PlayStation 4 - General Discussion Thread

Im pretty stoked for PS Now, the ability to play PS3 games on my vita and PS4 just seems awesome to me. There's still a ton of games I've yet to play and I can finally get rid of my PS3. Cant wait for more Beta and pricing details.

io said:
As for Playstation Now, I'm pretty ambivalent towards it. I have such a huge backlog of PS+ freebies, let alone a 10x bigger amount of PS3 disc-based games yet to play, that I don't see myself ever using it. I have my PS3 and PS4 sitting right next to each other (and even had them both downloading games a few minutes ago: DMC on PS3, Don't Starve on PS4). I also can't see the prices being cheaper than what we can usually get games for the CAG way (ie, on clearance, using multiple discounts, etc). It would be really nice if they let you play games you already bought digitally - that way I might use it to play some PSN games on PS4. But if you have to double-dip, then no way.
Click to expand...
You're clearly not the target demographic for PS Now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gamer4life88 said:
You're clearly not the target demographic for PS Now.
Click to expand...
But what is the demographic? There can't be that many people new to PS3 that will get a PS4 (and also want to go back and play old games). I know a few people here are saying they fall into that category but that can't be a huge market. And I wouldn't think too many CAGs would get rid of their cheap old games and then pay to stream them. It all depends on the pricing of course - if you could unload your collection for some cash and then just rent the ones you want to play then I suppose that could be one way of being cheap while using this service. Again, depending on the pricing ;).
 
io said:
But what is the demographic? There can't be that many people new to PS3 that will get a PS4 (and also want to go back and play old games). I know a few people here are saying they fall into that category but that can't be a huge market. And I wouldn't think too many CAGs would get rid of their cheap old games and then pay to stream them. It all depends on the pricing of course - if you could unload your collection for some cash and then just rent the ones you want to play then I suppose that could be one way of being cheap while using this service. Again, depending on the pricing ;).
Click to expand...
People who dont have a massive backlog. :) The ability to rent titles or subscribe to the service will be huge if the pricing is right. Heck, GS shares have alreay taken a dive.

 
I think the only reason I'd have to use PS Now is for games you can't get otherwise.  Rare or obscure games and ones that never made it onto the store, like Dark Cloud.  For the life of me I don't know why I got rid of that game and I've wanted to play it again for a while now, but can't without tracking down a copy.  It wouldn't be hard for me to do, but I've had no real motivation.  If a game like that were suddenly readily available to play by just pushing a button, I could see spending a lazy afternoon playing it.

Now, would I pay money for a service like this?  No.  If it's included in PS+ then great but I'm not going to go out of my way to stream games on my PS4 otherwise.

 
htz said:
They said the PS4 has "no games" and it sold 4.2 million units. Just imagine when we do have games like Uncharted, lol.

The PS Camera has only 1 game and it is sold out, too. Selling on eBay for double the MSRP.
Click to expand...
I got a camera with my bundle and I haven't even opened it... Maybe I will sell it...

 
I'll be interested to see what PS Now pricing is and what the game selection is. If both are reasonable I may ditch my PS3 and move on to PS4 sooner. As is I want to focus on the back log first and need to clear a spot in my tv stand anyway as all four HDMI ports in my receiver are taken up currently.

I'd love for it to eventually get to a point where you can just pay a monthly fee and play any game you want (including current games). I doubt that will happen this gen though. I don't collect or replay games, so that would save the hassle of reselling without the ship time waits of Gamefly. It would have to be cheaper too as one reason I don't use Gamefly is I don't usually get through enough games a month/year to make it financially worthwhile vs. buying cheap and selling after beating.

Off TV play I'm not hugely interested in as I don't have to share the TV often. It's just me and my fiancé and there's and other 50" TV with a Roku box and Bluray player she can use when I'm gaming. She's not a huge tv watcher anyway.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't imagine that PS Now would be anywhere near as bad as OnLive in regards to pricing. Maybe I'm just being optimistic but I have found the pricing for games in the PS Store to be reasonable---even more so when part of time PS+ promotions. I don't buy a lot of digital content (I hate digital content) but have made a few impulse purchases because some things were just too good to pass up.

 
I'm all for digital purchases if the price is right.  If I can get the game for about the same (or less) than I'd end up out of pocket for buying the physical game and selling after beating, then it's a no brainer to go digital.  It doesn't work for people who collect games, but for someone who sells every game after beating, digital makes a lot more sense when the price is equivalent or better. 

Unfortunately, a lot of the time prices are higher on digital games, and made worse by not being able to resell.  If a console ever gets to Steam type pricing (i.e. regular, crazy sales) I'd never buy another physical game.

 
dmaul1114 said:
Unfortunately, a lot of the time prices are higher on digital games, and made worse by not being able to resell. If a console ever gets to Steam type pricing (i.e. regular, crazy sales) I'd never buy another physical game.
Click to expand...
there is no reason why they cant to cheap steam like pricing on titles from ps1 and ps2. retailers arent selling these games anymore so they wont get pissed when you offer them super cheap.

 
For sure on that.  I was more talking that I hope consoles eventually go digital with steam like pricing.  They can't currently for the reason you note--alienating retailers.

PC game publishers have been able to do it as PC games hadn't had much presence on store shelves in ages anyway.

 
Well one thing I worry about there is competition, Steam may dominate but there are other options out there. Both Sony & MS going digital might mean you only buy through them and then they control all the pricing, which doesn't give them a whole lot of incentive for Steam-level sales in the first place. Granted Sony has had some great sales, especially if you have plus, but MS history of digital pricing is pretty awful generally.

 
Erad30 said:
Well one thing I worry about there is competition, Steam may dominate but there are other options out there. Both Sony & MS going digital might mean you only buy through them and then they control all the pricing, which doesn't give them a whole lot of incentive for Steam-level sales in the first place. Granted Sony has had some great sales, especially if you have plus, but MS history of digital pricing is pretty awful generally.
Click to expand...
I do definitely worry about that as well. And it has me seriously considering just buying a Steambox down the road instead of a PS4. Would be hard to miss the console exclusives though.

 
MooseTheCorgi said:
Video game industry analyst Michael Pachter of Wedbush Securities expressed skepticism about PlayStation Now. He said a similar service, OnLive, which allowed people to rent games or play with a subscription fee, never caught on -- attracting only 300,000 subscribers.
"It seems unlikely that a more narrowly focused product like PlayStation Now will succeed where OnLive failed — which was the latter’s inability to secure much content," said Pachter. "The publishers will be reticent to license to Sony without a big guarantee, and I don’t know if Sony is willing to commit to any guarantees."

Michael Pachter is an idiot. He is constantly wrong. Comparing Onlive to a fan base that will eventually reach 50ish million by a multi-billion dollar company. I wish it was my job to get paid to be wrong all day. If that was the case I would be a fuck ing millionaire. Even if this was only Sony first party titles, people would still want to be apart of Playstation Now. The bottom line is this program needs to be the right price. When PS+ first was announced, I thought the pricing was a joke. I eat those words on a monthly basis. I have more faith in Sony than any other video game company right now, because they actually seem to understand what the consumer wants and they understand the proper pricing.
Click to expand...
wait, are you saying you're wrong a lot?

 
Jodou said:
I think the only reason I'd have to use PS Now is for games you can't get otherwise. Rare or obscure games and ones that never made it onto the store, like Dark Cloud. For the life of me I don't know why I got rid of that game and I've wanted to play it again for a while now, but can't without tracking down a copy.
Click to expand...
Man, i was actually trying to hunt one down at gamestop. I saw that title a couple of months back in a store conplete but didnt know why i didnt buy it. And it was like $5. Sure wish sony could remaster that already together with dark cloud 2.
 
The 7th Number said:
This playstation now thing is kind of cool. I could see me using it to play PS3 games on PS4. But i honestly have to ask why would anyone want to play a PS3 or PS4 game on a vita if they can play it on a big screen tv with a nice comfortable controller with big buttons? If anything i have always wished the opposite, where i could play handheld games on my big screen tv. Things like Super Gameboy for SNES was awesome. Sure maybe someone wants to use the tv and you could then transfer your game from the big screen to a vita and continue, but really how often is that likely to happen? In my house that would have a 0% chance of happening. If anything i would just turn it off and continue it later. Unless you can play on the go, i really dont know that much about the service yet. But even when i do own handheld systems im rarely likely to play them outside of my house lol.
Click to expand...
Which is why I'm very interested in Vita TV, if they ever bring it over to NA. $100 one time fee, already have controllers (hope PS4 controller support patched in) and PS+ owners already have a huge library of Vita games ready to go (if they don't already have a Vita and played them). It even has a slot for physical Vita games, does all the normal video apps, works as a 2nd PS4 hub so you don't have to move the PS4 around the house to a 2nd TV is someone else is hogging the TV and you still want a TV experience not shrunk down to a Vita screen.

I have such a huge collection of last gen games both physical and digital (thanks to PS+) that I really hope PS Now is added to PS+ in that you can play games you already own. For example, Bioshock Infinite will be free next week or the week after, but you have to play it on PS3. Since your account owns it, you'd be able to play it on your PS4 with PS Now, no extra charge over PS+. While the extra charge would be the Netflix-like features for games you don't own. But I'm probably hoping for too much, and PS3 will still be hooked up to the TV for 2+ more years to come.

 
ps now if turns out like it sounds will be amazing service.  issues i see is that we seen with onlive how that streaming gaming service can not work well. i'm sure they will have tons more better servers then onlive.  Another thing is 5 mbps is not even the speed avg amercan has or can get access to so that will take away alot of customers from service.  would be nice if it's free with ps plus sub and allow you to download the streaming games.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TimboSliceGB said:
ps now if turns out like it sounds will be amazing service. issues i see is that we seen with onlive how that streaming gaming service can not work well. i'm sure they will have tons more better servers then onlive. Another thing is 5 mbps is not even the speed avg amercan has or can get access to so that will take away alot of customers from service. would be nice if it's free with ps plus sub and allow you to download the streaming games.
Click to expand...
I wish it came with plus, but Im going to guess itll be an extra price. Maybe $15-20 a,month for full access. My guess.
 
The real major issue that I dont think has been mentioned yet it stupid ISPs and their download caps. I have a 300 gb cap with Comcast in Nashville TN market, and I dont know how much bandwidth this would use up, but I could see it taking a chunk of data to play through a game over a couple of days. Throw in Netflix/hulu/etc that most people do and will hit that cap really quick. 

Not all isps have a bandwidth cap, hell even Comcast is different for different markets I think, but could easily be an issue for a lot of people.

 
kilik64 said:
The real major issue that I dont think has been mentioned yet it stupid ISPs and their download caps. I have a 300 gb cap with Comcast in Nashville TN market, and I dont know how much bandwidth this would use up, but I could see it taking a chunk of data to play through a game over a couple of days. Throw in Netflix/hulu/etc that most people do and will hit that cap really quick.

Not all isps have a bandwidth cap, hell even Comcast is different for different markets I think, but could easily be an issue for a lot of people.
Click to expand...
that is major issue for most people in u.k internet over there has very strict caps have a friend that his cap is 15 gb a month.

 
MooseTheCorgi said:
I have seen people make a big deal about Playstation Now and what it could do to Gamestop, but what about Gamefly or even Redbox.
Click to expand...
i doudt it wil hurt them at all im sure ps now will not include every single game that comes out and is out. Plus like i already said not everyone has speeds or has some kind of intenet usage cap that will turn them away from service. Plus gamefly gives you rentals and free pc games, amazing deals on used games all that is why i still have it for 15 a month well worth it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Streaming content (PS now, 4k Netflix, etc) is going to force ISPs to do something or lose MAJOR amounts of business to the first company that lifts a data cap, and has good speeds.

 
MooseTheCorgi said:
I have seen people make a big deal about Playstation Now and what it could do to Gamestop, but what about Gamefly or even Redbox.
Click to expand...
Pure speculation, but I'm sure the vast majority of the games will be Sony owned properties for the time being. Third parties will probably come later if PSNow is successful. And if that's the case, it wouldn't even cause a hiccup in Gamestop or Gamefly's business.

 
I also think there's a lot more factors to consider, like a large percentage of this country (and the world for that matter) simply does not have the bandwith capabilities to do anything with this right now, and it has to work pretty flawlessly in order for people to buy into it, and I'm betting at least the first year will be filled with hiccups while they figure shit out. I really think several years down the line it'll be awesome, but in the immediate future it going to be very bumpy for many reasons.

 
Let's not forget that many of the games that they would put on PlayStation now aren't even available at Gamestop anymore. GameStop stop selling PlayStation 2 games a long time ago and if these were mostly PlayStation 1 on PlayStation 2 games then that wouldn't be a problem are there still a niche market. As for PlayStation 3 games it would hit them but if they were older it wouldn't be that big of a problem either. One thing you have to keep in mind is that sony makes most of their money out of new release use game sales that's why they only give you $20 for the game but then sell it for 54. That weird game that sits on the shelf that is $10 that they probably paid $15 for does not make some money. A lot of people don't realize that when they take 10 to 20 of your games in trade they usually only sell half of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Any suggestions on the best place to find a PS4 camera at retail? I have one set up with the PS4 that is at my house but I'm getting a second PS4 for work and I'd like a camera to communicate with my girlfriend and of course they are sold out everywhere (no exaggeration).

I was figuring they'd show up at stores in small quantities until I went to sonystyle.com and saw that they are taking orders with an estimated ship date of 3.31.2014. I mean is it really going to be ~ 3 months before Sony can get more inventory out?

 
TimboSliceGB said:
ps now if turns out like it sounds will be amazing service. issues i see is that we seen with onlive how that streaming gaming service can not work well. i'm sure they will have tons more better servers then onlive. Another thing is 5 mbps is not even the speed avg amercan has or can get access to so that will take away alot of customers from service. would be nice if it's free with ps plus sub and allow you to download the streaming games.
Click to expand...
Where the fuck do you get your out of no where numbers! Have you checked the average internet speeds that Americans have access to?!

http://www.statetechmagazine.com/article/2013/02/average-internet-connection-speed-every-state-america

only 5 states average under 5 MBPS and one of those is Alaska! I was shocked when they said 5MBpS was the speed required, especially for what they are trying to do! I get 40 MBPS here in Denver and have never had speeds lower than 30 and I pay for the lowest level of internet available.

So your speed theory is dumb and another way that you put down anything Sony does, but subtly so no one complains.

 
Yeah it's mostly something that will just cut off people on very rural areas. And that's not enough population for them to care about for an optional service to play old games.

It would be different if streaming was the only way to play those games, or if a streaming only console was coming out or something as that would still be a lot of people to write off. But not a big deal for something like this.

But honestly, I pretty much agrees with the MS rep who said "who'd want to live there?" about such places, having grown up in rural WV and then living in major metro areas (DC/Baltimore and now Atlanta) for over a decade. If you prefer rural life, that's fine. But you have accept being a decade plus behind on technology infrastructure as there isn't enough population in remote areas to make it worth the investment to private companies.
 
dmaul1114 said:
Yeah it's mostly something that will just cut off people on very rural areas. And that's not enough population for them to care about for an optional service to play old games.

It would be different if streaming was the only way to play those games, or if a streaming only console was coming out or something as that would still be a lot of people to write off. But not a big deal for something like this.

But honestly, I pretty much agrees with the MS rep who said "who'd want to live there?" about such places, having grown up in rural WV and then living in major metro areas (DC/Baltimore and now Atlanta) for over a decade. If you prefer rural life, that's fine. But you have accept being a decade plus behind on technology infrastructure as there isn't enough population in remote areas to make it worth the investment to private companies.
Click to expand...
I think it was why ONlive didn't work... Being a streaming only service, I wasn't interested. But if you ask me if I would be interested in having a feature where I would have the OPTION to stream some older games on my already great PS4, and I say of course!

The biggest group this caters to are people who missed out on some of the great games PS3 had to offer. I mean with how many PS4's have sold, and how many more than Xbox there is quite a few I am sure that never experienced some of last gens greatness. I mostly used my PS3 as a blu-ray player besides the random exclusive like Uncharted and Last of US, but I never finished Last of US, and would like to platinum the Uncharted games and this service would allow for that. it is only a win as it is optional... not required and brings a new feature to the already great set the PS4 has.

 
I'd love a streaming only service if it worked perfectly (no lag), the price was right ($20-30 a month max) and it had every game on the system available from day one.

I don't collect it replay games, so something like that would get me paying about what I do now after selling every game after beating--without the hassle of reselling.

Though now that I'm gaming more again I may just give gamefly another try once I clear out my back log and take the next gen plunge and see if the shipping times etc are better for me now than when I tried it a few years back
 
bestkeeper14 said:
Where the fuck do you get your out of no where numbers! Have you checked the average internet speeds that Americans have access to?!

http://www.statetechmagazine.com/article/2013/02/average-internet-connection-speed-every-state-america

only 5 states average under 5 MBPS and one of those is Alaska! I was shocked when they said 5MBpS was the speed required, especially for what they are trying to do! I get 40 MBPS here in Denver and have never had speeds lower than 30 and I pay for the lowest level of internet available.

So your speed theory is dumb and another way that you put down anything Sony does, but subtly so no one complains.
Click to expand...
how is what i said putting sony down? look at on live i had that and had 24 mbps at the time thing was still laggy. if you know anything about backbone of internet in u.s you would understand the issues that could come up with this servcie. When it comes to other countries in the world u.s is way behind when it comes to internet technoligy.

like i said im happy sony is doing this and hope the other companys fallow suit so still puzzled how im bashing sony.

 
dmaul1114 said:
Yeah it's mostly something that will just cut off people on very rural areas. And that's not enough population for them to care about for an optional service to play old games.

It would be different if streaming was the only way to play those games, or if a streaming only console was coming out or something as that would still be a lot of people to write off. But not a big deal for something like this.

But honestly, I pretty much agrees with the MS rep who said "who'd want to live there?" about such places, having grown up in rural WV and then living in major metro areas (DC/Baltimore and now Atlanta) for over a decade. If you prefer rural life, that's fine. But you have accept being a decade plus behind on technology infrastructure as there isn't enough population in remote areas to make it worth the investment to private companies.
Click to expand...
even bigger cities depends on location don't have amazing internet service . before i would pay 30 bucks a month for service i would require a internet that works 24/7. It sucks that most fiber optic companys are no longer expanding that tech (other then google) which is tech that has been in most countries for years now.

 
dmaul1114 said:
I'd love a streaming only service if it worked perfectly (no lag), the price was right ($20-30 a month max) and it had every game on the system available from day one.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming they're thinking long term. OnLive and PSNow are great ideas, just probably a bit before their time. Older less complex games are a good way to test and build the service. Think 10-15 years down the line where a PS5/6 is boxless and in every tv Sony makes. Why buy an xbox or Nintendo console if your new tv has a PS.x built in?

 
Corvin said:
I'm assuming they're thinking long term. OnLive and PSNow are great ideas, just probably a bit before their time. Older less complex games are a good way to test and build the service. Think 10-15 years down the line where a PS5/6 is boxless and in every tv Sony makes. Why buy an xbox or Nintendo console if your new tv has a PS.x built in?
Click to expand...
same reason why you buy them today to play games only on that system

 
Moot point if it's all streaming and all you need is a controller.

PS Now will stream to tablets etc. not just PS4 and Vita.

No reason we can't eventually get to a point where tech is advanced to where all processing power is in the cloud and we don't need to own specific consoles or computers. Just terminals to access and interact with content in the cloud.
 
So my ps4 has now ejected the disc on its own two different times and even when the disc was out, it made the beeping sound like I was trying to eject a disc even though I wasn't touching the button. Has anyone else had this problem?
 
I love how everyone's like "I have no interest in the Kinect 2.0 and don't feel like M$ should force us to have one for an additional $100" and then everyone's all like "I NEED the PS Camera! I'm willing to pay $100+ on ebay for it!"

You realize that the Kinect 2.0 is actually more functional than the PS Camera, Right. As of right now, the PS Camera can do things like turn off your system, go to the dashboard, and... um... well, that's it. It may not be perfect, but the Kinect 2.0 can do alot more and people were bitching over that.

I'll never understand people

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ORGAN1ZAT10N_13 said:
I love how everyone's like "I have no interest in the Kinect 2.0 and don't feel like M$ should force us to have one for an additional $100" and then everyone's all like "I NEED the PS Camera! I'm willing to pay $100+ on ebay for it!"

You realize that the Kinect 2.0 is actually more functional than the PS Camera, Right. As of right now, the PS Camera can do things like turn off your system, go to the dashboard, and... um... well, that's it. It may not be perfect, but the Kinect 2.0 can do alot more and people were bitching over that.

I'll never understand people
Click to expand...
You do realize that your logic is flawed in that you'll never really know if the same people that complained about KINECT are the same people that are scrambling for the PS Camera, right? My guess would be the majority of people that are paying out the ass for the PS Camera are casuals or the same people that liked KINECT. I don't think Dudey McDudebro and Callofduty Carlton are the ones going crazy trying to find Cameras.

Also, if you can find it in a store, it's a cheaper(albeit less featured) way to try out KINECT and see how you like it. If you wind up finding it's not for you, you can then flip it to ebay for some extra cash. I think the main point for most is the principle... People don't like feeling like they're being forced to buy something, even if they think it's something they could potentially enjoy.
 
Mixer23 said:
You do realize that your logic is flawed in that you'll never really know if the same people that complained about KINECT are the same people that are scrambling for the PS Camera, right? My guess would be the majority of people that are paying out the ass for the PS Camera are casuals or the same people that liked KINECT. I don't think Dudey McDudebro and Callofduty Carlton are the ones going crazy trying to find Cameras.

Also, if you can find it in a store, it's a cheaper(albeit less featured) way to try out KINECT and see how you like it. If you wind up finding it's not for you, you can then flip it to ebay for some extra cash. I think the main point for most is the principle... People don't like feeling like they're being forced to buy something, even if they think it's something they could potentially enjoy.
Click to expand...
im just still puzzled why people say well you are being forced to buy KINECT are people not being forced to buy wii u with the wii u gamepad when most wii u games can beplayed with wii motes? kinect is part of the x1 system as a whole which if people would use x1 they would understand why ms wanted to include it . i think people forget whe systems in the past came with ad ons like nes came with dunk hunt and dunk hunt gun and people were not like omg i don't want that junk.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TimboSliceGB said:
im just still puzzled why people say well you are being forced to buy KINECT are people not being forced to buy wii u with the wii u gamepad when most wii u games can beplayed with wii motes? kinect is part of the x1 system as a whole which if people would use x1 they would understand why ms wanted to include it . i think people forget whe systems in the past came with ad ons like nes came with dunk hunt and dunk hunt gun and people were not like omg i don't want that junk.
Click to expand...
LOL.

You do realize a lot of people do bitch about the gameplay right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because the Xbox One is $500? Plus again it's bad messaging on MS' part, they initially pushed it as completely necessary, then said you didn't need it, then sold you it anyways with the console along with reports coming out that the console could actually be significantly cheaper without Kinect. On top of that at least among core gamers who will make up those initial buyers, Kinect is a bad word. They don't like motion control or spotty voice commands. And what has MS done to really push Kinect as the future? There aren't any promising games and most people seem to say it's confusing to use and the second the voice recognition doesn't work properly, they never want to deal with it ever again. The guys on giant bomb basically called it a hot mess, and so have Cheapy D, Wombat and Shipwreck for that matter. They've said some negative stuff about the PS4's UI as well, but not nearly to that extent.

 
TimboSliceGB said:
im just still puzzled why people say well you are being forced to buy KINECT are people not being forced to buy wii u with the wii u gamepad when most wii u games can beplayed with wii motes? kinect is part of the x1 system as a whole which if people would use x1 they would understand why ms wanted to include it . i think people forget whe systems in the past came with ad ons like nes came with dunk hunt and dunk hunt gun and people were not like omg i don't want that junk.
Click to expand...
Wow, talk about apples & oranges... The Gamepad is the main controller for the Wii U, while the KINECT is basically an expensive unneeded accessory.

Yes, lots of games don't require the Gamepad, but plenty of them do. Besides, lots of times you're controlling the game in the worst way possible when you aren't using the Gamepad. The Wii Remotes are mostly for local multiplayer, Nintendo could have just as easily left them out from being compatible.

Try harder next time.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top