already don't make money off of people who primarily buy used games. Knocking those out of the equation actually makes the consoles more profitable.
Although it's arguable whether driving Gamestop out of business is good for their profit margins.
But as I said, trading in games gives people the money to buy new games, which will hurt their profits because new sales will drop as well as used.
I thought they brought in one time online passes for second hand games, so they could make money from them...........now after all the complaining they want to throw that money out the window and make no money whatsoever from people who prefer second hand games. lol
You have to love the logic in that.
......i can only assume second hand players were not buying these one time codes then.Is Gamestop the same as Game over here......prices so high they have a surgeon working behind the counter ready to whip your kidney out when you want to buy something from them, even second hand. lolAlthough it's arguable whether driving Gamestop out of business is good for their profit margins.
I also think that knowing that the games can't be traded in will cause people to be more selective about which games they buy... why spend $60 on a game that you might not like and you can't trade in at all to recoup at least some of that cost.
This might lead to prices on new games dropping faster just so they can move software. So if you are the sort of person willing to wait a few months for a game you might benefit by waiting for the price to drop.
I don't trade in games personally, but I also usually wait for the price to drop or choose from used games. Right now the only game I think I would buy immediately at full price would be a new Mass Effect game.
This might lead to prices on new games dropping faster just so they can move software. So if you are the sort of person willing to wait a few months for a game you might benefit by waiting for the price to drop.
I don't trade in games personally, but I also usually wait for the price to drop or choose from used games. Right now the only game I think I would buy immediately at full price would be a new Mass Effect game.
^^Can you imagine buying Aliens CM for £40 and then being stuck with it because it wont run on another machine.
