I'm actually curious if they'll step up, or babystep it like I felt Sony did. Sony's presentation felt reserved, like they wanted to make it official, but didn't want to give up to much until MS released their specs. I wonder if MS will do the same, to put the ball back in Sony's court.
yeah, that will keep me out if it turns out to be true. I saw it suggested that he was talking in general, and not in relation to the XBox. I'm already turned off from my XBox, because of all the things they tied to 'Gold'. If it remains that way, I'm out. Then again, if Sony does it too, then it may put them back on the same playing field for me
We'll have to see what they bring to the table. That is for sure. But the main spoke person comments really made me skeptical to how they think of the consumer. Granted he is now no longer part of xbox. So we'll see i guess.
But always online will make me walk away from any other news from Xbox.
Always on isn't an issue for me at all. I look at the games. Since I bought my PS3 in 2006, I've purchased 4 games for it. FOUR. It's mainly been a blu-ray player. On the other hand, I have over 20 games on my xbox, even after pawning off a fair share of others. Xbox brings the games and a ridiculously solid network system and feature set. Sony's Playstation network is unforgivably slow and lacks features. But it's free. Big whoop. I'd rather pay for something that works than get something for free which does not.
I've rarely had an issue with PSN, for over a year now. Prior to that, I rarely used it for online gaming, so I can't speak to how it was then. I did hear bad things about it in the earlier years, but I suspect your opinions are still stuck to that period. The only times I've had issues with PSN now, is when they say they are going to do maintenance, and they say it will only be a couple hours, but it ends up being many hours, if not days. It's a rarity, and I'd rather that, than to pay MS so I can play a demo.
To each their own though. I honestly don't get why people feel the need to defend a system, and start fanboy wars (no suggesting you were btw, speaking in general here). My systems use to be like you. I used the xbox for gaming, and PS3 for movies and exclusive titles. Then MS start tying EVERYTHING to gold, including demos, and it really turned me off. I haven't turned on my xbox in probably a year.
I guess here is where people will mistake me for a fanboy. But i will take PS+ any day over Xbox Live. I pay 40 dlls on PS+ to get discounts, free games that cycle, free content for games, game trials, a lot of more free games. Actual discounts over the already discounted games for my ps3 AND my vita. I play more with my ps than actual xbox. Xbox live brings you what? a stable connection? this is not the issue with the psn network any more. anything else?
I think the price of my ps+ is justified, cuz i get more out of it than xbox live.
now... when i say always online meaning that for example i am moving this weekend. After i move i want to relax, hook up my media center and maybe play a game... can't if its always online. Want to take my xbox to say a friends house at the lake... can't cuz i have no internet.
Dealbreaker to me... they just never learn this whole thing. The attitude of if you don't have internet, then don't play it is BS.
I agree. I've had our internet go down, and suddenly my kids felt lost. Then they jumped onto their xbox (and me to my PS3). Neither system would have functioned, if they required always on. Also, apparently everyone has forgotten about the PSN outage, when they got hacked. All that time, where your system would have been a brick.
I don't get/never got the argument that people make when they complain about paying for XBL, I mean, even if you're paying full price, it's what? 5 bucks a month? That's full price, and everyone I know picks up the year cards when they're on sale for between 35-45 bucks, so now you're at 3-3.5 bucks a month? So that argument never made sense to me.
That being said, I've been an xbox and wii/3ds owner for a while, and I don't feel like I've missed much on the PS side, if I had to guess I'd say I'll probably get the new xbox over the PS4, but the always online rumors scare me a bit. I, like the rest of us, will just have to wait and see though. Either way I'm looking forward to the release of both systems.
Not until May 21st. For the time being we have no solid details about the NextBox, just rumors. As it stands, the technical details Sony has released for the PS4 are standing alone, with no real reference for comparison. (aside from the WiiU, but come on)
For now its just going to be a fairly peaceful waiting game. We can wheel out the big fanboy flame-war guns, but the ammo isn't here yet. Nothing to do but polish those firearms while we wait for the ordnance to arrive.
also wondering about this one:
"Sony's game studios chief, Shuhei Yoshida, told reporters that any requirement for users to register a game online in order to play it would be left to game publishers. Sony won't require that."
so does that mean a simple, register your game to play system or will they allow publishers to make their games always online - thus shifting the burdon of always online onto publishers.
It means that any on-line requirements will be placed on the publisher/developer. Publishers/developers will be able to make always on-line a requirement if they so choose, but it will not be a de-facto system-level requirement of the PS4 itself. Any such requirements will be game-specific. (and dependent on the publisher's servers, not PSN)
This approach is actually par for the course as far as the Playstation is concerned. It's very much in keeping with how Sony has implemented their on-line systems in the past.
On-line integration is going to be a big factor for the PS4/NextBox. The 360's success and fanbase is wholly dependent on XBox Live. It's what hooks players in and keeps them coming back.
I guess here is where people will mistake me for a fanboy. But i will take PS+ any day over Xbox Live. I pay 40 dlls on PS+ to get discounts, free games that cycle, free content for games, game trials, a lot of more free games. Actual discounts over the already discounted games for my ps3 AND my vita. I play more with my ps than actual xbox. Xbox live brings you what? a stable connection? this is not the issue with the psn network any more. anything else?
I think the price of my ps+ is justified, cuz i get more out of it than xbox live.
now... when i say always online meaning that for example i am moving this weekend. After i move i want to relax, hook up my media center and maybe play a game... can't if its always online. Want to take my xbox to say a friends house at the lake... can't cuz i have no internet.
Dealbreaker to me... they just never learn this whole thing. The attitude of if you don't have internet, then don't play it is BS.
You have to pay for online multiplayer on 360 thats right. That may suck at the first glance, but on the other hand did Microsoft put a lot more stable Servers, they have better online functions and the marketplace in general is a lot better. There are more sales in general, there are more games, there are Indie Games which the PS3 dosnt have at all, and the Store just does have a lot better navigation where you actually want to spend time in, unlike the clunky, blobbed store PSN offers, where its a mess finding something you search and just dosnt look appealing at all.
Always online is a stupid thing, I can live with it, but its really unpleasant. Lets see what Microsoft puts out, PS4 seems pretty nice so far, only their Interface is dissapointing, it looks like a uglier version
of Win8 which is ugly already.
You have to pay for online multiplayer on 360 thats right. That may suck at the first glance, but on the other hand did Microsoft put a lot more stable Servers, they have better online functions and the marketplace in general is a lot better. There are more sales in general, there are more games, there are Indie Games which the PS3 dosnt have at all, and the Store just does have a lot better navigation where you actually want to spend time in, unlike the clunky, blobbed store PSN offers, where its a mess finding something you search and just dosnt look appealing at all.
While I woudl agree that this was true at the beginning of the previous console cycle, I have to strongly disaggree about the current state of XBox Live and PSN. A lot has changed on both services since their introduction.
While PSN has made significant forward progress, XBox Live has degraded significantly. The indie offerings on XBox Live started strong, but have trickled off in recent years. The current trend in indie development is very firmly against Microsoft, and the 360. Sony and Nintendo both are doing a much better job of courting indie developers. Not only has PSN managed to poach a lot of XBox Live's former exclusives, but they also have a much stronger first-party stable of developers.
The same is also true of the XBox Live store, and its user interface. PSN's store has been graphically revised several times, and is now much more appealing and much easier to use. XBox Live has become a cluttered mess, and is bloated with intrusive advertisements.
Have you seen the PSN store since it's redesign? I still think they both are uninviting to navigate, but Sony redid their store, and it is better than before.
J0NNYquid: That's fine for you. Here's my take on xblive. When I first bought my xbox, gold was only necessary to play games online. I understood that when I bought it. Then things changed. They started making me wait for demos, basically to the point where the game would be out, and I would forget about the demo. Twitter gets integrated (*yawn*), but again, gold is necessary. Then they started adding support for things like XFinity, and Netflix. GREAT! Let me try it.... nope, you need Gold?! Why? MS isn't maintaining those services? These should be features that draw you to the xbox.
Then, you look at families (like mine). My kids both want their own accounts, as many people would. That's another Gold subscription for each kid. So, in my house, that's 3 Gold memberships, because you can't share within a home, or even on the same console. Given MS DID start offering their family pack, at $99 a year, but come on. That's still $12 a month. When you're raising a family, budgets are tighter, and $12/mo can go for a lot.
Again, it's fine with me if you're happy paying MS for Gold. I'm just hoping to enlighten you on why OTHER people may not be happy with it. I'll take my free option, which honestly, has been perfectly fine.
One of the things that was revealed about the PS4's specs is that its going to have dedicated hardware for audio processing, which is going to help significantly with voice chat. One of the best things Sony could do to compete with XBox Live is to include a headset with the PS4. (I believe the controller is already going to have a headset port)
The same is also true of the XBox Live store, and its user interface. PSN's store has been graphically revised several times, and is now much more appealing and much easier to use. XBox Live has become a cluttered mess, and is bloated with intrusive advertisements.
^^ This (cross post) ^^
I absolutely hate what MS did with the interface, with the tiles. I don't mind the tiles, but I hate the flow of it. The whole thing reminds me of how they handled Win8. The interface is fine... for kinect/touch, but it sucks when controlled by a device. Not to mention, you get shoved in your face constantly. If gold does anything, it should get that shit out of your UI.
Always on isn't an issue for me at all. I look at the games. Since I bought my PS3 in 2006, I've purchased 4 games for it. FOUR. It's mainly been a blu-ray player. On the other hand, I have over 20 games on my xbox, even after pawning off a fair share of others. Xbox brings the games and a ridiculously solid network system and feature set. Sony's Playstation network is unforgivably slow and lacks features. But it's free. Big whoop. I'd rather pay for something that works than get something for free which does not.
Coming from a Microsoft employee
Just giving you a hard time. I like my xbox better too.
Again, it's fine with me if you're happy paying MS for Gold. I'm just hoping to enlighten you on why OTHER people may not be happy with it. I'll take my free option, which honestly, has been perfectly fine.
I completely understand, our hours got cut at work and I took a pretty substantial paycut while still having to support my fiancee and myself, so any added expense hurts, I'm just saying overall, the argument of free vs. 5 bucks, in a families case, 12 bucks a month never held much weight for me, and especially when people get so heated over this small point, or any argument in the "console wars" for that matter.
The real problem with the continued premium pricing on XBox Live is that everyone else is catching up. When XBox Live first caught on, it was offering services that no one else could. These days, things have changed. Now everyone is offering very comparable services, and aren't charging for them. XBox Live's original advantages are beginning to seem like a waste of cash.
This situation is made worse by Microsoft's approach to advertising on the XBox. Slathering the XBox interface with ads not only degrades the user experience, but also invalidates the premium nature of XBox Live. The current version of XBox Live has you paying for functionality that their competitors distribute for free, all while lining Microsoft's pockets with ad revenue. Microsoft can get away with that sort of thing while they have an edge in development support. But going forward they will have to prove that they can provide more.
Has Sony addressed this rumor yet? I know it's old but afaik no mention of PSN pricing structure or changes have been mentioned.
"The source also shared some new photographs of the new controller, which should look familiar, and said that "most" of the console's online features will require a paid subscription. Reportedly, PlayStation Plus is being phased out or transitioned into something called "PlayStation World." One has to wonder if online multiplayer will finally be put behind a paywall."
and about my previous post, I'm throwing this theory out, lets see how right or wrong I am when they launch: next gen consoles won't officially require always online DRM but they will kindly allow publishers to enact their own always online DRM systems.
I dont get the dislike about the tiles in the Xbox interface (and advertising ?).
I think the Xbox team did an genius job at the interface they have.
They are so far above Win8 in usability and flow, and even graphically.
(which is sad actually)
Its has very good UX design. It is clean, has clear structure, everything is
at a place where you find it instantly with as few sub menus as possible.
Feedback is fine and navigation is really fast.
The really great thing about it, is that it feels like a living place.
The Web is really embedded. As a gamer, you stay informed what is happening.
You know when a new game or content is out.
It presents you the gaming culture in a nice way, and gamers usually really want
to be up to date with the games.
In contrairy, the PSN marketplace is an app you only open when you want to check
for things or something in particular. It goes completely aside you, its not in your usual experience. PS3 Ui is as vivid as the windows explorer.
Alone the colors. Xbox is light with lots of open space, while PS3 is dark and feels enclosed.
Ive read people complain about advertising on Xbox marketplace, which I think
is completely ridiculous. Showing off new games to gamers is absolutely what is wanted and should happen. Real ads are very tiny and almost non existant and presented in a way where they actually fit in the ui.
Its like complaining that Steam shows off new Games - nonsense.
As a designer, I think Xbox 360 Dashboard is about as good as it gets in regards of graphic design and user experience, and is the main argument for using the Xbox over the PS3 for me.
Also Im pretty sure the new xbox will not be able to provide a better Ui, I have a feeling it will be a setback. PS4 Ui looks dissapointing aswell so far. I was really hyped, seeing something nice from Sony, but it looks the same bland as before, just with probably better functionality and huge inspiration from microsofts Win8/360 Ui.
More money gamers spend is better for the publisher, then again, if they are buying used games it doesnt help anyone.
At least you don't look like a greedy douche if you give your customers some freedoms regarding the product they buy. Same goes for DRM. I wonder if the lack of confidence all this is creating isn't hurting publishers much more in the long run.
All this negative press about paranoid restriction features already made me quite disinterested as a consumer. As developer, yeah, sure it sounds cool though. But if the thing turns out to fit all the bad press it got then meh.
I hope Microsoft won't disappoint. Xbox is my go to console and I've been an early adopter for both consoles original and 360, I just hope the rumours aren't true and that they have as much focus on games as they are having with the entertainment side.
The next Xbox could be a game winner if they do things right especially with subscription pricing and features, they need to do more to make Gold more appealing than PS+
If Microsoft really wants to hit it out of the park, they will introduce the new, fully revamped XNA on May 21st. Obviously they would brand it something other than "XNA." What's important is that they present the development community with a fresh, open suite of development tools for their next hardware platform. A re-tooled set of developer policies and guidelines would also be a good idea. (so as to avoid $40k patch fees)
With the 360, Microsoft made some good hardware decisions that paid off for them, especially for the time. One of these was the added hardware to the 360 that allowed for free full-screen anti-aliasing. While shopping for both systems, I can confirm that the majority of 360 games will support full 1080p, while the same games on the PS3 usually only go as high as 720p. This has been a competitive advantage Microsoft has held throughout the previous console cycle, all due to a forward-thinking hardware decision.
But Microsoft isn't going to have it nearly as cushy this time around. Sony's early announcements strongly indicate that they know what they're doing with the PS4's hardware. Microsoft is going to have a lot to prove come the end of May.
I wouldn't say I'm a fanboy, but I do have a big preference for the Playstation 3.
The way I look at it is this.
PS3-> Ideal for SP experiences. Last of Us, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, Team ICO games, MGS, etc.
360 -> Great for MP experiences. Halo, Gears, COD is much bigger on LIVE, etc.
And I prefer SP so...
Having said that I would love for this to be a great machine with some interesting tech. Not too crazy about kinect or the always on malarky but I want to play Halo 4 so I hope I can get it on the nextbox. Buying a 360 now just for Halo 4 seems like flushing $150 I could spend on a nextbox instead.
At least you don't look like a greedy douche if you give your customers some freedoms regarding the product they buy. Same goes for DRM. I wonder if the lack of confidence all this is creating isn't hurting publishers much more in the long run.
All this negative press about paranoid restriction features already made me quite disinterested as a consumer. As developer, yeah, sure it sounds cool though. But if the thing turns out to fit all the bad press it got then meh.
I agree, but at the same time, if those freedoms create a secondary market that prevents and or discourages retailers from restocking new games then there is a problem.
As much I hate to say it, games are still software and there is sound logic in software being licensed not owned by consumers.
When publishers react to cannabalizing industries forming (used games) around retailers quick to abuse the system, the consumer gets hurt. The publisher isnt the only one at fault though, consumers are also the cause of grief other consumers. They did two things, show a willingness to greatly support the used game market and to buy expensive DLC which was an anti-used game element used to recoup losses.
Then they see the success of Steam, which links games to an account with an online connection. So then they think, why not do that too, why not take it further.
For PC gamers, this isnt much a problem as they are used to it. We havent been able to trade, sell or buy used PC games at any retail store. Console gamers on the other hand are used to it, feel entitled to it, thus will react more strongly to online account checks and account based usage.
I would rather see an exodus from consoles to PC related gaming as it not only would spark that pro consumer competition but also encourage PC games not requiring constant connections. Since they cant be resold in any retail space, everyone wins. Publisher, developer and consumer.
Thats just my opinion though. At the end of the day I think everyone is greedy, consumer and publisher, though the developer tends to lose out most of all.
fair enough. There's definitely an issue here. but it seems finding a middle ground isn't easy. As consumer myself, I prefer consumer friendly solutions however.
What annoys me though is that this "used game battle" seems to be a big corp (publisher) vs big corp (game retail chain) fight where everyone else gets the shaft. So yes, it's not just the publishers who are to blame but the other side too.
In the 90's you could just sell games to your mom and pop thrift store, and later in the early 2000's put them up on ebay, no problem with that. The big retail stores who invented the business of used games came much later. I got a good amount of nice collectors editions this way and some rare old games too (like the stuff where games still came in a proper box and manuals printed on real paper). But enough of that. Now I feel old and there's no way to turn back time Still, not good to cripple hardware because of all the re-sale and DRM paranoia (yeah I call it paranoia because I feel some companies long left the realm of reasonable)
The used games market and pirates are being used as a scapegoat for the direction they want to move in. The reality is that you can't force people online without trying to justify it, and you can't throw micro-transactions, adverts and season passes at people who aren't online.
Now I feel old and there's no way to turn back time Still, not good to cripple hardware because of all the re-sale and DRM paranoia (yeah I call it paranoia because I feel some companies long left the realm of reasonable)
Hey dont feel that old. I was young but still remember a time when friends were passing around Monkey Island to play, and the DRM back then was often finding a code in the game manual to play the game. You never knew which code word it would ask for.
I also profited greatly as a teen when I saw the snes version of Breath of Fire 2 being sold used at a Blockbuster. The game was rare and usually sold for over $100. As a teen, seeing blockbuster selling it for $5 and reselling it just as fast for over $100 was one of those things I remember fondly.
While looking back, it feels more nostalgic than bad...todays standards are a bit different. Larger and wider market, established retail chains built around used games, and a general consumer culture that treats the games a bit differently.
As for the paranoia. I think its legit, and here is why. The success of a game, the number of new sales and total revenue is often the life or death of a studio and or the deciding factor on whether a developer will keep their jobs or not. Because your career is on the line, every sale counts, and if the game is bought 100 times but the publisher only got paid for 25 of those sales (because only 1/4th of them were bought new), then the developer takes the blunt of it. Part of this I think has to do with how developers are often forced to rely on the big publishers, and third party studios are only given enough to make it from project to project, just barely. If there was far more revenue independence, perhaps we would see less paranoia.
The used games market and pirates are being used as a scapegoat for the direction they want to move in. The reality is that you can't force people online without trying to justify it, and you can't throw micro-transactions, adverts and season passes at people who aren't online.
Pirates used as scapegoat...yes. Used Game market, no thats a legitimate complaint.
The pirate is not a consumer, and most are located in regions where the game is not available for purchase or cost way too much (New Zealand).
Used game markets exist in regions where games are actually being sold, this means not only are the products available but also that people are willing to spend money on them. SO the issue is that people are spending money on used games, giving money as a consumer would but to a third party, the developer or publisher will not get anything for that sale. Furthermore the retailers then fill their shelves up with used titles instead of ordering new copies. If they dont order new copies then theres a huge problem. In 2012 new retail game sales dropped 22%. While not all of it can be put at the foot of the used game market, losses were still incurred.
This also encourages two things to happen. It encourages publishers to fund games that have less shelf life (which means less story driven single player games and more multiplayer games), and to leave content out or locked unless DLC is purchased. This means the DLC has to be planned along side the design doc when in pre-production. They then rely on the first two months of a games release to see profit and then assume very little will come after that because shelves fill up with used titles. This doesnt effect the industry in a good way.
So I would hardly call it a scape goat. Now if a game is no longer being made new, then its reasonable to see used titles going around.
The pirate is not a consumer, and most are located in regions where the game is not available for purchase or cost way too much (New Zealand).
You probably would be surprised to see how many people from USA and Canada (from this forum) has finished Bioshock infinite and they didn't pay a shit. The game requires steam... and if you see their steam account, omg lol.
Well, let's not make this thread another thread about piracy.
back to topic, anyone with kinect has used ipi mocap studio 2?
if the game is bought 100 times but the publisher only got paid for 25 of those sales (because only 1/4th of them were bought new).
I've gone through all this before. This doesn't happen, it is a myth - furthermore if it does happen, it's a failure of the product. Games make the majority of their sales in the first two weeks of being on the shelf, then they start being removed to make way for newer titles. For your hypothetical situation to occur, that game needs to be have been resold once every three days - that basically amounts to someone finishing up with the game every 24-48 hours.
Retailers then fill their shelves up with used titles instead of ordering new copies.
In order for this to happen, the game must first have had to have been sold new. Used games don't just magically appear out of thin air. Most games that have been traded in are traded in against the purchase of other new games, and the profit from used games is used to subsidise the purchase of additional stock; particularly risky stock. If you want your retailer to carry more than Call of Duty, it needs to have the financials to offset the risk. It's not a two dimensional situation where a used a game is equal to a new game not being sold.
In 2012 new retail game sales dropped 22%. While not all of it can be put at the foot of the used game market, losses were still incurred.
Retail game sales did drop 22%, but you've gleefully neglected to mention that digital sales grew 33%. In this country 45% of all video game retailers closed their stores. Your supposition clearly doesn't hold true. Either used game sales are not lucrative at all (in which case why do retailers bother?), or another force is at work. That other force is likely a) the transition to a digital market, b) the lack of higher profile new releases and franchise fatigue, and finally c) the current shitty world economy.
To further my point the US used games market managed $1.59 billion in 2012 - this has shrunk by 17% since 2011. The entire US games market itself managed $14 billion, meaning used games represent considerably less than an eight of it.
Ambershee pretty much covered it perfectly there. I had the assumption that 1 used sale = 1 lost new sale. The game manufacturers only use the stats that support their false claims. They're always the victims. Personally, I think the only victims are the consumers who are constantly screwed. They are wising up, and finding better ways to reduce getting screwed by the manufacturers, and the response is to find new ways to screw the consumer.
If either of the new systems were to deliver via download only, I would avoid that system like the plague. If the system was like steam, I MAY consider it (though I prefer having hard copies), but the reality is, they will still continue the same consumer screw job they've always done. Still charging the same as the retail packaged game, and charging full price, even 2 years later, with decent sales/discounts.
I wouldn't call 1 function per screen a good UI. Literally every tile but 1 on each screen is an ad.
If you go to a online newspaper, you wouldnt say that all they show are
ads. Everything on their site are their articles, its what they do. They
keep the people informed about their business, thats why people go there
in the first place.
Same here.
Dashboard shows the news feed to their customers. If you buy a newspaper,
you are expected to have interest in articles. If you buy a xbox, you are expected to be interested in games.
You need to think a little further than your own experience.
As a person interested in games, the dashboard is exactly what and how I want. There are nearly no real ads at all. If you are not in that target group, don't expect to be satisfied with their actions to satisfy that group.
I haven't heard that many people praising the XBL metro dashboard, it was sort of a breaking point with most people and it killed indie game sales on the 360. I've enjoyed my 360 but the horrible Metro update made me switch over to the slightly less horrible menu system of my PS3 when it comes to using it as a media center.
I hope MS realizes that Metro is a trainwreck of MS BOB-like proportions and get some sensible UI designers.
This is sad news to me because it means that this years E3 is going to be crap again. I miss the old times of the biggest announcements (console reveals) were the whole point of tuning in.
Replies
i'm not ready for that kind of fanboyism
But always online will make me walk away from any other news from Xbox.
To each their own though. I honestly don't get why people feel the need to defend a system, and start fanboy wars (no suggesting you were btw, speaking in general here). My systems use to be like you. I used the xbox for gaming, and PS3 for movies and exclusive titles. Then MS start tying EVERYTHING to gold, including demos, and it really turned me off. I haven't turned on my xbox in probably a year.
I think the price of my ps+ is justified, cuz i get more out of it than xbox live.
now... when i say always online meaning that for example i am moving this weekend. After i move i want to relax, hook up my media center and maybe play a game... can't if its always online. Want to take my xbox to say a friends house at the lake... can't cuz i have no internet.
Dealbreaker to me... they just never learn this whole thing. The attitude of if you don't have internet, then don't play it is BS.
That being said, I've been an xbox and wii/3ds owner for a while, and I don't feel like I've missed much on the PS side, if I had to guess I'd say I'll probably get the new xbox over the PS4, but the always online rumors scare me a bit. I, like the rest of us, will just have to wait and see though. Either way I'm looking forward to the release of both systems.
Not until May 21st. For the time being we have no solid details about the NextBox, just rumors. As it stands, the technical details Sony has released for the PS4 are standing alone, with no real reference for comparison. (aside from the WiiU, but come on)
For now its just going to be a fairly peaceful waiting game. We can wheel out the big fanboy flame-war guns, but the ammo isn't here yet. Nothing to do but polish those firearms while we wait for the ordnance to arrive.
"Sony's game studios chief, Shuhei Yoshida, told reporters that any requirement for users to register a game online in order to play it would be left to game publishers. Sony won't require that."
so does that mean a simple, register your game to play system or will they allow publishers to make their games always online - thus shifting the burdon of always online onto publishers.
This approach is actually par for the course as far as the Playstation is concerned. It's very much in keeping with how Sony has implemented their on-line systems in the past.
On-line integration is going to be a big factor for the PS4/NextBox. The 360's success and fanbase is wholly dependent on XBox Live. It's what hooks players in and keeps them coming back.
You have to pay for online multiplayer on 360 thats right. That may suck at the first glance, but on the other hand did Microsoft put a lot more stable Servers, they have better online functions and the marketplace in general is a lot better. There are more sales in general, there are more games, there are Indie Games which the PS3 dosnt have at all, and the Store just does have a lot better navigation where you actually want to spend time in, unlike the clunky, blobbed store PSN offers, where its a mess finding something you search and just dosnt look appealing at all.
Always online is a stupid thing, I can live with it, but its really unpleasant. Lets see what Microsoft puts out, PS4 seems pretty nice so far, only their Interface is dissapointing, it looks like a uglier version
of Win8 which is ugly already.
I will get both again anyways.
I don't have the scratch for either system right now. Interested to see what emerges from the unveiling, though.
While I woudl agree that this was true at the beginning of the previous console cycle, I have to strongly disaggree about the current state of XBox Live and PSN. A lot has changed on both services since their introduction.
While PSN has made significant forward progress, XBox Live has degraded significantly. The indie offerings on XBox Live started strong, but have trickled off in recent years. The current trend in indie development is very firmly against Microsoft, and the 360. Sony and Nintendo both are doing a much better job of courting indie developers. Not only has PSN managed to poach a lot of XBox Live's former exclusives, but they also have a much stronger first-party stable of developers.
The same is also true of the XBox Live store, and its user interface. PSN's store has been graphically revised several times, and is now much more appealing and much easier to use. XBox Live has become a cluttered mess, and is bloated with intrusive advertisements.
J0NNYquid: That's fine for you. Here's my take on xblive. When I first bought my xbox, gold was only necessary to play games online. I understood that when I bought it. Then things changed. They started making me wait for demos, basically to the point where the game would be out, and I would forget about the demo. Twitter gets integrated (*yawn*), but again, gold is necessary. Then they started adding support for things like XFinity, and Netflix. GREAT! Let me try it.... nope, you need Gold?! Why? MS isn't maintaining those services? These should be features that draw you to the xbox.
Then, you look at families (like mine). My kids both want their own accounts, as many people would. That's another Gold subscription for each kid. So, in my house, that's 3 Gold memberships, because you can't share within a home, or even on the same console. Given MS DID start offering their family pack, at $99 a year, but come on. That's still $12 a month. When you're raising a family, budgets are tighter, and $12/mo can go for a lot.
Again, it's fine with me if you're happy paying MS for Gold. I'm just hoping to enlighten you on why OTHER people may not be happy with it. I'll take my free option, which honestly, has been perfectly fine.
^^ This (cross post) ^^
I absolutely hate what MS did with the interface, with the tiles. I don't mind the tiles, but I hate the flow of it. The whole thing reminds me of how they handled Win8. The interface is fine... for kinect/touch, but it sucks when controlled by a device. Not to mention, you get shoved in your face constantly. If gold does anything, it should get that shit out of your UI.
Coming from a Microsoft employee
Just giving you a hard time. I like my xbox better too.
I completely understand, our hours got cut at work and I took a pretty substantial paycut while still having to support my fiancee and myself, so any added expense hurts, I'm just saying overall, the argument of free vs. 5 bucks, in a families case, 12 bucks a month never held much weight for me, and especially when people get so heated over this small point, or any argument in the "console wars" for that matter.
This situation is made worse by Microsoft's approach to advertising on the XBox. Slathering the XBox interface with ads not only degrades the user experience, but also invalidates the premium nature of XBox Live. The current version of XBox Live has you paying for functionality that their competitors distribute for free, all while lining Microsoft's pockets with ad revenue. Microsoft can get away with that sort of thing while they have an edge in development support. But going forward they will have to prove that they can provide more.
"The source also shared some new photographs of the new controller, which should look familiar, and said that "most" of the console's online features will require a paid subscription. Reportedly, PlayStation Plus is being phased out or transitioned into something called "PlayStation World." One has to wonder if online multiplayer will finally be put behind a paywall."
link
and about my previous post, I'm throwing this theory out, lets see how right or wrong I am when they launch: next gen consoles won't officially require always online DRM but they will kindly allow publishers to enact their own always online DRM systems.
More money gamers spend is better for the publisher, then again, if they are buying used games it doesnt help anyone.
Being tied to a publisher and their console platform is not necessarily pro-developer in my book.
I think the Xbox team did an genius job at the interface they have.
They are so far above Win8 in usability and flow, and even graphically.
(which is sad actually)
Its has very good UX design. It is clean, has clear structure, everything is
at a place where you find it instantly with as few sub menus as possible.
Feedback is fine and navigation is really fast.
The really great thing about it, is that it feels like a living place.
The Web is really embedded. As a gamer, you stay informed what is happening.
You know when a new game or content is out.
It presents you the gaming culture in a nice way, and gamers usually really want
to be up to date with the games.
In contrairy, the PSN marketplace is an app you only open when you want to check
for things or something in particular. It goes completely aside you, its not in your usual experience. PS3 Ui is as vivid as the windows explorer.
Alone the colors. Xbox is light with lots of open space, while PS3 is dark and feels enclosed.
Ive read people complain about advertising on Xbox marketplace, which I think
is completely ridiculous. Showing off new games to gamers is absolutely what is wanted and should happen. Real ads are very tiny and almost non existant and presented in a way where they actually fit in the ui.
Its like complaining that Steam shows off new Games - nonsense.
As a designer, I think Xbox 360 Dashboard is about as good as it gets in regards of graphic design and user experience, and is the main argument for using the Xbox over the PS3 for me.
Also Im pretty sure the new xbox will not be able to provide a better Ui, I have a feeling it will be a setback. PS4 Ui looks dissapointing aswell so far. I was really hyped, seeing something nice from Sony, but it looks the same bland as before, just with probably better functionality and huge inspiration from microsofts Win8/360 Ui.
At least you don't look like a greedy douche if you give your customers some freedoms regarding the product they buy. Same goes for DRM. I wonder if the lack of confidence all this is creating isn't hurting publishers much more in the long run.
All this negative press about paranoid restriction features already made me quite disinterested as a consumer. As developer, yeah, sure it sounds cool though. But if the thing turns out to fit all the bad press it got then meh.
woah
The next Xbox could be a game winner if they do things right especially with subscription pricing and features, they need to do more to make Gold more appealing than PS+
With the 360, Microsoft made some good hardware decisions that paid off for them, especially for the time. One of these was the added hardware to the 360 that allowed for free full-screen anti-aliasing. While shopping for both systems, I can confirm that the majority of 360 games will support full 1080p, while the same games on the PS3 usually only go as high as 720p. This has been a competitive advantage Microsoft has held throughout the previous console cycle, all due to a forward-thinking hardware decision.
But Microsoft isn't going to have it nearly as cushy this time around. Sony's early announcements strongly indicate that they know what they're doing with the PS4's hardware. Microsoft is going to have a lot to prove come the end of May.
The way I look at it is this.
PS3-> Ideal for SP experiences. Last of Us, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, Team ICO games, MGS, etc.
360 -> Great for MP experiences. Halo, Gears, COD is much bigger on LIVE, etc.
And I prefer SP so...
Having said that I would love for this to be a great machine with some interesting tech. Not too crazy about kinect or the always on malarky but I want to play Halo 4 so I hope I can get it on the nextbox. Buying a 360 now just for Halo 4 seems like flushing $150 I could spend on a nextbox instead.
I agree, but at the same time, if those freedoms create a secondary market that prevents and or discourages retailers from restocking new games then there is a problem.
As much I hate to say it, games are still software and there is sound logic in software being licensed not owned by consumers.
When publishers react to cannabalizing industries forming (used games) around retailers quick to abuse the system, the consumer gets hurt. The publisher isnt the only one at fault though, consumers are also the cause of grief other consumers. They did two things, show a willingness to greatly support the used game market and to buy expensive DLC which was an anti-used game element used to recoup losses.
Then they see the success of Steam, which links games to an account with an online connection. So then they think, why not do that too, why not take it further.
For PC gamers, this isnt much a problem as they are used to it. We havent been able to trade, sell or buy used PC games at any retail store. Console gamers on the other hand are used to it, feel entitled to it, thus will react more strongly to online account checks and account based usage.
I would rather see an exodus from consoles to PC related gaming as it not only would spark that pro consumer competition but also encourage PC games not requiring constant connections. Since they cant be resold in any retail space, everyone wins. Publisher, developer and consumer.
Thats just my opinion though. At the end of the day I think everyone is greedy, consumer and publisher, though the developer tends to lose out most of all.
What annoys me though is that this "used game battle" seems to be a big corp (publisher) vs big corp (game retail chain) fight where everyone else gets the shaft. So yes, it's not just the publishers who are to blame but the other side too.
In the 90's you could just sell games to your mom and pop thrift store, and later in the early 2000's put them up on ebay, no problem with that. The big retail stores who invented the business of used games came much later. I got a good amount of nice collectors editions this way and some rare old games too (like the stuff where games still came in a proper box and manuals printed on real paper). But enough of that. Now I feel old and there's no way to turn back time
Hey dont feel that old. I was young but still remember a time when friends were passing around Monkey Island to play, and the DRM back then was often finding a code in the game manual to play the game. You never knew which code word it would ask for.
I also profited greatly as a teen when I saw the snes version of Breath of Fire 2 being sold used at a Blockbuster. The game was rare and usually sold for over $100. As a teen, seeing blockbuster selling it for $5 and reselling it just as fast for over $100 was one of those things I remember fondly.
While looking back, it feels more nostalgic than bad...todays standards are a bit different. Larger and wider market, established retail chains built around used games, and a general consumer culture that treats the games a bit differently.
As for the paranoia. I think its legit, and here is why. The success of a game, the number of new sales and total revenue is often the life or death of a studio and or the deciding factor on whether a developer will keep their jobs or not. Because your career is on the line, every sale counts, and if the game is bought 100 times but the publisher only got paid for 25 of those sales (because only 1/4th of them were bought new), then the developer takes the blunt of it. Part of this I think has to do with how developers are often forced to rely on the big publishers, and third party studios are only given enough to make it from project to project, just barely. If there was far more revenue independence, perhaps we would see less paranoia.
Pirates used as scapegoat...yes. Used Game market, no thats a legitimate complaint.
The pirate is not a consumer, and most are located in regions where the game is not available for purchase or cost way too much (New Zealand).
Used game markets exist in regions where games are actually being sold, this means not only are the products available but also that people are willing to spend money on them. SO the issue is that people are spending money on used games, giving money as a consumer would but to a third party, the developer or publisher will not get anything for that sale. Furthermore the retailers then fill their shelves up with used titles instead of ordering new copies. If they dont order new copies then theres a huge problem. In 2012 new retail game sales dropped 22%. While not all of it can be put at the foot of the used game market, losses were still incurred.
This also encourages two things to happen. It encourages publishers to fund games that have less shelf life (which means less story driven single player games and more multiplayer games), and to leave content out or locked unless DLC is purchased. This means the DLC has to be planned along side the design doc when in pre-production. They then rely on the first two months of a games release to see profit and then assume very little will come after that because shelves fill up with used titles. This doesnt effect the industry in a good way.
So I would hardly call it a scape goat. Now if a game is no longer being made new, then its reasonable to see used titles going around.
You probably would be surprised to see how many people from USA and Canada (from this forum) has finished Bioshock infinite and they didn't pay a shit. The game requires steam... and if you see their steam account, omg lol.
Well, let's not make this thread another thread about piracy.
back to topic, anyone with kinect has used ipi mocap studio 2?
I've gone through all this before. This doesn't happen, it is a myth - furthermore if it does happen, it's a failure of the product. Games make the majority of their sales in the first two weeks of being on the shelf, then they start being removed to make way for newer titles. For your hypothetical situation to occur, that game needs to be have been resold once every three days - that basically amounts to someone finishing up with the game every 24-48 hours.
In order for this to happen, the game must first have had to have been sold new. Used games don't just magically appear out of thin air. Most games that have been traded in are traded in against the purchase of other new games, and the profit from used games is used to subsidise the purchase of additional stock; particularly risky stock. If you want your retailer to carry more than Call of Duty, it needs to have the financials to offset the risk. It's not a two dimensional situation where a used a game is equal to a new game not being sold.
Retail game sales did drop 22%, but you've gleefully neglected to mention that digital sales grew 33%. In this country 45% of all video game retailers closed their stores. Your supposition clearly doesn't hold true. Either used game sales are not lucrative at all (in which case why do retailers bother?), or another force is at work. That other force is likely a) the transition to a digital market, b) the lack of higher profile new releases and franchise fatigue, and finally c) the current shitty world economy.
To further my point the US used games market managed $1.59 billion in 2012 - this has shrunk by 17% since 2011. The entire US games market itself managed $14 billion, meaning used games represent considerably less than an eight of it.
If either of the new systems were to deliver via download only, I would avoid that system like the plague. If the system was like steam, I MAY consider it (though I prefer having hard copies), but the reality is, they will still continue the same consumer screw job they've always done. Still charging the same as the retail packaged game, and charging full price, even 2 years later, with decent sales/discounts.
If you go to a online newspaper, you wouldnt say that all they show are
ads. Everything on their site are their articles, its what they do. They
keep the people informed about their business, thats why people go there
in the first place.
Same here.
Dashboard shows the news feed to their customers. If you buy a newspaper,
you are expected to have interest in articles. If you buy a xbox, you are expected to be interested in games.
You need to think a little further than your own experience.
As a person interested in games, the dashboard is exactly what and how I want. There are nearly no real ads at all. If you are not in that target group, don't expect to be satisfied with their actions to satisfy that group.
I hope MS realizes that Metro is a trainwreck of MS BOB-like proportions and get some sensible UI designers.