PlayStation 4 General DiscussionPS4

[nealcropper]

Yes but we as consumers have the power to make sure it doesn't come down to that. Well, I accept that eventually the disc is going to go away but I don't believe we have to accept that everything will be new or nothing or at all with no way to re-sell anything.

Even if someone buys every game new and doesn't loan out games or borrow games I don't understand why they would be behind the proposed restrictions, in no way would it be good for any consumers. The idea that games will suddenly become better and cheaper if that was the only option is silly, business doesn't work that way. The idea of a used market has existed for as long as their has been a new market and it hasn't killed off any other industries. The used car market is huge, DVDs, Blu-Rays and CDs are another huge market and one similar to videogames, are they whining about it?

I'm not behind the proposed restrictions at all Simon, exactly the opposite in fact. All I am saying is that it looks like that's were the industry is going.

I don't agree that the games will become better, but they could in theory become cheaper, although this has been covered many times, the fact that they could become cheaper, doesn't mean they will. Unless publishers use digital media to their advantage and advertise the fact that because it costs less to distribute the digital media than its hard counterpart the savings could be passed on to the end user. But I don't think that this will happen.

The second one. If it does come down to that, there would be no reason whatsoever to play games on consoles anymore.

That statement is nonsensical, of course there will be a reason for console gaming. I don't buy second hand games, not because I don't want to, because if I want a game, I know I want it before it comes out, so I make sure I have the £45 for it when it's released, simple.

But I fear most gamers would take your's, and mine, standing on the matter. The fact is, if want to buy pre-owned games I can and I like having the option, if Sony take that option away, their no better than Apple in my book.

I hate the fact that company's say that no matter the amount of money I give them for a iPhone I don't actually own all of it, Apple do, I only own the stuff you can see (hardware), the software is "on loan". Meaning, I cannot change anything about it, even frivolous stuff. This is off topic, but it's entirely relatable. Sony are taking away the choice of their consumers. How is this beneficial for anybody? Especially us.

Also @HKSRacer, the 3 options that you outlined are all essentially the same option. Lol. But I understand the sentiment. That said, I don't Olay pc games, mainly because I like the the idea of a machine that is solely for playing games on, by that I mean a machine that someone else has built for me, at a considerably lower cost than a high end gaming PC costs. Also I have a girlfriend who only just puts up with my PS3, there's no way she would be ok with me blowing £900 on a cyberpower black pearl. Then a 23" tv to play it on, then a surround sound system. Basically I would rather console gaming, even with the digital media option.

 

[Tornado]

That statement is nonsensical, of course there will be a reason for console gaming.

What is it then? Most 3rd party games end up on the PC in a much better form that is (usually) a lot cheaper to boot. Steam has a much better track record than PSN or XBLA could ever dream of, and even have methods in place to transfer ownership for some titles. Then we have whatever will come from the Steambox sometime in the near future. If Sony and/or Microsoft transfer over to a completely digital model, the reasons for sticking to them over a system with a vastly superior digital model are next to nil.

I like Gran Turismo, but I'm not going to buy a Playstation system to play it when I have everything else on PC and I won't even be able to actually buy the game after I buy the system so much as just rent it.

 

[Samus]

I'm not behind the proposed restrictions at all Simon, exactly the opposite in fact. All I am saying is that it looks like that's were the industry is going.

Yes but what I'm saying is it's up to us the consumers to decide where it goes, not the industry. If consumers vote with their wallet and say no to anything like this then the industry would have to backtrack. These companies do plenty of market research, they should know what the consumers want and what they're willing to accept.

 

[nealcropper]

Yes but what I'm saying is it's up to us the consumers to decide where it goes, not the industry. If consumers vote with their wallet and say no to anything like this then the industry would have to backtrack. These companies do plenty of market research, they should know what the consumers want and what they're willing to accept.

One would think that people at Sony would already know that we don't support this. You don't need to spend millions on market research to figure that out. Since when has anyone supported any kind of restrictions to their freedom of choice?

@Torondo, I have said why there is a reason for console gaming in my previous post.

 

[HKS racer]

Also @HKSRacer, the 3 options that you outlined are all essentially the same option. Lol. But I understand the sentiment. That said, I don't Olay pc games, mainly because I like the the idea of a machine that is solely for playing games on, by that I mean a machine that someone else has built for me, at a considerably lower cost than a high end gaming PC costs. Also I have a girlfriend who only just puts up with my PS3, there's no way she would be ok with me blowing £900 on a cyberpower black pearl. Then a 23" tv to play it on, then a surround sound system. Basically I would rather console gaming, even with the digital media option.

70 , 60 , 50 bucks each new game. How much money you'll spend in the long run? Let's say 10 x 50 = 500. All that money for what? 10 games? The PS4 will be lunched with a 350 / 400 euro price, at least. Simple math. I suppose your girlfriend can do simple math as well.

 

[Samus]

I've never paid more than £15 for a digital game on steam.

One would think that people at Sony would already know that we don't support this. You don't need to spend millions on market research to figure that out. Since when has anyone supported any kind of restrictions to their freedom of choice?

Yet still they have patented an idea for it. I know that they may not use it but hypothetically say they do, it's then up to us to make it clear to them we don't want it. If people just grin and bear it and accept it that's when the industry wins.

We are the consumers, we have the power. There wouldn't be an industry without us.

 

[nealcropper]

70 , 60 , 50 bucks each new game. How much money you'll spend in the long run? Let's say 10 x 50 = 500.All that money for what? 10 games? The PS4 will be lunched with 350 / 400 euro price, at least. Simple math. I suppose your girlfriend can do simple math as well.

Yes she can.

Here it is.

£900 for gaming PC, £400 for PS4.

If you think my girlfriend sees past that, your sadly mistaken. Games cost money, wether you play PC or console.

Also @Simonk, if we're talking hypothetically, lets say Sony do implement the no second hand games thing. We show our disgust, and don't but the system, they dig their heels in along with Microsoft. Then what?

In truth, you already do what Sony are suggesting, you use steam. There's no second hand games on there. Why is it one rule for PC games and another for consoles? I agree with you though on the whole. Just trying to suggest a way that Sony could do it, with a console alongside a hard media counterpart.

 

[HKS racer]

Yes she can.

Here it is.

£900 for gaming PC, £400 for PS4.

If you think my girlfriend sees past that, your sadly mistaken. Games cost money, wether you play PC or console.

So you'll buy the PS4 and promise your gf to not buy more than 5 games. Let me know how it will ends up three years later. How many games you'll have and how many games you would like to buy, but your gf suddenly realized they cost at least 50 bucks each.

 

[nealcropper]

So you'll buy the PS4 and promise your gf to not buy more than 5 games. Let me know how it will ends up three years later. How many games you'll have and how many games you would like to buy, but your gf suddenly realized they cost at least 50 bucks each.

Your missing the point entirely. She wouldn't see the £40 on a game, because that's only like once a month at the most. I would have to spend well over £1200 on a PC to get what I want. Plus I would need the space in a house that has a 5 year old girl occupying every conceivable space for her kitchen or dolls or books.

It's not going to happen.

 

[HKS racer]

Yes she can.

Here it is.

£900 for gaming PC, £400 for PS4.

If you think my girlfriend sees past that, your sadly mistaken. Games cost money, wether you play PC or console.

Also @Simonk, if we're talking hypothetically, lets say Sony do implement the no second hand games thing. We show our disgust, and don't but the system, they dig their heels in along with Microsoft. Then what?

In truth, you already do what Sony are suggesting, you use steam. There's no second hand games on there. Why is it one rule for PC games and another for consoles? I agree with you though on the whole. Just trying to suggest a way that Sony could do it, with a console alongside a hard media counterpart.

The difference is Steam can be much cheaper than PSN. After all it's all about money. And steam is a good option for people that want to have fun without spending lots of money. Sure you have the initial 900 bucks hit.
But I feel the "900 + 10 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 5 + 10" scheme to be better on the long run compared to the "400 + 70 + 60 + 60 + 70 + 50 + 60 + 50 + 70" one.

 

[nealcropper]

The difference is Steam can be much cheaper than PSN. After all it's all about money. And steam is a good option for people that want to have fun without spending lots of money. Sure you have the initial 900 bucks hit.
But I feel the "900 + 10 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 5 + 10" scheme to be better on the long run compared to the "400 + 70 + 60 + 60 + 70 + 50 + 60 + 50 + 70" one.

That's your choice, and I respect it.

Can I just ask you this? How much is, lets say the newest CoD on Steam?

 

[Samus]

Also @Simonk, if we're talking hypothetically, lets say Sony do implement the no second hand games thing. We show our disgust, and don't but the system, they dig their heels in along with Microsoft. Then what?

Then they realise they've made a mistake and disable the system. If the consoles and games don't sell what other choice would they have?

In truth, you already do what Sony are suggesting, you use steam. There's no second hand games on there. Why is it one rule for PC games and another for consoles? I agree with you though on the whole. Just trying to suggest a way that Sony could do it, with a console alongside a hard media counterpart.

Because like I said I don't buy full price new games on steam, I only buy them when they're much cheaper which is basically means the same thing, buying games much cheaper than their original new RRP. If Sony and MS did reduce the prices of their digital games significantly and had significant sales on older titles I wouldn't be THAT opposed to it. As long as physical games still exist though they have to be transferable. I don't buy many second hand games, maybe 5-8 of the total ~75 I've bought for both 360 and PS3 but the option has to still be there, just as it is for all the other optical media formats still out there.

That's your choice, and I respect it.

Can I just ask you this? How much is, lets say the newest CoD on Steam?

Black Ops II is £39.99. How much is it on PSN? £59.99. But as we've said, Steam also regularly have great sales. I just checked, most I've paid for a game on Steam is £8.24.

 

[NLxAROSA]

In general, games on Steam are around 20-25 euros cheaper than the same game on PSN.

 

[HKS racer]

That's your choice, and I respect it.

Can I just ask you this? How much is, lets say the newest CoD on Steam?

I guess a good hit. Around 50 or something. I don't play CoD so I don't care.
What makes Steam popular is the "special offers" thing. http://store.steampowered.com/
Actually they have
borderlands 2 for 24,99 bucks
borderlands 1 for 7,49 euro.
and a good amount of stuff on the 10 euro range, they also have good stuff for cheap 4 euro or something which is the real reason why people love Steam. With these ridiculous prices people don't even bother with piracy anymore.

 

[nealcropper]

Then they realise they've made a mistake and disable the system. If the consoles and games don't sell what other choice would they have?
[/QUOTE
Not make consoles at all, then were would we be?]

Because like I said I don't buy full price new games on steam, I only buy them when they're much cheaper which is basically means the same thing, buying games much cheaper than their original new RRP.

It's not the same thing at all, your essentially buying a brand new game, just a long time after it release.

If Sony and MS did reduce the prices of their digital games significantly and had significant sales on older titles I wouldn't be THAT opposed to it. As long as physical games still exist though they have to be transferable.

That's basically the same as my two consoles idea.

I don't buy many second hand games, maybe 5-8 of the total ~75 I've bought for both 360 and PS3 but the option has to still be there, just as it is for all the other optical media formats still out there.

I agree with you here.

I don't know what's happened with the quoting thing. I don't really know how to snip posts up, I'm on my ipad.

@HKSRacer, you might not care for CoD, but plenty of people do, I'd say more than any other franchise. So if its the same price on PC as it is on console, but you have an initial outlay of £1200 for the PC which is better value?

 

[Samus]

Not make consoles at all, then were would we be?

You really think they would be that stubborn? Go out of the market all together rather than disable the reason people aren't buying them?

It's not the same thing at all, your essentially buying a brand new game, just a long time after it release.

When I said the same thing I meant the same end result, paying a lot less for a game. When you buy any physical game you're not actually buying the physical media, you don't own the game. You're buying a license that allows you to play the game and getting a copy of that game on a disc. It's the same 'brand new' game no matter what state the physical item is in or who has had it before you. There isn't really such a thing as a 'second hand game' in the sense, rather a license transfer. That is what Sony are potentially blocking, the transfer of license from one person to another.

Yes this is already the case with Steam but it doesn't affect me too much because of the price I pay for the game, I've already paid a "second hand" price so like I say, the same end result for me. I don't really care about not being able to sell that on but if I'm paying full price for a game I want to be able to sell it on, or at least have the option to. Especially with the length of some games these days.

What it all boils down to is, do Sony need to do this? Do MS need to do this? No, they don't. We've had a 'second hand' games market as long as home gaming has existed, they've got by. Yes game production costs are going up but so are the price of games.

 

[HKS racer]

@HKSRacer, you might not care for CoD, but plenty of people do, I'd say more than any other franchise. So if its the same price on PC as it is on console, but you have an initial outlay of £1200 for the PC which is better value?

It depends on what kind of gamer you are. I'm a gamer who don't think new stuff are necesarily better than 2 yo stuff and I classify CoD like another "more of the same" fps.

Anyway with steam you have two options for new games:
- buy full price at day one.
- wait a couple of weeks for special offers. Follow the site regularly and you'll make good deals.

 

[Samus]

@HKSRacer, you might not care for CoD, but plenty of people do, I'd say more than any other franchise. So if its the same price on PC as it is on console, but you have an initial outlay of £1200 for the PC which is better value?

It's not about one game or the initial outlay, it's about the overall cost over the time of the console and PC. It's always going to be cheaper on PC after 6 years or however long the console lasts.

Also I don't know where you've got £1200 from, you don't need to spend anywhere near that to get a good gaming PC. Half that at least.

 

[HKS racer]

It's not about one game or the initial outlay, it's about the overall cost over the time of the console and PC. It's always going to be cheaper on PC after 6 years or however long the console lasts.

Also I don't know where you've got £1200 from, you don't need to spend anywhere near that to get a good gaming PC. Half that at least.

Yep, lol at 1200.

 

[nealcropper]

You really think they would be that stubborn? Go out of the market all together rather than disable the reason people aren't buying them?

Yes I do, Sony are struggling at the moment. Maybe the Playstation brand isn't, but the company is as a whole. If they introduce these new measures on a new system that they have a planned life cycle for, spend millions on producing it, and distributing it, for it to flop, you think they are going to release another one after that?

When I said the same thing I meant the same end result, paying a lot less for a game. When you buy any physical game you're not actually buying the physical media, you don't own the game. You're buying a license that allows you to play the game and getting a copy of that game on a disc. It's the same 'brand new' game no matter what state the physical item is in or who has had it before you. There isn't really such a thing as a 'second hand game' in the sense, rather a license transfer. That is what Sony are potentially blocking, the transfer of license from one person to another.

I understand how it works, and I don't like it. If I buy something I own it, if I buy something off somebody else that they have already used, it's used.

Yes this is already the case with Steam but it doesn't affect me too much because of the price I pay for the game, I've already paid a "second hand" price so like I say, the same end result for me. I don't really care about not being able to sell that on but if I'm paying full price for a game I want to be able to sell it on, or at least have the option to. Especially with the length of some games these days.

Again I agree with you here.

What it all boils down to is, do Sony need to do this? Do MS need to do this? No, they don't. We've had a 'second hand' games market as long as home gaming has existed, they've got by. Yes game production costs are going up but so are the price of games.

Again I agree, but it's not as cut and dry as that. Sony are trying to make more money in any way they can. If that means strangling another market that they have no part of, so be it. Like you keep saying its business, and good businessmen are ruthless.

It depends on what kind of gamer you are. I'm a gamer who don't think new stuff are necesarily better than 2 yo stuff and I classify CoD like another "more of the same" fps.

Anyway with steam you have two options for new games:
- buy full price at day one.
- wait a couple of weeks for special offers. Follow the site regularly and you'll make good deals.

Class CoD however you like? The fact remains that more gamers buy CoD than any other game.

Someone has said that Black Ops 2 is £40 on Steam. I can get it for the same from amazon on a system that cost £180. How is PC gaming better value? I simply can't see it.

And you can counter with the argument that I was talking about digital media, but my argument is not based solely on that, but 2 systems that support both hard and digital.

Also, I said £1200 as an example of what I would want. What I know about gaming PC's you write on the back of a postage stamp. At the end of the day, it's down to personal preference. I prefer console.

 

[sesselpupser]

@HKSRacer, you might not care for CoD, but plenty of people do, I'd say more than any other franchise. So if its the same price on PC as it is on console, but you have an initial outlay of £1200 for the PC which is better value?

Call of Duty is a rare exception, Activision are very much against the idea of sales, even Call of Duty 4 is still £20.

I understand what you're saying, it's a large lump to be paying out in one go, but you can build a PC to outperform a PS3 by a country mile for very little these days, and a very respectable PC for around £600. The GTX 660Ti is a very capable card for £150. Your £1200 is presumably for something with an i5 and GTX 680 or an i7 and 670, but both are total overkill for a gaming PC unless you want to play on triple monitors, even that is only really good if you do a lot of simming.

 

[Samus]

Again, you're basing that on one game at full price. Yes of course, the price of a console + 1 game is going to be less than a gaming PC + 1 game but over the 6 years or so of the consoles life you're going to make that difference up. Boxed PC games are usually £10+ cheaper than the console equivalents so even if you just buy games like that it's £100+ saved per 10 games. Buy 50 games over the 6 years and that's £500 saved, easily covering the higher initial cost of the PC.

Then you have things like 'classic' games that are only available as downloads. I bought the entire GTA series for £4.99 on steam. If you want that same experience on console it's what, £10 for each of the 3D games?

I know it's only personal preference and for what it's worth I prefer consoles to PC for most of my gaming but there is no doubting that PC can be a cheaper option in the end and if they go ahead with their planned game delivery systems on the next gen of consoles I'll definitely be considering not buying them and making PC gaming more comfortable for myself.

But really all of this conversation could be pointless, all we do is wait and see what they really do rather than going by rumours and patent applications.

 

[nealcropper]

Again, you're basing that on one game at full price. Yes of course, the price of a console + 1 game is going to be less than a gaming PC + 1 game but over the 6 years or so of the consoles life you're going to make that difference up. Boxed PC games are usually £10+ cheaper than the console equivalents so even if you just buy games like that it's £100+ saved per 10 games. Buy 50 games over the 6 years and that's £500 saved, easily covering the higher initial cost of the PC.

Then you have things like 'classic' games that are only available as downloads. I bought the entire GTA series for £4.99 on steam. If you want that same experience on console it's what, £10 for each of the 3D games?

I know it's only personal preference and for what it's worth I prefer consoles to PC for most of my gaming but there is no doubting that PC can be a cheaper option in the end and if they go ahead with their planned game delivery systems on the next gen of consoles I'll definitely be considering not buying them and making PC gaming more comfortable for myself.

But really all of this conversation could be pointless, all we do is wait and see what they really do rather than going by rumours and patent applications.

I agree, it would work out cheaper.

If Sony and MS make us make the choice, I will stick with console, just preference, also because it wouldn't really affect me that much.

Also I agree that this conversation could be pointless, but I have enjoyed it all the same! :-)

 

[Samus]

I would probably still buy a console for this generation as I know disc based media will still be there for at least this whole gen and that will allow to buy cheap games even if I can't buy second hand. When they get to a digital only generation in the future It may make me think more about it.

 

[AleksandarSRB]

I would probably still buy a console for this generation as I know disc based media will still be there for at least this whole gen and that will allow to buy cheap games even if I can't buy second hand. When they get to a digital only generation in the future It may make me think more about it.

Agree:tup:

 

[nealcropper]

I would probably still buy a console for this generation as I know disc based media will still be there for at least this whole gen. When they get to a digital only generation in the future It may make me think more about it.

Yeah, I think that we are quite a way off digital only. Like it has already been said, the worlds Internet isn't really ready yet. I think I'm right in saying that Australia doesn't even have a proper broadband service yet.

In the future there inevitably will be digital only consoles, I just think its better if you make a hard media console alongside it. Maybe not even disk based, maybe they will sell a mini USB stick with the game on it and make it so its not re-writable! Lol, you never know.

 

[Samus]

As long as there are still other media formats (CD, DVD, Blu-Ray) I don't think there will be a console without a disc drive. A lot of people bought the PS3 as a DVD and BR player, I'm sure people will do the same with PS4. Even if games went all digital if Blu-Ray was still around there is still going to be a need for the drives.

So yeah, it really depends more on when optical media as a whole is around. As long as it is people are going to want an all-in-one multimedia device under their TV.

 

[nealcropper]

As long as there are still other media formats (CD, DVD, Blu-Ray) I don't think there will be a console without a disc drive. A lot of people bought the PS3 as a DVD and BR player, I'm sure people will do the same with PS4. Even if games went all digital if Blu-Ray was still around there is still going to be a need for the drives.

So yeah, it really depends more on when optical media as a whole is around. As long as it is people are going to want an all-in-one multimedia device under their TV.

Yeah, I completely agree with this. Anyway, this whole discussion IS pointless, because isn't the next PS supposed to have a new version of BR? One that can hold like 4 times more information than a BR of today? Not sure if I have read this or somewhere else.

 

[Samus]

There are rumours it'll support BDXL discs (100GB compared to 50GB now) but as with everything, it's just a rumour. For sure both this and the next Xbox will have a Blu-Ray drive or some sort, yeah. I was just talking about the future. Who knows where the tech world will be in 6 years.

 

[Mulan]

There are rumours it'll support BDXL discs (100GB compared to 50GB now) but as with everything, it's just a rumour. For sure both this and the next Xbox will have a Blu-Ray drive or some sort, yeah. I was just talking about the future. Who knows where the tech world will be in 6 years.

With 3d printers coming strong it maybe the way to print own blurays
See that it is possible to print own LP's with music.
Future is exiting, copyright/design patents problem will grow with 3d printers.