PlayStation 4 General DiscussionPS4

[Luminis]

One intriguing question: If GT6 may not be a PS3 title, and it is already confirmed to be in development, then what could the PS4 be and how would it function if it isn't traditionally controller-wheel based? I don't exactly see how GT can be made into a motion-centered game efficiently.

Even the Wii has traditional controllers available, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. Games like these are basically no reason to not develop a console with motion gaming or something similar in mind...

Same for wheels. They're used IRL, so it wouldn't make sense to do away with them as optional, peripheral equipment.

I wouldn't put too much stock into Microsofts "announcement. They've been engaging in a practice known as channel stuffing for years. You flood the pipeline and make it look like your sales figures are higher than they are. They've done it with the XBox, the Zune, and with the Windows Phone. Besides, what did you think they were going to say?

Two questions:

1. Are there any better sources on MS's sales figures? Because, frankly, I'd rather go by their figures than some educated guess.
2. How come you're not critical about Sony's sales figures?
   

 

[Sanji Himura]

There is always the NDP, but I'm not sure they put out their December numbers yet.

To beat a semi-dead horse, mainly since that I haven't been online when this thread exploded, I am going to explain to you the difference between units moved, units sold, and households that actually use said units.

Lets say that we do take the console maker's word on it and say that 66 million 360s, 55.5 million PS3s, and 18 million Kinect units were sold over, to give some sense of time here, the past year. The definition of a unit sold is a purchase from a retailer by a customer. Given MS's past history of inflating sales numbers, I believe that the 66 million sold is highly unlikely. And sense you can not lie to the Securites and Exchange Commission, they would have to eventually have to reveal their real number sold, which is more in the neighborhood, I think around 56 million.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Sorry for the Double post, but typing on the PS3 has a character limit.

To continue, Now if those numbers, and this is far more likely, means that units are moved from the manufacture office to retail stores, then each of the 66 million 360s that MS claims to have "sold" doesn't have to physically be sold to a customer. As a matter of fact, you can keep one in the back and NOT sell it and yet, the manufacture plant can call it a sale because it sold it as stock to the store.

Now here is the tricky number, the install base. With Gamestop and the like selling referbished consoles, you can never accurately count the number of people that use a particuar console or service. I personally own a Nintendo Wii and PS3, which I bought refurbished. I seriously doubt that I would be counted in any install base numbers, despite the fact that I use both consoles semi-regularly. Now, there is an easier way to track online install base.

 

[CaptainHarlock]

Even the Wii has traditional controllers available, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. Games like these are basically no reason to not develop a console with motion gaming or something similar in mind...

Same for wheels. They're used IRL, so it wouldn't make sense to do away with them as optional, peripheral equipment.

Two questions:

1. Are there any better sources on MS's sales figures? Because, frankly, I'd rather go by their figures than some educated guess.
2. How come you're not critical about Sony's sales figures?
   

The only other source for console sales is Vgchartz.com.

http://www.vgchartz.com/weekly/40916/Global/

They show that the gap between the 360 and the PS3 is actually quite smaller than Microsoft leads you to believe. I know that "gamers" don't readily accept them as a valid source most of the time, but until we have a SoundScan type system for video games, I'm afraid they will have to do.

You want to know what I'm not more critical of Sony's sales figures? Well take a seat, I'm about to explain why.

When Microsoft got into the video game industry I said to just about anyone who'd listen, make no mistake they are not getting into this industry to merely "compete". They want to DOMINATE it, and they will do anything to make sure that the ONLY choice you have is to buy an XBox. And if they do, you'll get consoles that barely work, poor customer service, and we'd be playing the same games over and over... and over... and over. And don't think for a minute that they "did right" by their customers by offering to extend the warranty for all XBox 360's. They did it to avoid a recall and the subsequent lawsuits that would come afterwards. Haven't we seen all of those things? But for some reason it's okay, because "it's video games".

In 1999, pursuant to the United States Sherman Anti-Trust act, Microsoft was found guilty of illegally creating a monopoly and stifling competition by bundling it's Internet Explorer with Windows. While testifying before the United States Senate, Sen. Orin Hatch of Utah asked the chamber "how many of you have a computer, raise your hands. How many of you use Windows as an operating system, raise your hands (the entire chamber raises it's hands). How many of you use an operating system that's isn't Windows? (Nobody raises their hands). That ladies and gentlemen, is the definition of the word "monopoly". ". Yes, Sony may have been sued for their Rootkit applications, and they have been sued by "outraged gamers", however they have never resorted to predatory, and anti-trust practices in order to create a monopoly in the gaming industry. Never once did a US Senator ask "how many of your kids play video games?".

And where Microsoft can't crush the competitors, they will wave the stacks of cash to BUY marketshare. They were rumored to buy CapCom, and they've dumped piles of money in front of UbiSoft to make such games as Splinter Cell "exclusive" (lot of good that did). Microsoft has also dumped considerable amounts of money into companies like Viacom for content, and the parent companies of CNET who owns sites like GameSpot. Some might say this is "smart business", however influencing what passes for "journalists" on a game site is in my opinion, unethical.

So until I see Sony dragged into court, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Recently Microsoft filed an antitrust suit against Google in the EU. Can anyone say "irony"?

 

[Luminis]

To beat a semi-dead horse, mainly since that I haven't been online when this thread exploded, I am going to explain to you the difference between units moved, units sold, and households that actually use said units.

Well, duh, the difference between units sold to customers and units sold to retailers is a given. I just see as little evidence that Sony is actually reporting units sold to customers as I see evidence that MS is reporting units sold to customers.

The only other source for console sales is Vgchartz.com.

So, you've been shooting down Wikipedia as an unreliable source (even though Wikipedia itself states it sources clearly) and you're now using VGChartz, which is basing their sales figures on what I'd call estimated guesses...

And as long as I'm able to find dozens of clues that lead me to believe that VGChartz is unreliable and, well, basically none that would support it, I'm afraid I'm not going to consider it as a valid source just like that. At least not anymore factual than anything that's being said by MS or Sony.

You want to know what I'm not more critical of Sony's sales figures? Well take a seat, I'm about to explain why.

To abreviate this: Personal preference. Who would've thought?

But, anyways: Whether the difference between the Xbox360 and the PS3 is 3 million in MS's favor, 11 million in MS's favor or even a million in Sony's favour, the primary reason why I'm under the impression that the PS3 could be considered a failure is because Sony has to actually compete with the two companies it was dominating like hell during the last generation.

One could come up with dozens of reasons and excuses for that, but at the end of the day, that's what it boils down to, no?

 

[kimi123]

PS4 won't be released before 2014 for sure.

Wii U won't be able to do 1080P although it is will be powerful than current consoles.

720 will probably not have games like 360 except Kinect. It makes no sense whatsoever to rush PS4. PS3 has many more years left and GT6 or GT6P will be released on PS3

 

[Sanji Himura]

So, you've been shooting down Wikipedia as an unreliable source (even though Wikipedia itself states it sources clearly) and you're now using VGChartz, which is basing their sales figures on what I'd call estimated guesses...[/COLOR]

And as long as I'm able to find dozens of clues that lead me to believe that VGChartz is unreliable and, well, basically none that would support it, I'm afraid I'm not going to consider it as a valid source just like that. At least not anymore factual than anything that's being said by MS or Sony.

As I said earlier, wait for the NDP numbers to come out. At least you don't get any BS out of them. Far more reliable numbers. At least you won't have that "box office Sunday guess work" that they are spewing out now.

 

[Jello18]

And where Microsoft can't crush the competitors, they will wave the stacks of cash to BUY marketshare. They were rumored to buy CapCom, and they've dumped piles of money in front of UbiSoft to make such games as Splinter Cell "exclusive" (lot of good that did). Microsoft has also dumped considerable amounts of money into companies like Viacom for content, and the parent companies of CNET who owns sites like GameSpot. Some might say this is "smart business", however influencing what passes for "journalists" on a game site is in my opinion, unethical.



Well I that explains why GameSpot is xbox-biased and hates the PS3.

 

[bevo]

All of these battles between the sales number of the PS3 and 360 kill me. Just because X people bought one or the other doesn't make it great. The PS3 has alot of problems. The 360 on the other hand really only had one, they all broke. To be a great next gen console all microsoft has to do, is make a better 360 that doesn't break, with better hardware. Sony needs to do alot of things. Their online service is still miles behind the 360, and they show no intentions of fixing it. The XMB never had an overhaul the entire time the ps3 has been around. I have probably missed out on added features the PS3 has, because the XMB is so boring you never think to check for new features. You just go straight to the game and start playing. The PS3s network is down alot more the xbox live, so much to the point that I have given up even using it. Updates for the PS3 take forever. I have literally not played a PS3 game in months because I don't want to sit through 30 minutes of downloading then updating. Another just really stupid thing was HOME. All that time and effort put into home, and it takes 5 minutes to even access it, and then you need another 20 minutes to add updates blah blah blah. I could go on, and on about faults with the ps3. The new xbox just needs to not break and it will be great. The new Sony machine needs tons of work, and it's not just hardware upgrades. The only thing keeping anyones interest in the PS3 is exclusives. They have to have great exclusives to compete, the xbox could get by without even having any, because everything on it works so much better.

If sales was the indication of the best console, then both of them are flops and the Wii is by far the best console ever. I think we all know that's not true. In my opinion the 360 is better as a gaming console in every way(minus excusives) compared the PS3.

As far as console sales go, I can't think of one console that won the sales war, that was the best for it's current time. There was always another one out there that was much better then it was. As far as I'm concerned the Wii and PS3 were major flops. I don't know anyone personally who owns multiple consoles that still plays the Wii or PS3. The few exceptions are when a really good exclusive comes out on one. Then they will play that exclusive and go right back to the 360 for general gaming.

 

[Luminis]

As far as console sales go, I can't think of one console that won the sales war, that was the best for it's current time.

Maybe we should be using the term "product" instead of "console". I mean, I kinda understand where you're coming from, but for a company, the best product is what makes them the most money.

And with consoles, a huge amount of sales is at least a good indicator for that. Especially if the consoles aren't sold with an initial loss... But, I'll readily agree that sales are never an indicator of actual quality.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Excellent point. Earlier this generation you couldn't find a wii for nothing, but after the magic of motion controls wore off, people started to take them back to the store(or Gamestop) to trade in for a real console. Sure Nintendo has its fan boys who keep its torch burning, like Operation Rainfall for example, but really Nintendo has become a niche market geared to the casual gamer.

Even the WiiU is no different. You can use the tablet controller for one player games, but two or more, you have to revert to Wii's controllers because of they[Nintendo] "think that a second (or more) tablet controller is too expensive for solo sales."

Courting the hardcore? You figure it out.

 

[ussr]

I would never swap my dual shock 3 and G27 wheel for any schmancy fancy gesticulate controller in new generation consoles.

I will always use mine standard DS and Wheel 👍

 

[Luminis]

Sure Nintendo has its fan boys who keep its torch burning, like Operation Rainfall for example, but really Nintendo has become a niche market geared to the casual gamer.

I absolutely agree that the Wii is aimed at the casual market, but I wouldn't say that that's a niche market. Granted, you can only open up a new market once, but the same can be said for the DS and the 3DS. The 3DS is to the DS what the Wii U is to the Wii, I'd say. An upgraded version of its predecessor, still aimed at a relatively casual market.

And in the case of the 3DS, it seems to work well enough... Or rather, it sells like mad.

 

[SuperShouden]

It doesn't say "no announcement this year" is just says "no announcement at E3."

 

[Robin]

And in the case of the 3DS, it seems to work well enough... Or rather, it sells like mad.

Really? It was a massive flop here, so massive they knocked a hundred pounds of the price within the first few months and games were sold in end of year sales for like 3 pounds each. They can't even get rid of the things now!

I have a feeling the Vita will go the same way because we no longer live in an era where we need dedicated handhelds for gaming, every phone can do just as good gaming (graphically) and as the casual markets are where the mega bucks lie they are going to think why do I need that when I can play angry brids on my iPhone!

 

[Luminis]

Really? It was a massive flop here, so massive they knocked a hundred pounds of the price within the first few months and games were sold in end of year sales for like 3 pounds each. They can't even get rid of the things now!

I don't know, but what I've read from various different sources, it seems like the 3DS is doing quite well, after they've dropped the price. Appearently, Nintendo's still going to lose money to the 3DS, but if the pricing is right, it seems to work well enough.

If they set a better launch price for the Wii U than they did for the 3DS, I see little to no reason why it wouldn't sell well enough...

 

[Sanji Himura]

Robin's right, at least here in the US. The android and iOS platforms are coming out with better platforms that the 3DS and Vita nearly have no chance and are second rate hand helds, despite the fact that Sony has superior tech in its handheld. Price point is nearly irrelavant.

 

[LaBounti]

As an actual mobile gamer there is no way I'd choose my "phone" over my PSP for gaming I keep both as they serve different purposes for gaming needs . I have a few Android games but they pale in comparison in terms on controls and gameplay. Syphon Filter, Jeane D'arc, Burnout Dominator, And many many games are suited for dedicated handhelds. I for one would not buy my son and android or Apple device for gaming.

 

[Blitz24]

Sorry to bump such an old thread but this info isn't promising:
http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/rumor-next-playstation-coming-2013-200015017.html

 

[Robin]

I don't know what Sony are smoking if its true!

Doesn't play PS3 games, doesn't play used games... hell why not go the whole hog and make it digital download only and see it flop like the PSP Go. Do you know how badly Sony are in trouble right now financially, the last thing they should be doing is imposing yet more DRM on people.

I also hope that its not going to be called PS Orbis to follow the stupidly named PS Vita.

 

[Blitz24]

I don't know what Sony are smoking if its true!

Doesn't play PS3 games, doesn't play used games... hell why not go the whole hog and make it digital download only and see it flop like the PSP Go. Do you know how badly Sony are in trouble right now financially, the last thing they should be doing is imposing yet more DRM on people.

I also hope that its not going to be called PS Orbis to follow the stupidly named PS Vita.

If the only thing that stays the same from that report is the name, I would be more than happy to accept the Orbis. Yeah the Vita isn't really cutting into the 3DS huge margin AND the tablets.

 

[Slash]

Kotaku is 99% legit...

 

[Spagetti69]

Kotaku is 99% legit...

How do you know? Oh Kotaku told you lol.

 

[Conza]

I just struggle to believe PlayStation are that stupid 'fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!' - they did this whole 'non-backwards compatibile thing' with the PS3, and it didn't work! Luckily some of us managed to pay $1000 to get the fully working PS3, but then they decided to remove the backwards compatibility for future models.

How stupid must they possibly be to make this mistake AGAIN?

 

[Blitz24]

I just struggle to believe PlayStation are that stupid 'fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!' - they did this whole 'non-backwards compatibile thing' with the PS3, and it didn't work! Luckily some of us managed to pay $1000 to get the fully working PS3, but then they decided to remove the backwards compatibility for future models.

How stupid must they possibly be to make this mistake AGAIN?

I could have sworn I read an interview somewhere with a Sony Executive who said these exact words and said that due to this the PS4 would have backwards compatibility. I guess they fired him or he was lying.

 

[PletdeKoe]

Although Backwards compability is something we gamers all want, me included. However. Sony will base all their decisions on a new Playstation format on the futere of the gaming industry. If backwards compability causes problems, they will drop it easily.

It astounds me how many people here on this forum can't seem to understand how a company thinks. Sure everyone has their right on their own opinion, just don't think a company such as Sony will think like you, no matter how logical correct your opinion might be.

It is a multinational company, one of the marketleaders for console entertainment. They base their decisions on so many factors not known to us.

On topic:
Nothing has been officially announced. So don't get your hopes up or down. Just wait and see.

 

[Conza]

Well this is where my thinking gets confused. Companies are essentially in it to make money, so, a smart company will say 'backwards compatibility will sell us more consoles, and in the long run more games because more people will have consoles', so a company should think like me, because I think like a company (should).

 

[PletdeKoe]

Well this is where my thinking gets confused. Companies are essentially in it to make money, so, a smart company will say 'backwards compatibility will sell us more consoles, and in the long run more games because more people will have consoles', so a company should think like me, because I think like a company (should).

As long as people can't play older games they are forced to buy new games and therefore expand the revenue-stream of the company. It all depends on making consumers buy stuff, not use the bought material as long as possible. We all no that consoles themselves are only a means to enable sales on games.

 

[CMvan46]

And crap like that is why next year I'll be moving to PC gaming

I just don't understand some company's business models sometimes... I wish more companies took the time to know what their consumers want. No matter what they put out there people will take advantage but I truly believe the more you listen to your customers the more willing they are to spend money on it. People will pay for quality but I won't be paying for something like that.

 

[Conza]

As long as people can't play older games they are forced to buy new games and therefore expand the revenue-stream of the company. It all depends on making consumers buy stuff, not use the bought material as long as possible. We all no that consoles themselves are only a means to enable sales on games.

Yes, thats the incorrect thinking though, as I'm saying, that theory obviously doesn't work, because less people bought the PS3 than the PS2, because it wasn't compatible with their old games, besides, how can the PS2, fully backwards compatible and unquestionably the most successful video game console, of all time, have a broken financial model if it supports older games, when it also sold many million (perhaps billions) of its own titles as well?

The consoles aren't what they want to sell, that's true, but its the medium to sell their games, so to make the console more popular, it needs to be backwards compatible, therefore they will get more shorten revenue and more long term revenue and profit (games being more profitable than machines).