Sony Exec: PS4 Versions of Multiplatform Games Must Be The Best

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

PoolCleaningRobot:

Korten12:

Sight Unseen:

I just don't see the the point of including a share feature and then censoring what is possible to share. It's like cutting the legs out from under your new feature, when sharing is already pretty easy to do and people can stream the censored parts pretty easily by other means if they want to. It's not like they'll be able to hide anything.

It also enables devs to be shady and censor all the bad parts of their game to try to prevent the spread of negative hype. Not saying it will happen often or at all, but this would enable them to do that if they wished.

EDIT: I also never said anything about cutscenes. The article stated that devs could censor boss fights from being shared and such so why do you think they can limit it only to cutscenes? If you're playing a story heavy game, devs could disable sharing of almost the entire game due to spoilers, at which point the feature is worthless.

Censor? No. If you honestly think that would stop people from showing the bad parts of games, then you could say that right now on current consoles the whole fact that they don't have share functions is censoring the game. :/

Also until we see how devs use it, there is no point in being all doom and gloom and damning it before we see it in full use. I bet you there will be a good chunck of games that allow you to use it at any point.

And yet, all your posts seem to do is highlight perfectly good reasons as to why dev wouldn't censor any of their content. There's clearly no point in doing it for spoilers because anyone with a capture card will upload a "spoiler". You seem to be under the impression that just because they can do something stupid they will. If that were true then every console game this generation would have come with pc style serial codes to prevent used game sales

Sorry, but were you talking to me or the other poster? Because I was saying just because they can, doesn't mean they will.

glad to see they thinking about games especially multiform. I'm fairly certain that i will buy PS4 on release.

Korten12:

PoolCleaningRobot:

Korten12:

Censor? No. If you honestly think that would stop people from showing the bad parts of games, then you could say that right now on current consoles the whole fact that they don't have share functions is censoring the game. :/

Also until we see how devs use it, there is no point in being all doom and gloom and damning it before we see it in full use. I bet you there will be a good chunck of games that allow you to use it at any point.

And yet, all your posts seem to do is highlight perfectly good reasons as to why dev wouldn't censor any of their content. There's clearly no point in doing it for spoilers because anyone with a capture card will upload a "spoiler". You seem to be under the impression that just because they can do something stupid they will. If that were true then every console game this generation would have come with pc style serial codes to prevent used game sales

Sorry, but were you talking to me or the other poster? Because I was saying just because they can, doesn't mean they will.

Derp derp. Not sure how that happened. Then I agree with everything you say and I think you're a very smart person :)

Big_Boss_Mantis:
an Xperia Play

Someone else has one!?

Flabbergasted shock aside. Sony are owning up to their mistakes with the PS3 here guys. They fucked up and fixing the problems that CELL caused them means they have to create new problems like no backward compatibility. That sucks donkey balls its true but just look at the position they managed to put themselves in for designing the PS4.

It in effect boils down to three choices they could have made.

#1. Design the PS4 with a CELL processor to allow for backward compatibility and maintain all of the issues with attracting third party devs to code for the bloody thing.

#2. Design the PS4 with another processor type that devs know how to program for already like the X86 pc architecture and in doing so, remove all backward compatibility due to the horrific mess that software emulation of CELL would be.

#3. Design the PS4 with an easy to use processor for devs and a CELL processor built onto the board for hardware emulation of PS3 games (the 60gb release model of the PS3 has a PS2 processor for the same reason) and in doing so run the risk of slightly buggy hardware and a high price tag for development of the console and so, price tag on sales.

What Sony have done is a mix of 2 and 3. But rather than put the CELL on the console itself they are looking at trying to build servers to process PS3 games and stream them to consoles which will cut down on the cost per console immensely. I don't know how well this will work and the always online nature of such a service worries me. But I'm willing to wait and see what they do before slamming them.

Open note to the people yelling "Show us the games!"
Please calm down. Sony has already shown us far more than Microsoft and it is likely they are waiting for E3 to show their box and games off now that we all know the innards of the box which, surprise surprise, is more important than what the plastic shell looks like.

vallorn:

Open note to the people yelling "Show us the games!"
Please calm down. Sony has already shown us far more than Microsoft and it is likely they are waiting for E3 to show their box and games off now that we all know the innards of the box which, surprise surprise, is more important than what the plastic shell looks like.

They really should not wait for E3 or the Xbox Infinity official reveal, to reveal more games IMO.
Sony has the advantage of time, and no other real competition apart from Microsoft here.

Maybe just teasers for the E3 reveals, anything to capitalize on the bad press surrounding the next Xbox without actually directly commenting on their competitors. Because we all know how that turned out last time...

Sorry sony, by the end of the year I'll have one of these, so good luck in your efforts.
image

But why have sony forgotten that the main point of consoles? What does the PS4 do that no other console will? "looking good" isn't an option.

PoolCleaningRobot:

Korten12:

Sight Unseen:

I just don't see the the point of including a share feature and then censoring what is possible to share. It's like cutting the legs out from under your new feature, when sharing is already pretty easy to do and people can stream the censored parts pretty easily by other means if they want to. It's not like they'll be able to hide anything.

It also enables devs to be shady and censor all the bad parts of their game to try to prevent the spread of negative hype. Not saying it will happen often or at all, but this would enable them to do that if they wished.

EDIT: I also never said anything about cutscenes. The article stated that devs could censor boss fights from being shared and such so why do you think they can limit it only to cutscenes? If you're playing a story heavy game, devs could disable sharing of almost the entire game due to spoilers, at which point the feature is worthless.

Censor? No. If you honestly think that would stop people from showing the bad parts of games, then you could say that right now on current consoles the whole fact that they don't have share functions is censoring the game. :/

Also until we see how devs use it, there is no point in being all doom and gloom and damning it before we see it in full use. I bet you there will be a good chunck of games that allow you to use it at any point.

And yet, all your posts seem to do is highlight perfectly good reasons as to why dev wouldn't censor any of their content. There's clearly no point in doing it for spoilers because anyone with a capture card will upload a "spoiler". You seem to be under the impression that just because they can do something stupid they will. If that were true then every console game this generation would have come with pc style serial codes to prevent used game sales

In a way that's my point... I don't understand why Sony would release a share feature that enables you to record, stream, or take screenshots of a game and then allow the devs to limit what the players can use it for. The only "good" reasons I can think of to disallow people from recording would be for spoiler reasons or to hide things that would make them look bad. But since there are really easy ways to circumvent that I don't see the point of it. It just seems to me like Sony is willfully enabling the crippling of their new feature and I don't understand why.

There are also much better ways to prevent spoilers like allowing recorders to hide things behind spoiler tags in some way, like someone mentioned above.

I just don't get it.

Also just for fun:

You seem to be under the impression that just because they can do something stupid they will.

EA. Nuff Said

vallorn:

Big_Boss_Mantis:
an Xperia Play

Someone else has one!?

Flabbergasted shock aside. Sony are owning up to their mistakes with the PS3 here guys. They fucked up and fixing the problems that CELL caused them means they have to create new problems like no backward compatibility. That sucks donkey balls its true but just look at the position they managed to put themselves in for designing the PS4.

It in effect boils down to three choices they could have made.

#1. Design the PS4 with a CELL processor to allow for backward compatibility and maintain all of the issues with attracting third party devs to code for the bloody thing.

#2. Design the PS4 with another processor type that devs know how to program for already like the X86 pc architecture and in doing so, remove all backward compatibility due to the horrific mess that software emulation of CELL would be.

#3. Design the PS4 with an easy to use processor for devs and a CELL processor built onto the board for hardware emulation of PS3 games (the 60gb release model of the PS3 has a PS2 processor for the same reason) and in doing so run the risk of slightly buggy hardware and a high price tag for development of the console and so, price tag on sales.

What Sony have done is a mix of 2 and 3. But rather than put the CELL on the console itself they are looking at trying to build servers to process PS3 games and stream them to consoles which will cut down on the cost per console immensely. I don't know how well this will work and the always online nature of such a service worries me. But I'm willing to wait and see what they do before slamming them.

Open note to the people yelling "Show us the games!"
Please calm down. Sony has already shown us far more than Microsoft and it is likely they are waiting for E3 to show their box and games off now that we all know the innards of the box which, surprise surprise, is more important than what the plastic shell looks like.

Own one, and absolutely love it! I think it would have catched on if it wasn`t horribly priced at launch and din`t have to deal with so many Android issues! (like depending on the incredibly limiting internal phone memory unless you wasted precious time learning how to hack the device)

Still about your very valid points:
1- there was another alternative. Sony could have put the x86 processor in the PS4 and still put the PS3`s Cell on it and use it for something OTHER than games. (SEGA did this, and every Mega Drive had an Master System processor in it, working alongside for another function) How about putting a Cell on the PS4, and using it exclusively for the multitasking network activities? Would that make the thing that much more expensive? Would the network gain doesn`t make up for it? I am not a programmer. Is my idea that impossible?

2- The streaming. You could give Sony the benefit of the doubt. But, as a fan of the brand, I just CAN`T DO IT.
For instance: Sony is promising remote play since PS3 launched. They have promised it between PS3 and PSP. Didn`t work.
Then they promised it among PS3 and PS Vita. Nope, doesn`t work.
But now, with PS4 and Vita they say it will probably work. Really? WHY?!
I can`t even use my Vita as an PS3 controller. (with very few exceptions)
I can`t play PSP games on the PS3 (pirates could do that for you).
I can`t play most of the PSP`s library on my Vita. (again pirates)
I can`t play most of the PS2 library on a PS3. (guess what? Yes, pirates)
I can`t even charge my Dual Shock with my PS3 off (EVERYONE asked for it).

My point is: Sony is a recurring offender of not providing EASY services (some of them even PROMISED) for their consumers.
And they have repeatedly made promises they couldn`t keep.

I love the brand, but I am friggn` tired of their lies!
So when they say "remote play will work", I say "let`s see". When they say: "PS3 games will be streamed", I reply "show me the goddamned money".

I honestly doubt they are gonna stream MetaI Gear Solid 4, or God Of War 3, to my PS4, when they can`t even import my small PSN purchased games to the PS4.
They won`t let me play Braid and Mega Man 9 on the PS4 (they won`t compromise to say that I will be able). So, no, I don`t think you will provide a service worthwile for upgrading.

I am so very tired of their old and hallow promises... I am not going to just waste my money on another frustration machine!

Captcha: start from scratch. If only Sony would listen to the mighty captha ...

Big_Boss_Mantis:

Super Not Cosmo:
So far there is nothing really getting me excited about this upcoming (or current if you include the WiiU) generation of consoles. With GTA5 and Watchdogs both getting PS3/360 releases it's looking more and more like I might just hold tight with my PS3/360 for a year or two before making the jump into any consoles from this most recent generation.

The way it stands now I have such a back log of games on my cuurent consoles I've bought and not played yet I could probably start a new game and play it through to completion then repeat the process and not have to buy another game until sometime next year.

Spread the word!

Sony just can`t seem to gasp that GAMES SELL CONSOLES. Isn`t that so simple?
The PS4 has NO BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY and NO SYSTEM SELLER.
GTA 5, Metal Gear Solid 5, Bioshock, Gran Turismo 6, God Of War, The Last Of Us, Beyond: Two Souls, Dark Souls 2. All these games were announced/released for the CURRENT generation. Those could be system sellers if they came for the new hardware (depending on the taste of the player).
Instead, we have PS4 with Killzone, Infamous and PS3 ports. People won`t buy new hardware to play: 1. franchises that sold poorly, 2. ports of games that can be played on a system they already have. See the WiiU.
Until another one of the BIG NAMES I mentioned above gets released it will be a couple of years minimum. Those ain`t annualized franchises (that`s why most of them remain good)...
Not to mention the huge backlog this current generation left. (I haven't finished more than half my games)

I may be repeating myself, but I am an Playstation heavy user. I own everything from the PS2 ahead (PSP, PS3, Vita, an Xperia Play and even a Move controller). Still, I see no reason to be remotely interested in the PS4.
So, really? Who is gonna buy this thing?!

While I agree that backwards compatibility would be great to have (seriously I want it to be done), I also know it isn't a simple task. Your talking about converting a game from cell processor to x86 which would require the devs to go back and convert the game over (or more likely port the PC version to PS4). They wont do that for free, some may release PS4 versions to make some easy money but that'd be it. To put this into perspective, it's like converting an ARM processor program to x86, it can be done but the devs need to do it which costs time, money and thus requires a new sale.

Honestly people are getting to the point of complaining for the sake of it, Sony is making a console that:
- Is designed from the ground up as a gaming console first and foremost (unlike xbox) by having features designed around games and the system built around easy of devs use of the hardware to ensure the lineup will build up quickly.
- Because it's made on the x86 processor it's forward compatibility wont be an issue (solving this problem in future)
- By using standard PC hardware costs are kept down over the board, so the console will be cheaper for Sony and us the consumer, and games will be cheaper to make and sell to us.
- And most importantly, it's already confirmed NOT to be an always online required console. Yes devs can make their game always online (like they already can on PS3 and Xbox), but it's not a feature built into the console, it's something the devs have to setup.

As for those going "Oh, but the PS3 still works fine why should I upgrade", err guys the PS3 is getting old, yes I love my little machine Ive had since release day and I wont be letting her go, but at 256mb of RAM it's seriously under powered. It's video card is also outdated and the processor is really the only good part about it. She's had a good long run but now it's time for the next generation to come along and continue the cycle. If you want to stay with current gen consoles then so be it, it's not like the police are going to come around on release day and collect all current gen consoles to force you to upgrade. You've just got to accept that you'll be left behind just like anyone who sticks with outdated technology.

EDIT:

Big_Boss_Mantis:

Still about your very valid points:
1- there was another alternative. Sony could have put the x86 processor in the PS4 and still put the PS3`s Cell on it and use it for something OTHER than games. (SEGA did this, and every Mega Drive had an Master System processor in it, working alongside for another function) How about putting a Cell on the PS4, and using it exclusively for the multitasking network activities? Would that make the thing that much more expensive? Would the network gain doesn`t make up for it? I am not a programmer. Is my idea that impossible?

The cell processor is the main reason the PS3 was so expensive (bluray being the other). Putting it in there for any reason, weather backwards compatible or for system use, is going to drive the cost up. Heck even moreso because then you'll have 2 processors in the same machine plus the GPU all generating massive amounts of heat, which brings in other issues. I wish it was that easy but the 3 options were as he stated.

Sight Unseen:

In a way that's my point... I don't understand why Sony would release a share feature that enables you to record, stream, or take screenshots of a game and then allow the devs to limit what the players can use it for. The only "good" reasons I can think of to disallow people from recording would be for spoiler reasons or to hide things that would make them look bad. But since there are really easy ways to circumvent that I don't see the point of it. It just seems to me like Sony is willfully enabling the crippling of their new feature and I don't understand why.

There are also much better ways to prevent spoilers like allowing recorders to hide things behind spoiler tags in some way, like someone mentioned above.

I just don't get it.

Also just for fun:

You seem to be under the impression that just because they can do something stupid they will.

EA. Nuff Said

Well a legit reason I can think might be that rendering videos in the background would be an intensive process and a dev might want to free up space. But what I think Sony is trying to do is make their platform more open to devs by not telling them what they can and can't do. Like you said, EA might be stupid enough to want to limit sharing so why alienate a huge company? Sony is providing the hardware and no one has to develop anything for it so the fewer walls the better

Maybe you're right but I really don't see any reason to assume devs are going to fuck shit up at this point. Considering this (I assume) is the first console to have video capture built in, I don't see any reason to complain at this point. I'd rather cry over "share button abuse" when the problem manifests

what a misleading title for an article

I'm not sure what the point is for the share button other than to flood YouTube with hundreds of identical videos of people playing video games

i guess since you are constantly capturing some people might use it for machinima or something

Irridium:
Just when developers are finally able to best use the power of the PS3 (developing skills, tools, and all that) they abandon it all when a new console comes out.

Anyone else see this as a bit of a waste? With the skills and tools and experience they have now they'd be able to get a good few more years out of the PS3.

I have seen this happen before. As the original xbox was nearing the end of it's life-cycle we got a game that had been in development for about two YEARS and finally released in 2002.

The reason for the long development time was the graphics, Glass and water showed REAL-TIME REFLECTIONS, there was high detail in EVERY texture and there were HEAPS of particle effects going on all over the place at any given time, and the camera would even pick up specks of water from time to time that would be blown off due to the high speed which is made clear by the MOTION BLUR that is used at higher speeds!

Yet despite all of this and running on the original xbox rather lame hardware (733 MHz CPU, 64 MB DDR SDRAM @ 200 MHz and a 233 MHz graphics chip) the game NEVER dipped below 60 FPS... Oh, and it runs with 5.1 surround throughout the entire game and not just the cutscenes! And on top of all of that there is the soundtrack by the then famous Junkie XL but you could also make your own soundtrack from songs on your xbox hard drive!

The game was called Quantum Redshift. It was made by people that had worked on the WipEout series and despite the fact that it was able to do all of the above with power to spare (It could drive 4 PLAYER SPLIT SCREEN for goodness sake!) the studio making it went bankrupt and a sequel was never made.

This video shows off what the game was like (And despite the fact that this was recorded on the xbox 360 this is the SAME LEVEL of graphical fidelity that you got when you played it on the ORIGINAL xbox!)

I hope that Microsoft lets the people in that studio make a sequel one day. All it really needs is online multiplayer and a more decent story and it would be a GREAT exclusive for the nextbox.

EDIT: I have found a vid which shows off the motion blur quite nicely... on the hardest difficulty of the game

RicoADF:

EDIT:

Big_Boss_Mantis:

Still about your very valid points:
1- there was another alternative. Sony could have put the x86 processor in the PS4 and still put the PS3`s Cell on it and use it for something OTHER than games. (SEGA did this, and every Mega Drive had an Master System processor in it, working alongside for another function) How about putting a Cell on the PS4, and using it exclusively for the multitasking network activities? Would that make the thing that much more expensive? Would the network gain doesn`t make up for it? I am not a programmer. Is my idea that impossible?

The cell processor is the main reason the PS3 was so expensive (bluray being the other). Putting it in there for any reason, weather backwards compatible or for system use, is going to drive the cost up. Heck even moreso because then you'll have 2 processors in the same machine plus the GPU all generating massive amounts of heat, which brings in other issues. I wish it was that easy but the 3 options were as he stated.

Not to mention coding for the already horrible CELL architecture on top of the X86 would be a nightmare. And this doesn't even go into the massive cost this would add to the console, seriously take a look around and see what kind of price range your looking at for multi CPU motherboards and that's JUST the motherboard.

Then remember how the flimsy 360 melted on a warm day and look at the sheer amount of heat in this thing as well as the power consumption. you would have a console the size of a large ATX case full of fans just trying to keep the temperature down in there.

Captcha: one stop shop

Stop trying to make me buy things from Steam Captcha I'm busy playing The Hidden!

RicoADF:

While I agree that backwards compatibility would be great to have (seriously I want it to be done), I also know it isn't a simple task. Your talking about converting a game from cell processor to x86 which would require the devs to go back and convert the game over (or more likely port the PC version to PS4). They wont do that for free, some may release PS4 versions to make some easy money but that'd be it. To put this into perspective, it's like converting an ARM processor program to x86, it can be done but the devs need to do it which costs time, money and thus requires a new sale.

Honestly people are getting to the point of complaining for the sake of it, Sony is making a console that:
- Is designed from the ground up as a gaming console first and foremost (unlike xbox) by having features designed around games and the system built around easy of devs use of the hardware to ensure the lineup will build up quickly.
- Because it's made on the x86 processor it's forward compatibility wont be an issue (solving this problem in future)
- By using standard PC hardware costs are kept down over the board, so the console will be cheaper for Sony and us the consumer, and games will be cheaper to make and sell to us.
- And most importantly, it's already confirmed NOT to be an always online required console. Yes devs can make their game always online (like they already can on PS3 and Xbox), but it's not a feature built into the console, it's something the devs have to setup.

As for those going "Oh, but the PS3 still works fine why should I upgrade", err guys the PS3 is getting old, yes I love my little machine Ive had since release day and I wont be letting her go, but at 256mb of RAM it's seriously under powered. It's video card is also outdated and the processor is really the only good part about it. She's had a good long run but now it's time for the next generation to come along and continue the cycle. If you want to stay with current gen consoles then so be it, it's not like the police are going to come around on release day and collect all current gen consoles to force you to upgrade. You've just got to accept that you'll be left behind just like anyone who sticks with outdated technology.

EDIT:

Big_Boss_Mantis:

Still about your very valid points:
1- there was another alternative. Sony could have put the x86 processor in the PS4 and still put the PS3`s Cell on it and use it for something OTHER than games. (SEGA did this, and every Mega Drive had an Master System processor in it, working alongside for another function) How about putting a Cell on the PS4, and using it exclusively for the multitasking network activities? Would that make the thing that much more expensive? Would the network gain doesn`t make up for it? I am not a programmer. Is my idea that impossible?

The cell processor is the main reason the PS3 was so expensive (bluray being the other). Putting it in there for any reason, weather backwards compatible or for system use, is going to drive the cost up. Heck even moreso because then you'll have 2 processors in the same machine plus the GPU all generating massive amounts of heat, which brings in other issues. I wish it was that easy but the 3 options were as he stated.

While I agree that it can not be simple to have cell based backwards compatibility, I still have my doubts about it not being VIABLE. And, yes, viable from a business stand point.
I don`t know how much expensive it would end up being but there is still two things that I think should be considered.

1- Cell was VERY expensive. FIVE YEARS ago! But this things get cheaper, more energy efficient and, yes, don`t make that much heat nowadays. PS3 super slim is cheaper, smaller, more energy efficient and seems to produce less heat (since it is considerably smaller). And coolers can help that
What I said (two chips) is hard to pull of? Hell yes! Definitely! Would it that be IMPOSSIBLE (even considering market and costs)? I still think no. But I really, really can be wrong...

2- Sony could simply release a PS4 Deluxe which would come with full hardware-based backwards compatibility. AND MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE. That way, no one could complain.
If backwards compatibility is that important to you, then you can buy it. How about "trade in your old PS3 and get a PS4 Deluxe for the price of a standard"?
I lost so many great games in the transition from PS2 for PS3. Some of them only came to PSN last year, like Okami or Nights: Into Dreams remake. Others probably will never come (Mortal Kombat Shaolin Monks, Yakuza 1 & 2, the original Guitar Hero). PS3`s backlog is even bigger!
Sony`s stand is "deal with it", and find room under your TV for two Playstations.

Look, as I stated, I am an avid Playstation consumer. I love the brand exactly because of the things you stated.
They respect game(r)s. Online is free (as it should be). PS Plus is great. They keep a lot of studios developing exclusive content for them, some with niche games. And their products and ideology are aimed at hardcore videogame users.
I respect them for that, and I vote with my wallet!

Still, the thing is that, for the last half a decade, it seems that every good decision they make, they also made another terrible, terrible one.
Perhaps my best judgement is being clouded by how much they have let me down in the past! (yeah, I need a hug.)

What you said, in a nutshell (sorry for over simplifying), is that the PS4 is promising to be a great machine, an much needed update over its predecessor, and that it does NOT adopt some draconian policies that are unfortunately becoming standard business practices in the industry.
And, believe me, I really agree with you. It sounds great.
But you know what other piece of tech has those exact same qualities? The Playstation Vita.
I own one, it has lots of potential. And it saddens me to see its potential going to waste because of Sony`s own stupidity or incompetence.

Look, I admit that I am probably going to buy an PS4 along the way, exactly because I am not going to be clinging to outdated technology, and because I am sure it will still be the best deal on the market (in spite of everything I have said).
And I really can live without backwards compatibility (I survived the PS2 after all).
What I am just saying is that, without a solid launch line up (which seems to have been cannibalized by the upcoming PS3 content) and without backwards compatibility, I really think Sony is going to have a very hard time selling units. And the machine will have the same rough start as the PS3.
And, with that, Microsoft might get more market share, in spite of their bad consumer practices...

EDIT: carefully reading other comments I have changed my stance about the whole "two processors thing" a la Emotion engine or the Sega Mega Drive. I agree that it seems like a nightmare to pull it off. Still, my other point about Sony`s "good intents, poor delivery" still stands! For now, anyway... LOL.

ResonanceSD:
Sorry sony, by the end of the year I'll have one of these, so good luck in your efforts.
image

But why have sony forgotten that the main point of consoles? What does the PS4 do that no other console will? "looking good" isn't an option.

I dont think the titian is going to come down to less than 800 by the end of the year, or are you going to be throwing that much cash at it?

vallorn:

Snip

RicoADF:

Snip

Well, you guys really seem to know much more about it than I do!
I won`t be standing my ground against much more well-researched opinions!

So I am officially putting that "two processors" idea to rest! :-) Thanks for the valuable insight.

Still, I think it WILL cost Sony dearly. Specially if the Nextbox manages to make it work... (because of the simpler architecture and all)

Big_Boss_Mantis:
*huge snip for my sanity and yours*

I do agree with you regarding the idea of having a 'collectors' or 'ultimate' PS4 with backwards, I'd so buy that up on day 1. Perhaps we should make some noise on the Sony forums for this?

I agree with what you've said, they have made some bad choices over the years but really at the end of the day no company (or even person) is perfect, and atleast they are trying and do seem to be learning so credit where it's due. btw, add me on PSN, need more people that play games on it as the PC has been winning due to more friends play on it lol.

If you want the PS4 version to be the best multiplatform version, you're truly fighting a losing battle. PC versions will always be top if the developers are competent enough.

If you want the PS4 version to be the best multiplatform version, you're truly fighting a losing battle. PC versions will always be top if the developers are competent enough.

Desert Punk:

ResonanceSD:
Sorry sony, by the end of the year I'll have one of these, so good luck in your efforts.
image

But why have sony forgotten that the main point of consoles? What does the PS4 do that no other console will? "looking good" isn't an option.

I dont think the titian is going to come down to less than 800 by the end of the year, or are you going to be throwing that much cash at it?

Selling my two gtx 580's and picking up a Titan Ultra edition when it comes out.

Also I have a job, so, you know.

Fireprufe15:
If you want the PS4 version to be the best multiplatform version, you're truly fighting a losing battle. PC versions will always be top if the developers are competent enough.

Pretty sure Diablo 3 fans would disagree with you.

ResonanceSD:

Desert Punk:

ResonanceSD:
Sorry sony, by the end of the year I'll have one of these, so good luck in your efforts.

But why have sony forgotten that the main point of consoles? What does the PS4 do that no other console will? "looking good" isn't an option.

I dont think the titian is going to come down to less than 800 by the end of the year, or are you going to be throwing that much cash at it?

Selling my two gtx 580's and picking up a Titan Ultra edition when it comes out.

Also I have a job, so, you know.

Thats still gonna be a chunk of change for the Ultra edition if you buy it bleeding edge, must be a nice job...you guys hiring? :P

Desert Punk:

ResonanceSD:

Desert Punk:

I dont think the titian is going to come down to less than 800 by the end of the year, or are you going to be throwing that much cash at it?

Selling my two gtx 580's and picking up a Titan Ultra edition when it comes out.

Also I have a job, so, you know.

Thats still gonna be a chunk of change for the Ultra edition if you buy it bleeding edge, must be a nice job...you guys hiring? :P

http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_ultra_and_gtx_titan_le.html

"The Ultra would be a small upgrade for the 'regular' Titan, opening up one disabled SMX cluster bringing 2880 Shader cores with 240 TMUs towards the Ultra.

There remains a lot of speculation of course, but this could mean the Titan LE at 599 USD. The Original Titan at 799 USD, and the GeForce Titan Ultra at 999 USD."

I kinda feel sorry for people who dropped $1k+ on the Titan at launch only to be told that this is possibly in the pipeline.

Also, maybe?

http://careers.newscorp.com/

Kheapathic:

Fireprufe15:
If you want the PS4 version to be the best multiplatform version, you're truly fighting a losing battle. PC versions will always be top if the developers are competent enough.

Pretty sure Diablo 3 fans would disagree with you.

Notice how i said 'competent' ;)

Fireprufe15:

Kheapathic:

Fireprufe15:
If you want the PS4 version to be the best multiplatform version, you're truly fighting a losing battle. PC versions will always be top if the developers are competent enough.

Pretty sure Diablo 3 fans would disagree with you.

Notice how i said 'competent' ;)

If you can do better, maybe you should show them how it's done.

Somhow, I think these attempts to be "the best" rather than just "good" are part of the problem for the console market at this point in time.

ResonanceSD:

Desert Punk:

ResonanceSD:
Sorry sony, by the end of the year I'll have one of these, so good luck in your efforts.
image

But why have sony forgotten that the main point of consoles? What does the PS4 do that no other console will? "looking good" isn't an option.

I dont think the titian is going to come down to less than 800 by the end of the year, or are you going to be throwing that much cash at it?

Selling my two gtx 580's and picking up a Titan Ultra edition when it comes out.

Also I have a job, so, you know.

Would be a bit pointless as the developers that have the ability to push graphical boundaries are tied to publishers that want to support the biggest markets , causal gaming on consoles.
Basically speaking your Titan will be playing higher textures and draw distances on poorly optimised engines designed primarily for systems with lesser hardware.

IIRC TotalBiscut has a pair of Titans in his PC and he gets frame rate issues still with some current games.

It may change with the new consoles and new hardware but I fear the PC will still be a after thought in the developers plans, if they have some spare time to bother with the PC version... or fob it off to some contract studio to port.
The PC titles these days tend to be small quirky titles with lots of unusual ideas and mechanics where some indies are experimenting... hardly going to stress any graphics cards, let alone Titans.

Ironically despite the flame inducing title that the article had I am starting to cool down on my Sony hate a bit. This is mostly because the words of that title actually never appeared in the article. Escapist news contributors really like riling folks up don't they? Quite an accomplishment really. Part of it is that they seem to be dropping some of the attitude that they had towards their consumers. WHen it was first announced I thought that the lack of backwards compatibility was yet another fuck you to their customers. Then I learned that the reason they couldn't was because they screwed up so royally with the Cell architecture on the PS 3. At least they manned up on it.

Now is this streaming function they are working on going to be somehow free for people who owned legit copies of PS 3 games or is this going to be another way to siphon money out of your wallets? This is a question that remains to be answered.

Lastly, why are some many of these social media functions being added to these consoles? Many homes now have these things called smart TVs and Blu ray players with smart TV functions. This largely renders redundant a lot of this functionality. Wouldn't it be better if they spent that extra money on simply making the best, most reliable, easy to develop for gaming console out there?

Inquiring minds want to know.

It was very obvious he was talking about the best console :P Everyone already knows PCs are better (hell, the PS4sCPU cores are from the ultra mobile space, they're hardly going to worry a mid range PC desktop CPU). PCs cannot possibly be worse than a console because of a myriad of factors. So it'd be pants on head retarded for him to try and say it's better than a PC.

Therefore, just chill!

Personally, i'm happy Sony are banging on about games rather than sharing (yes, it's been mentioned, but it doesn't seem to be the MAIN focus of the PS4) and how we'll always need to be online. At least one console manufacturer is doing something kind of right.

ASnogarD:

IIRC TotalBiscut has a pair of Titans in his PC and he gets frame rate issues still with some current games.

Do note that those settings are well beyond anything that the console version has though. Also, that is down to them not optimizing, but very high end 'throw it in because it's pretty but still experimental' effects aren't. HBAO was a massive hog back when it was introduced, now even consoles can have cut down versions of it.

PCs are a perfect testbed for trying out new effects because they don't need to be optimized for thousands of man hours to implement, since people can turn them off if needs be. Never attribute 'newest game performance' to console quality, because most mid/upper mid range PCs can run console quality games (1280x720, low/medium) at eye watering FPS that is beyond ludicrous. I can easily be pushing ~600fps in portal 2, for example, even with most settings turned up maximum, never mind at what the PS3/360 runs it at! Is that pointless? definitely, but it does mean when a game with those lovely experimental effects turns up, i can run it (and no, i don't have titans, i have a single gtx670, which doesn't suffer issues).

So therefore always remember the context when talking about 'PC performance'. Especially when talking about re purposed scientific computation cores that weren't really designed for games properly anyway.

ASnogarD:

ResonanceSD:

Desert Punk:

I dont think the titian is going to come down to less than 800 by the end of the year, or are you going to be throwing that much cash at it?

Selling my two gtx 580's and picking up a Titan Ultra edition when it comes out.

Also I have a job, so, you know.

Would be a bit pointless as the developers that have the ability to push graphical boundaries are tied to publishers that want to support the biggest markets , causal gaming on consoles.
Basically speaking your Titan will be playing higher textures and draw distances on poorly optimised engines designed primarily for systems with lesser hardware.

IIRC TotalBiscut has a pair of Titans in his PC and he gets frame rate issues still with some current games.

It may change with the new consoles and new hardware but I fear the PC will still be a after thought in the developers plans, if they have some spare time to bother with the PC version... or fob it off to some contract studio to port.
The PC titles these days tend to be small quirky titles with lots of unusual ideas and mechanics where some indies are experimenting... hardly going to stress any graphics cards, let alone Titans.

I'm only getting it to run 5760x1080 quietly. With less power draw. And with more VRAM.

NextGen consoles lost all their adavantages over PC gaming.
PS3, X360 already made it worse but PS4 M$Box will downright burry their own purpose.

Yoshida said it himself:

"He said when the PS4 was first revealed, they wanted to focus on the most important aspect of the console: that it is a gaming machine, hence the multimedia aspects of the system were slightly downplayed."

when you have to explicitly point out that a GAMING console is made for GAMING, then there is something very wrong about it.

Super Not Cosmo:
So far there is nothing really getting me excited about this upcoming (or current if you include the WiiU) generation of consoles. With GTA5 and Watchdogs both getting PS3/360 releases it's looking more and more like I might just hold tight with my PS3/360 for a year or two before making the jump into any consoles from this most recent generation.

The way it stands now I have such a back log of games on my cuurent consoles I've bought and not played yet I could probably start a new game and play it through to completion then repeat the process and not have to buy another game until sometime next year.

That's actually the best idea, to be honest. The last three console launches are pretty indicative of what the next two are going to be like: Tons of Ubisoft, a few extra launch titles in addition to Ubisoft, and that's likely about it. Heck, it took the Vita until this spring and summer to start getting games I want to buy and play, such as the recently released Soul Sacrifice and the upcoming re-release of Muramasa.

Also, despite being the better selling handheld, the 3ds doesn't have it much better. The only difference between the 3ds and the Vita is that the 3ds came out first, went through it's lack of games crisis before the Vita, and didn't reach a recovery point until shortly after the release of the 3ds XL.

ASnogarD:

The highest settings are by their nature poorly optimized. Usually when a company releases recommended settings, anything higher than the recommended is typically superfluous in visual difference. The one exception is draw distance, which given developers using fog to hide lower draw distances, can turn a flush and floral summer field into Silent Hill meets Bambi.

I honestly thought that the PS3 has the best variation in 3rd party titles this gen. Almost every JRPG that has a timed 360 exclusive period came to the PS3 with higher sales and extra content. Bethesda's timed exclusive DLC almost never worked on the 360 when released. The PS3 was also the one console that localized some games that Japanese devs were scared to release worldwide, and most of those games sold well. (Yakuza, Way of the Samurai).

The one franchise I can think of that truly jumped Sony's ship was Monster Hunter and being a Nintendo only franchise hasn't worked well fore that series. Don't get me wrong MH tri sold well on the Wii, but not half as well as any of the PSP entries.

Cancelling the PS3 Monster Hunter was pretty stupid on Capcom's part IMO. MH3 isn't selling that well on the Wii U or 3DS (at least compare to its PSP predecessors) and I can't see MH4 being a big deal on the 3DS this summer when it supposedly is to be released.

To be honest, for me its a "No Monster Hunter, No PS Vita" rule for me right now. That and that thing's price is too high for anywhere that isn't Japan.

Colt47:

That's actually the best idea, to be honest. The last three console launches are pretty indicative of what the next two are going to be like: Tons of Ubisoft, a few extra launch titles in addition to Ubisoft, and that's likely about it. Heck, it took the Vita until this spring and summer to start getting games I want to buy and play, such as the recently released Soul Sacrifice and the upcoming re-release of Muramasa.

Muramasa getting a re-release? Awesome, that was one of the games on the Wii that actually mattered at all. If the Vita's price comes down, I'll get one.

Also, despite being the better selling handheld, the 3ds doesn't have it much better. The only difference between the 3ds and the Vita is that the 3ds came out first, went through it's lack of games crisis before the Vita, and didn't reach a recovery point until shortly after the release of the 3ds XL.

That 33% worldwide price cut that came 6 months after launch certainly helped. I can't think of the last time I heard of ANY game on the 3DS using the 3D feature. Guess that died pretty quickly, just like the Wii's motion control never got utilized to anything more than a waggle past its 3rd year, and just like no 3rd party game on the Wii U is really utilizing the tablet controller. Gimmicks don't work anymore for consoles.

Misleading title ... disappointing Mr. Bogos.

Not sure what's up with all the bashing in the thread. Sony more or less, to the best of their abilities, tried to give everyone what they wanted.

Bara_no_Hime:

So, Sony has learned from the PS3 mistakes, and wants to make the PS4 more like the PS2 - easy to develop for.

I regret to inform you that the PS2 was NOT EASY to develop for. It was living hell. But it has so much momentum that developers didn't have a choice.

The PS3 was actually a lot less painful to work with. However it was "different" and that didn't sit well with developers who had datelines to meet and are under a lot of pressure.

Thank heavens, Krazy Ken is gone. A lot of the PS3's design was driven by his whims rather than practicality. Why 8 SPUs (cut to 7 to improve yield) ? Because Ken said so ...

Thankfully, the division does seem to be run by more pragmatic people now.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

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