Let's debunk some misconceptions about next gen consoles

One thing I've noticed about the next gen console features is that some are massively overhyped and others derided to the point you think it would make a console unsellable.

Digital Ownership & DRM
Let's start with the biggest controversy and that's the Xbox's digital ownership + 24hr check. What concerns me the most is that people seem to take for granted that their internet connection will go down. Unless you signed a contract with less than 4% guaranteed uptime you shouldn't have to worry about your console being bricked and MS wont be as draconian as to not make exceptions for natural disasters etc. Countries with crappy Internet shouldn't really be complaining because if you spend 500€ minimum on a console that needs a 300€ TV to get the most out of it you are not going to have crappy internet that's only up 3% of the time, and finally as arrogant as it may seem, Microsoft only cares about the US market because that's the only market that really cared about the Xbox; A football relevant situation is the Bundesliga and their marketing practices. Everyone is paranoid about the 24hr check bricking their consoles but a 90$ smartphone will act perfectly as an authenticator. Now while these seem like cheap excuses lets get to why the 24hr check was implemented and how that ties to digital ownership. The 60$ pricepoint for console games irks everyone, and digital authenticated ownership will allow games to be sold for a lot cheaper - current digitally owned XBL games couldn't be reduced in price because MS would be undermining its retail partnerships but now XBL members, like Steam members, should be able to enjoy competitively priced games and massive sales which PSN can't offer. (Sure, PS+ benefits but I'll get into that later.)


So much glorious hypocracy:
First of all, Sony is taking a massive risk by playing the whole used games thing "fiasco" because they have explicitly stated that if Ubisoft wants your game tied to your Uplay account, or EA & Origin that there's nothing stopping them from doing so; in fact they already have a confirmed, account-tied digital AAA title whose singleplayer is online-only as a launch title: Diablo III. What I love is that every single PS fanboy that complained about XBL Gold on "principle" (the XBL counter argument was that 60$ per year is pocket change, which it is) completely disappeared when multiplayer on the PS4 was announced as PS+ required. Sure there are the PS+ bonuses but that really isn't that important when you think about the markets that PS3 won because PSN was free now that's not the case and they'll have to choose between the XBox which will in all likelyhood have cheaper games or PS4 with $60 games.


What it looks like to me is that MS is preparing to adopt a Steam like policy and PS4 is trying to profit off traditional console strategy with almost no DRM (which would make devs extremely unhappy - PS4 games will be pirated even more than PC)

Considering Valve wants to make the Steambox happen and are coming with a different strategy MS is far better prepared for the next console generation than Sony.

Wait, what if you dont have an internet connection to your Xbox and only play offline?

While I agree on the hypocrisy its quite funny actually. 

Do you really think Microsoft will offer steam like reduced prices ?

Because I don't.

What if Activision forces always online singleplayer? (Diablo III) What if EA forces always online singleplayer? (SimCity) What is Ubisoft forces draconian DRM? (Assassin's Creed).

You seem to forget that it will be even easier to pirate the PS4 games than PC and that the big 3 all have a track records of draconian DRM on PC.

Pointing out that one console has to check in online is a moot point if PS4 games have to be verified online.

Microsoft can always adjust the check in period for their console whilst still being an attractive platform for devs whilst Sony has created EA's nightmare.

Microsoft offering steam like prices has to happen because despite some dumb things MS has pulled taking this approach to the XBone and sticking with traditional console prices would be an unrecoverable position marketing-wise.

The PS4 is attractive to gamers and the XBox is attractive to devs. While in all likelyhood the PS4 might win there some owners that will be in for a shock, like playing PS4 on your Vita is only going to be feasable when directly connected and maybe over your homenetwork. Streaming? First of all you'll be streaming to UStream , it'll be taking up console power (compressing HD video is no small feat) so the supposed performance advantage wont be there because any streaming compatible games will have to reserve power for streaming.

To me PS4 is playing a dangerous game because their marketing is on the verge of misdirection whilst Mictosoft doesn't beat around the bush and I know plenty of people who don't care about the 24hr check which seems to be the biggest sticking point. The whole used games thing is being overhyped as bad by companies who live off used games sales. If MS does what they kinda have to do then no one is going to complain because people buy used games to get them cheap, with digital ownership these cheap prices are are possible anyways.

Alan Wake, a pretty expensive game to make was 90% off last week or so on Steam. I see developer bundles where the value blows my mind and don't get me started on holiday sales lol.

If not MS will have the biggest gaming related fail since E.T.

You realise Xbox One has similar streaming capabilities with twitch?

So I fail to see how that negates PS4s spec advantage. 

But again I doubt MS will do steam like prices we will see I suppose.

Phritz wrote:Microsoft offering steam like prices has to happen because despite some dumb things MS has pulled taking this approach to the XBone and sticking with traditional console prices would be an unrecoverable position marketing-wise.

how exactly? they've killed the used games market, so microsoft will be the ones dictating prices through a) their digdist network and b) their approved retailers... they'll have a stranglehold on the market, and anyone who has ever tried buying ms office can testify that reasonable pricing is not their priority

what's going to happen is that ms will be allowed to charge whatever the hell they want for their games and nobody will be able to stop them

PS4 is streaming games directly to the Vita ... devs don't have to do anything ... it's built-in the PS4 structure , if outside your homenetwork maybe they're going to do something with Gaikai !? no ?

All I see is some ignorant bullshit.

No DRM at all? Are you serious? PS4 will obviously still require chipping or flashing, which is hardly no DRM. Meaning it won't be easier to pirate PS4 games than PC games like you're trying to tell us (stupid to think so, no console has ever been easier since PS1)

And no dev will think Xbox one is more attractive becouse it lacks consumers. why make games so none will pirate them if none buys them anyway?   devs will devolop their games for ps4, becouse that's the console that will actually sell, while xbox wont sell enough

tl:dr sony is doing everything right, microsoft aint, thus ps4 is more attractive to both devs and buyers, and your stupid to think otherwise honestly

Calma, Se7en....ain't that serious, brah.

Console hater alert

We're going to have a load od  f2p's and MMORPG's  on PS4 ...Sony wins by default

Tbf from what i have seen so far practically every game is going to be an MMO of some sort

That was the biggest thing to take away from E3 to me, the lines between single player and multiplayer are blurring.

Both NFS and The Crew ( which i actually like the look of now) are example of that.

That's great ... But on PS4 we're going to get MMO's that are exclusive for teh master race like DayZ and more to come ...which means that getting a ps4 , doesnt make you a console peasant at all

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:

---

Tbf from what i have seen so far practically every game is going to be an MMO of some sort

That was the biggest thing to take away from E3 to me, the lines between single player and multiplayer are blurring.

Both NFS and The Crew ( which i actually like the look of now) are example of that

Yeah agree, along with Destiny and The Division

fatman123 wrote:Wait, what if you dont have an internet connection to your Xbox and only play offline?

A Microsoft Exec gave an answer for that: ""Fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity," Mattrick said. "It's called Xbox 360.""

http://www.edge-online.com/news/dayz-set-to-arrive-on-ps4-but-could-skip-xbox-one/

yea, the developers are loving the xbox

Most are saying that its easy to port and develop for the ps4 now ... And with their policies that allow self-publishing and no pay for game patches , its pretty clear where the crowd will be going for now...

che wrote:http://www.edge-online.com/news/dayz-set-to-arrive-on-ps4-but-could-skip-xbox-one/

yea, the developers are loving the xbox

Was going to say, its the publishers that are attracted to the Xbox not the devs.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/14/developers-explain-leaning-towards-playstation-4-over-xbox-one
Quotes from the guy that helped release the xbox.

Microsoft requiring devs to have publishers even though they can self-publish their own work and requiring you to pay $10,000 for updates....very smart Microsoft.

It could also depend on the price elasticity to be honest. If Microsoft is confident that their strategy can put an end to piracy and not miss out on possible revenue, regardless of a lesser consumer base, they can still get a higher profit. Isn't that what matters to them? It's not a popularity contest cos at the end of the day, it is about making money.

That said, the bad PR can hurt more in the long term and developers may, as already starting to show, prefer the PS4. On the other hand, developers may want to side with MS to ensure their games won't be victims of piracy and lose money on that.

What's intriguing is now that Sony have explicitly said that they aren't going down that road, how would it affect them in the future should they decide to change their minds. Like it or not, we're really dependent on the internet and cloud technology is growing rapidly so there will come a time that we'll take a constant online connection as granted. MS really screwed up on implementing whatever they wanted to do and their horrible PR didn't help at all

Phritz wrote:One thing I've noticed about the next gen console features is that some are massively overhyped and others derided to the point you think it would make a console unsellable.

Digital Ownership & DRM
Let's start with the biggest controversy and that's the Xbox's digital ownership + 24hr check. What concerns me the most is that people seem to take for granted that their internet connection will go down.

Missing the point . The issue is more about how an external entity can control the software i own , I didn't rent the software - I bought it .

Phritz wrote:
MS wont be as draconian as to not make exceptions for natural disasters etc.

Yea rt . In case of a natural disaster , a MS engineer will show up at your home to override the defaults of your xbox .

Phritz wrote:
Countries with crappy Internet shouldn't really be complaining because if you spend 500€ minimum on a console that needs a 300€ TV to get the most out of it you are not going to have crappy internet that's only up 3% of the time,

Consumers , anywhere , have a right to complain .

Phritz wrote:
and finally as arrogant as it may seem, Microsoft only cares about the US market because that's the only market that really cared about the Xbox;

So a 24hr authentication benefits the US consumer . There's no way the feature benefits the consumer - he's either indifferent to it , or is restricted by it .

Phritz wrote:


What it looks like to me is that MS is preparing to adopt a Steam like policy and PS4 is trying to profit off traditional console strategy with almost no DRM (which would make devs extremely unhappy - PS4  games will be pirated even more than PC)

The age old debate of whether piracy actually is detrimental to sales .

It's not rocket science, I don't get how they are getting things so wrong.

Make the products affordable and accessible and people are more than happy to pay.

Since the introduction of things like iTunes, Spotify and other places to purchase music online the piracy rate of music has dropped drastically. Instead of taking an approach that works they've gone the total opposite by making everything inaccessible and try to restrict your every little button you press. 

Any of you that have worked in retail will know that goods stolen/lost are simply worked into any budget because it's easier to do it that way than to just go over the top in the other direction.

I'm not saying piracy is ok nor should it be accepted but doing things like making your products more affordable and accessible would be a massive step forward imo. Instead i'm not allowed to take a game to my friends house and play it? Genius.

Actually Iszanto designate him as one of your family and he can play that game whenever he wants as long as you're not playing it at the same time. It doesn't even have to be a blood relative; He can be 3000 miles away in MS's own words.

Do you really think such a system would be possible without the 24hr check? It would be waaaaay too exploitable.