Jimquisition: PS4 - Doing Nothing, Meaning Everything

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

"Or just buy a gaming PC and have an awesome life."

That's basically what I was thinking the whole episode.

You know, some of the major problems people have with the Xbone are the same reasons why they can't get into PC gaming. Probably why it's such an elite club. Perhaps the Xbone can provide another group like the PC master race that'd probably be more annoying with less reasons to feel superior.

Amen. Hallelujiah. Praise be to Sterling.

Now I can stop saying virtually the same thing over and over and just link to the Jimquisition. And get suspended for low-content posting... crap.

Will add the proviso (that I've also been repeating) that although the PS4 may have left some DRM decisions up to publishers, they haven't given those publishers a gun to point at us the way Microsoft has. A game with DRM that requires it to connect to the Internet leaves a significant portion of the PS4 user base out in the cold, whereas Microsoft has bent over backwards to be sure every loyal consumer came market-equipped with a killswitch.

I also note that in punishing retail gaming Microsoft is pointing towards a future where gaming is only for people who have credit cards... or are willing to punt in long access codes every time they want to buy a game digitally. (Next version of Kinnect going to come with a freaking bar code scanner?!)


wait... diablo 3 is coming to ps4 and it's an always online game right?

fucking son of a bitch.

...Maybe not.


People are way more unjustified in applauding this. A year or two after launch, Sony's pulling a 180. Mark my words.

No, I don't think so. The pressure to do so would come from publishers, and along with the punishment Microsoft has received, they've just received a wake-up slap to the face. There's strong hints that Sony is heading towards market dominance this generation that rides in part on their stance on this issue. They need to court Sony to get their games in front of people, not the other way around.

It's still possible, and even likely, that there will be a greater share of games distributed digitally in the future. Sony's indie-friendly stance goes well with this; most independent games are smaller than the AAA-behemoths, and more suited to quick downloads than 30GB Blu-Ray offerings. But Sony has established a market based on an environment that's either unfriendly to straight-up DRM through a lack of broadband Internet, or actively hostile towards it through choosing them over Microsoft. A gradual shift towards digital isn't out of the question, but that would likely be far more welcomed by consumers than the force-feeding that Microsoft is attempting in their self-appointed role as "leaders into the future."

In a couple of years, I might be marking your words. But are you equally prepared to eat them?

Arcade Hero X:
Wasn't the PS3 basically a more powerful console then the xbox360 but the 3rd party games had never shown that. This was because it would have taken them longer and cost more to make games to fully utilize the power of the PS3 so they just settled on a standard that looked great on both console but the PS3 could have looked better.

The PS3 had a more powerful CPU than the Xbox 360's (provided developers could navigate its convoluted architecture enough to fully take advantage of it) but its GPU was weaker and its segmented memory model presented certain barriers to development that didn't exist on the 360. It was neither weaker nor more powerful overall, but was significantly more difficult to develop for.

This time around, however, the PS4 is both more powerful and easier to develop for than the Xbox One (both use an x86 architecture, but the PS4's use of straight GDDR5 RAM makes it simpler than the Xbox One's DDR3/eSRAM combination,) making it the clear victor in terms of hardware capabilities.

What is it about news where it just absolutely has to be as unbiased as humanly fucking possible and shed everyone in an equal light? We see this happen all the time with politics and religion, and it just makes no damn sense whatsoever. Even if the other side of the equation is complete gobshite, it still requires an equal amount of attention and not a single mention of one being more true than the other. Microsoft has turned itself in to the gaming equivalence of the Nazi Regime and people are seriously trying to defend it?

The 100$ price difference favoring the PS4 was enough to lead me to predict a thorough rout of the xboners this christmas. Collecting all the good press, seriously all of it, should give them enough marketing momentum to win handsomely.

The dick moves and the price premium is what hammered them in the dawn of the last generation, and it took them years to catch back up.

Doesn't matter to me, though, becuz steem teh heh.

Jimothy Sterling:
PS4 - Doing Nothing, Meaning Everything

Sony created a magic moment this past week at E3, declaring for the world that PS4 would not restrict used games or utilize DRM. Power to the people!

Watch Video

AMEN!!! Especially the last sentence. I walked away from Sony about their arrogance of the PS3. Don't think for a minute that I won't walk away from Xbox for their arrogance.

Anyone think Microsoft will backtrack with all this backlash?
Or is it way to late in the game to do that?

This is an interesting thought. Microsoft recently announced[1] that even when the "servers shut down," referring to when Microsoft's servers which people's consoles check into shut down because another couple of console generations has gone by, you'll still be able to play your games. They announced this because they were answering questions from Reddit, and one huge concern was the X-bone having an expiration date. Like how SimCity will be unplayable when EA decides to shut down its servers, it seemed as though the X-bone was the same way. When Microsoft stops supporting it, you simply wouldn't be able to log in anymore. You're left with a bulky, overpriced blu-ray player and a library of games you can no longer play (because we know the next console isn't going to be backwards-compatible either).

And, you know, this is a legitimate concern. Having to keep your old console to keep playing old games is one kind of inconvenience, and almost understandable in some situations. But Microsoft just being able to pull the plug on your console because they've decided they're done supporting it? Unacceptable. But, since Microsoft says it would retain functionality even after dropping it, then obviously it's already built with the capacity to do so. This isn't something hardwired into the system, they can just give it a little software update and stop requiring the 24 hour check-ins anytime they want.

However, given this is such a big feature they've already spent the last two weeks legitimizing, I doubt they'd give up so easily. Just because they can doesn't mean they will, and I think unless the X-bone's sales hit WAY below the mark of what MS wants, we're going to be stuck with all of these shitty things for a while. And same thing with the used games situation. Unless their sales are very low and they're pushed up against a wall, they aren't going to budge an inch on any of these "features."

I've been rather pessimistic about the X-bone's sales taking any sort of a hit from this, but I'm slowly becoming more convinced it might just happen. They may not be apocalyptically low, but someone else in the thread pointed out how service members will not be able to play the X-bone because of the 24 hour check-ins and the incredibly low number of countries it can be used in. As far as I'm aware, consoles in the military are pretty big. It may not be a huge number, but it's certainly a substantial market that has been completely and utterly removed from Microsoft's pool of customers. Then add on the people who live in places without consistent Internet, or young people like college student whose Internet situation changes almost every single year as they move in and out of dorms and apartments and you have a lot of people who used to be securely in their grasp suddenly up in the air. I can't wait for the thing to come out, just to see exactly how this plays out.

[1] Because even though we're more than two weeks post-announcement they're STILL having to tell us how the damn thing works, even on a most basic level.

While I enjoyed the video, I don't believe that it's accurate to say that Sony did nothing. Anyone who's ever had an interaction with another human should know that listening is not a necessity when they're making mouth noises at you. Sony directly answered questions and wants/needs being given to them by gamers. The pure act of being a responsive corporation that seeks to answer the needs of its consumer base is not a passive thing.

Second, I think that people who say that Sony changed nothing are looking at the Sony of last year to this year. However, when you look at the launch of the PS3 and PS4 back-to-back, it becomes clear in almost every way how much they've changed their tune. The PS3 was not sold to gamers, but as an all-inclusive entertainment center (where else have I heard that?). As such, it was limping along for the first part of its life, sustained en mass only by being a cheap bluray player. It was only as they shifted towards the mass market by cutting prices, gathering exclusives, and offering EXCELLENT subscription programs that they saw the PS3 become an actual success. While they are simply riding that same wave with PS4, it's almost an ocean away from how they launched the PS3.

Lastly, while I absolutely love the direct shot that Sony took at Microsoft, focusing on only those shots as they existed in the conference entirely misses many of the things Sony had to do to be able to come out with the policy it did. I think it's easy to say that both Microsoft and Sony looked at their next console generation and wanted to ensure that they have the support of third-party publishers. Microsoft attempted to raise that support by offering mandatory DRM measures that can be employed as a console-wide standard, emphasizing security of the publishers' content on their system as a drawing point. Sony, on the other hand, emphasized ease of development by changing the architecture to x86, courting indy developers, and getting their dev kits in the hands of the various developers early (and engaging them often). Rather than give a benefit to publishing on their console through means of taking things away from consumers (anti-piracy at the cost of consumer rights), Sony's plan involved in making it cost less for developers to make games. Aiding in the reduction of development costs (as far as they can contribute, that is) allowed Sony to get the 3P support any console needs to be successful without taking away from the consumer. It is because of their hard work in courting 3P devs that they do not have to resort to cheap tricks to appease developers.

A good company will make operating look easy. It may look still on the surface, but the underlying work to make it appear that way shouldn't be ignored (particularly when doing a detailed analysis of the situation).


"Or just buy a gaming PC and have an awesome life."

That's basically what I was thinking the whole episode.

You know, some of the major problems people have with the Xbone are the same reasons why they can't get into PC gaming. Probably why it's such an elite club. Perhaps the Xbone can provide another group like the PC master race that'd probably be more annoying with less reasons to feel superior.

That's the way things seem to be going: the consoles get more and more crappy features of pc gaming and none of the benefits.

I too find it sad that Sony felt the need to say something and yet I couldn't help but appreciate them twisting the knife into MS for being such dicks. Still, I kind of felt like they were trying to distract us from the whole psPlus required for online. That was one of the main reasons I got a ps3 over the 360; no extra fees. Is it as big of a kick in the nuts as MS? No. Does them not screwing us over in any other way excuse them from charging for online? No.

I'll admit, I was one of those people who thought Sony was going to do all the same stuff or worse...and you know what, they may have if people didn't start freaking out at MS' played hand. But can you blame me? Sony is one of the publishers with mandatory online pass on all their 1st party games; thats on top of all the other reasons Jim gave.

You know, over this technical conversation as to how horrible the drm policies for each console are or may be, about prices and specs, I like ONE particular thing about Sony over Microsoft.
We all know the internet is a cesspool of hatred and opinionated idiocy, and we know its hard for companies to get a hold of what is really going on and balancing the desires and expectations of the consumers and the requirements of investors.
But I feel that in this particular situation, the concern for Microsoft's policies was NOT something to ignore.

Today, there are many options when it comes to entertainment, but there is also a lot of (rather justified) fear from the consumer to the companies that seem to want to milk you dry. Microsoft hasn't only failed to address their playerbase's concern, but it has even managed to be UNCLEAR, RUDE, SNARKY, and SATYRIC when addressing the VERY UNDERSTANDABLE conflicts that THEIR OWN PLAYERS have.

On the other hand, I know Sony isn't a saint, they like their profits as much as the next massive multinational. But there is a CLEAR awareness of what their supporters are requesting. As Jim said, I've never seen a company look and point at the elephant in the room with such directness. It IS a catch phrase, but they actually DID listen. They showed me that they do think about what is important for US ( even if it just means benefit for them ). And that, I respect.

I did love Sony directly going after Microsoft. It was a thing of beauty. And yet my WiiU does all those features everyone cheered for, AND it's backwards compatible. Still, thank you Sony for making Microsoft the odd man out.

Yes, how sad it is that Sony just has to say that they'll do things that have been done for years and get lauded for it. Those things should go without saying.

Indeed, however some kudos need to be given to them for resisting the temptation to go the way of MS. Yes they protected the rights of consumers as they should be doing, but the temptation was there and they said "no" to it. I at least give my thanks for that.

Saw this coming when the PS4 was properly announced =D

Though I don't trust either M$ or $ony, I think $ony might be the better of the two evils but I'm still quite wary and would rather support Nintendo over either of them (though I will remain on PC most likely). Just remember $ony have an agenda too and in case you missed it there was a very clear disc games only message that appeared on the M$ burn video. Who's to say PSN+ (which is a must for all multiplayer) won't become the only or most common/easiest way to get games in the future and negate the whole used games issue?

I hope I'm wrong but there's just a feeling I get from the way $ony have been playing their hand that makes me feel there's more to it and they're going to be slipping something in that's almost as bad as the Xbone.

Sorry gtg the neighbours are trying to read my thoughts again.

Microsoft set fire to their own house, all Sony has to do is sit back and fan the flames. The Xbone has even pissed off members of the US military! http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130614/OFFDUTY02/306140030/New-Xbox-sin-against-all-service-members-

Reading that article, I am left to shake my head in pure bafflement. ONLY in the game industry is it considered a good idea for a business to just throw away an entire significant market segment of customers and have no one to fill the gap left behind. This is just how sickly insane and twisted the game industry has become that these sort of business decisions make sense to the executives. In absolutely no other industry is it considered a smart business move to throw away an entire market segment without at least having another one that will take its place. But, Microsoft has left a complete market vacuum. Are they going to make a separate "special" console for sell just to the military with the restrictions lifted? Holy hell, that would make even less sense from a business perspective because now you fragment your production lines, which can be a costly and error-prone proposition to maintain compatibility with the rest of the market.

I think it possible a few more Microsoft executives will be following the path of Mr. Adam "Deal with it" Orth when this is all over.


Thank you sir. have a wonderful day, week,month, ah fuck it have a wonderful year ^^

Could have mentioned the one downside to the whole thing, having to pay for multiplayer now.

Microsoft just straight up gave its customers the middle finger and ram its cock into their asses! Sony was kind enough to buy their customers dinner before just slipping in the tip :P

Exceptional articulation of the Sony's reveal of support for used games.

The realization that this announcement--with all its praise--is really a celebration of the status quo is something I'm certain came to just about everyone's mind, and exploring why this inaction is deserving of such high regard is exactly the right angle to go from.

I prefer to look at it as "if it's not broken, don't do anything to attempt fixing it."

This is actually the second time in fairly recent memory I've seen Jim be at the opposite end of the spectrum on an issue to John 'TotalBiscuit' Bain, the last time being in regards to the used game market itself. It's kind of jarring really to see the two game journalists I follow the closest be so diametrically opposed, since I as a simple consumer don't always know whose testimony and opinions to trust. Both of them, after all, claim to base their opinions on industry facts.

What I would seriously like to see would be an actual debate between Jim and TB on one of the issues they disagree on, or really just any game related issue. I think that would be very interesting. Hell, you could throw Yahtzee into the mix for a full-on Snarky-Brit-stravaganza.

So I guess what I basically want is some kind of return of Extra Consideration...

The thing is that you DID give them both equal treatment. I have no doubt that if Sony had done the same thing then this would have been another diatribe on the evils of the industry. But they didn't. And so it wasn't. Sony hung back and watched MS repeatedly slam their hand in a door and then said to themselves, "let's not do that." MS clearly designed the XBox One for publishers not consumers. The hope was probably that they would get enough exclusive content from said publishers that they could use that to get the consumers to overlook a bunch of things that they have vocally hated for years. In the end it will probably backfire. The one thing that publishers need more than anything else, more than anti-piracy measures, more than kickbacks from used games, is a platform in the house. If MS can't get the platform in your home it's no good to anyone. Sony on the other hand has just taken the gift from MS and will end up with more units sold which means that even if the publisher did go XB1 exclusive they're going to be chomping at the bit to get out of it and won't do it again since, no matter how secure, you can't sell a game for a platform that the consumer doesn't own.

what do you think about Nintendo's more snarky remark "if you're worried about used games sales, make better games"?

I don't know what Jim thinks, but I freaking laughed my ass off. Nintendo does make a point, to, they got nothing to worry about. Even though the wii was the biggest selling console of last gen, if it was every bit as garbage as people say.... shouldn't the used game isle of GameStop be full of twice as many wii games as 360? Funny how the Nintendo section is the smallest at every GameStop I've been to. I don't know a single Nintendo centric gamer who likes to get rid of their stuff. In fact most of them have been around since the start (NES) so they know it's a better idea to hold on to what you like.

Say what you will about Nintendo and their games, but the people who love them really love them.

Sony didn't exactly "do nothing". Resisting temptation is doing something commendable. They were in a position to follow Microsoft's policies, cater to the whims of publishers over customers, and said "no". That's doing something commendable, even if it is keeping the status quo.

Though, I think the Wii U needs some love.

Doing nothing and being applauded is an effect of Microsoft's current situation. If not for their poorly managed release of information,comments from executives and staff at MS, and the system they've set for the Xbox One People would have heckled Sony right off the stage. When the stumbling start the X-1 got, it set the stage for almost anyone to capitalize upon. From what Jim said Sony didn't decide what it wanted to do til the very last moment. Shocking to say the least. How easy could it have been for them to go the other way. How easy would it have been to jump on Microsoft's wagon and join in on the consumer's worst nightmare. But they didn't. I'm guessing they weighed the risk vs rewards, and saw that in doing nothing they had more to gain than doing anything. The angered and jilted lovers of video game were waiting to see what they had to say. They had everyone's attention. It really seems such a simple choice when you look at it. Ride the wave; give the people what they want.

Now Sony did say the right things, but they are doing some things people might still look upon with disdain. For one; they're linking online play to their Playstation Plus service. For the longest time Sony's lack of subscription which gave it some appeal. It was one of the factors for what I purchased the PS3 those many moons ago. I don't want to pay for my internet to work after I've paid for my internet to work. I didn't really care that it kept my scores and friends list for me. Paying to play seemed silly. Irony is when Sony released the Plus system I tried it and liked it. But I wasn't paying for multiplayer I was paying for game discounts, free games, beta testing. For that I could rationalize the $5 per month. I can hardly complain now since I've been paying already. So the online access isn't going to bother me in a slightest now.

The second thing people are mentioning is the fact they've put the ball into the publisher's court. From their statement they said they would not have DRM or check ins on their system. At the same time they wouldn't stop the publishers from doing so. This of course leaves it open for the game makers to do as they please. Might cause some backlash if they decide to add such measures to their games, but at least Sony can say it's not their fault. So again they are doing nothing. Not sure how to take this, but I feel most will keep it simple and allow people to play. With the popularity that Sony has achieved with it's statement and news of it's pre-order sales; a lot of games will be sold. The volume of used games will be low since so many people will be picking up games for the fledgling system. Nintendo made a good point; make better games rather than try to restrict the market. I love my games, but the scripted 5hr single player and 100+ hrs of multiplayer action get old quickly. It's another shooter or racing game and little difference from the last one. Publishers might try to lace the Sony pool with their counter measures, or snub the system for not choosing to back their possible gravy train. Locking out games from being resold similar to the RE example Jim gave.

Another point of interest having to do with games. Many of my friends (myself included) are quite excited about the press conferences that came out. Yet a short time afterwards we learn most of those games showed are shared between the systems. Yet during the show both companies tossed out words like "Exclusive" quite liberally. This is a good and bad thing. Truly exclusive games are a means to draw people to your system and generate interest. Games like Halo made the Xbox a success as did other games that followed. Still if Xbox One's launch titles are ones I can acquire on PS4 I'm even less motivated to purchase one. The reverse can be said for PS4. If I can manage the same experience with either system what's my motivation? Why should I pick up one over the other if they're the same thing in a different box. That can hurt Xbox One, the current underdog, in this battle for people's money. Titan Fall and Dead Rising 3 (Two games that wowed me) are both very excellent looking games. Of those two I'm told Dead Rising is the only true exclusive with Titan Fall gracing PC systems as well. WiiU has Bayonetta 2. Yes, I saw the news of that long ago and thought it a joke. But upon seeing that shiny gem that Nintendo has landed I felt a tug to purchase a WiiU. Yes, seriously. I saw Bayonetta 2 and said "Damn wish I had a WiiU." That's what exclusive games are supposed to do. A good exclusive will sell a console just as much as good review of said console. Sony has pick up some Indie games, some have already debuted on the PC. A remake of Abe's Odyssey is in the works. I recall seeing some "Free to play" games coming with the PS4 line-up. While not bad, I was expecting more innovative and new IP to dig my teeth into. Both sides gave us the "Coming Soon" on some select titles. Very nice to see, but how far/long til they're within reach?

Lastly we come to backwards compatibility. I mentioned paying for online as one of the reason I choose PS3, but another factor was that it could play the larger PS1 and PS2 library I already had. Mind you the price was quite high so I got the system and two PS3 games (bought separately) when it came out. So imagine my shock that Sony decided not to include that feature in the new incarnation of their game system. Microsoft did the same thing, but went so far as to say "If you backward compatible you're backwards" (Or something to that effect) Regardless, I feel that if Sony had included it the battle with Xbox One would be done before it started. I would have my PS3 to play PS1 and PS2 games and a PS4 to play PS3. Sounds silly, doesn't it? Still for those that have been put off by MS recent choices and had been loyal Xbox 360 owners would have seen otherwise. In purchasing a PS4 they would have had access to store of old and used games. Games they probably would never have played if the new Xbox hadn't changed the way they purchase,play, and sell their games. But fantasy aside I can see why they might have nixed it; focus on the new generation and all that. Fine I'll get over it eventually I can still play my PS3. Interesting enough they announced a system to do just that on PS4. Bravo. I'm curious what this en devour will cost as they're not going to let everyone play the older system game for free. If so where do I sign up? Some sent me this link not long ago. http://imgur.com/r/gaming/UdhHNVK . It would be a novel approach to say the least. Wishful thinking it's something like that. Sales of older games would see a boost even non owners of PS3 would dig up gems to utilize such a system.

There's quite abit of time before PS4 and X-1 make it to the shelves. Perhaps MS can shore up the holes they've managed to make in the boat while shooting themselves in the foot. Their PR has put their foot in their collective mouths, and left a bad taste in ours. And perhaps Sony will do something to cement the good press the MS fiasco has generated. Just being cheaper might not mean much if the publishers do go through with DRM and other measures. It could cause just as much (if not worst) a stir should that happen. Even if it's not their fault, they did nothing. ~In Jim we trust

You imply a decision was not made until the last minute and your proof is that they waited till E3?

I think you underestimated Sony, they waited for E3 to talk about their trump card. They were probably 90% sure all along that their console was not going to be an 'always online' one - you would have to build the entire OS around something like that.

If they made an official statement between their 2 conferences then half the excitement would of gone by E3.

And not talking about their used game policy at E3 would of been suicide. You can cut their pre-orders buy half because everyone would assume the worst.

Also they maybe did not want MS to get spooked if Sony officially said they would not do it. This is very possible considering they played the same type of mind games with the price, (high risk strategy with GDDR5-when only 2gb was feasible at the start of development) and even by surprising them with the surprise first PS4 conference.

I have to ask, what is with the prawn/shrimp? I keep seeing it crop up, but unlike the bored face Yahtzee uses, I can't see the common connection for when it is used.

Does nobody remember the last time Sony promised a feature that people got really excited about? How are those Linux PS3's doing now anyway?

I agree that people shouldn't automatically adore Sony just because they did something good, when Microsoft did something bad, but if the results truly reflect what we are beginning to suspect (that the PS4 will slaughter the XBone in sales and become the more dominant console) then it'd be in their best interests not to screw people over.

If they "win" the console race this generation, then the best thing they can do is try and please consumers even more. If you have the better product, and still go out of your way to win consumers that's going to do wonders in the long term.

If Sony are smart, they will not get complacent about this good publicity, which is exactly what Microsoft did with the XBone. They were so confident that the Xbox 360 was more successful than the PS3 that they thought they could get by with their business practices purely on customer faith.

It's a bit sad that everyone is cheering for Sony for saying things that should be implemented from the first place as it was in previous generations. Always online, no used games policies and what not.

Just because M$ dig themselves so deep that Sony took advantage of that and just waited the whole thing out. All they had to do is to say exactly the opposite and all of a sudden they are the messiah of console gamers.

People are so gullible it's amazing.

Jim as always solid. Granite convictions. A militant of truth! A true Paladin amongst the shit whirlwind that Microsoft has bafflingly created for itself. And he's right: equal time doesn't equate to fairness and equal assessments doesn't translate to balanced. Jim's coverage has been relentless, objective and consequent. True journalistic integrity as I have not seen in years.


what do you think about Nintendo's more snarky remark "if you're worried about used games sales, make better games"?

True through and through, if you make a game you can play over and over again and never get old then you are less likely to give the game away, if a player is kept fed in high quality DLC then they will buy high quality DLC. More importantly, if everyone is keeping their copy of a game, there is no used games market because there would be no trade-ins occurring.

Snarky remark in your opinion but true none the less.

But it's not true simply going into a Gamestop or any used game market two weeks after any game is released, even the most well of received, and your more then likely to find a copy.

I think the indie developer support is really big. Its very bizarre that Sony, the company that stonewalled indies initially with the PS3 are now embracing them, and Microsoft, the company the brought us XBLIG, XBLA, and XNA, are now stonewalling them. Why the sudden turn of the tables? Does it know that the only reason I actually plugged in my brother in laws xbox 360 after it sitting in my garage for a year was to start playing some of these XBLIG, and XBLA indie games that were coming out? So when Dark Souls came out, I coughed up some money for a Xbox gold account to play it online for a while etc.

But Sony might be learning from their PS3 mistakes, (overpriced launch library, developer loops to jump through in terms of hardware and development, shitty system updating features etc.) However it should be noted that they are going to charge for Online Gameplay unless the publisher of said game coughs it up for the server support. Sadly the PS4 really gives us nothing new, and actually still takes a little away. Well except its open indie dev support which is great.


On a side note this is something microsoft can remedy and quickly, they could do a press conference at pax prime, and just back the heck out. Remove the every 24 hour policy, announce some indie developer program, loosen up the used game policies, and throw in some goodies. Good will be had and the race will be on. To stick their guns though... yeesh


Its super effective!!

Fanboys fainted!

That video "tutorial" where the guys share a PS4 game... Pause it and read the fine print. The game sharing option is only for Disc Based games, and online play on the PS4 requires a subscription.

Smells like "shift into mostly digital distribution" to me.

Someone said this about E3

People are way more unjustified in applauding this. A year or two after launch, Sony's pulling a 180. Mark my words.

It is really sad when someone has such a weak argument, or even no argument, that all they can rely on is saying something like "well, they are doing the right thing now, but you wait, in the future they will totally be bad".

You know why that can not be true? Because the game is going to launch with offline capability. Meaning all disc games will have to work offline. Which means if they try and then force on DRM and online checks down the road they break compatability with a large part of their library. No console manufacturer is going to do that. This is a nonsense argument that is made because you don't have a real one.

While you can still share disc based games you cannot game share and sony will most definitely move in a more digital centered market in the near future.

Wasn't the share button also capable of allowing a friend to play your game? I think I saw that at the Feb. conference.

Let's not forget about the sheer variety PS4 showed as well. I keep hearing that people were more impressed with XB1's lineup but let's have a closer look shall we.

1.) A stealth game (sequel)
2.) A swordy slashy quicktime event game (God of War)
3.) A zombie game (if you put all the digital zombies created together you would have a literal apocalypse)
4.) A car enthusiast's masturbatory dream
5.) Halo
6.) Call of Duty (errr I mean BattleField)
7.) Call of Duty with Mechs
8.) A fighting game (complete with douchey immature trash talk)

There were a couple of standouts like Project Spark, but a more tired collection of safe samey titles could not possibly be found. It's like a launch lineup created by focus group.

Not to let Sony off the hook, there were some safe looking entries there as well, but rolling out those indie developers the way they did, hinting at a near limitless amount of variety and creative energy, I was pretty stoked. I've been getting so bored with game offerings like the one MS proposes, I was glad to see that somebody seems to be listening to my gamer fatigue.

Yes, how sad it is that Sony just has to say that they'll do things that have been done for years and get lauded for it. Those things should go without saying.

No kidding. You ever wonder when (or if) things will get better? Like another golden age of gaming or something like that?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here