PlayStation 4 General DiscussionPS4 

  • Thread starter Sier_Pinski
  • 9,445 comments
  • 492,558 views
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).

This really, a company releasing a console without backwards compatibility is like having an HDTV that only outputs in HD, you would be paying more money for a lot less choice of channels and programmes, which means most wouldn't even consider it, nevermind buy it and as such no company would ever do this. So why do they think it's acceptable or a good idea to do this with consoles.
 
ASH32
This really, a company releasing a console without backwards compatibility is like having an HDTV that only outputs in HD, you would be paying more money for a lot less choice of channels and programmes, which means most wouldn't even consider it, nevermind buy it and as such no company would ever do this. So why do they think it's acceptable or a good idea to do this with consoles.

I think they gonna stick with the pattern start with it fully backward compatible with PS1, PS2 and PS3 and then 1 to 2 years later they will cut supply and only sell PS4 Slim that only play PS4 games and have less USB ports but more hard drive space
 
Interesting read! I very much hope so that NONE of those rumors are true (except the release date of course)
I mean locking games to the user account and limited game play on secondhand games just sound stupid! If that's the way they try to make more money that just won't work because it won't sell enough to make ANY profit. why can't they see that???
 
Can't wait to read the comments about how this is the pirate/hacker/whatever's fault and that we should do our best to feed, dress and warm the starving game industry; which want such an extreme measure because they are losing their homes because some people choose to buy games cheaper, because they don't think they're worth their asking price.
 
Some games are already 'locked' to one console unless the person who buys the game second hand purchases themselves a new online pass code, I reckon/guess if it were to be applied to all games at the console level the big game stores would do a deal (with Sony) where by they get to issue new codes when they sell the second hand games, its just Sonys way of getting a cut of the massive profits from the second hand games market.
 
I can Understand how Used Games Damage Profit to the Gaming Industry .However Gaming isn't cheap (not in all countries atleast).Buying and/or renting Used Games enable me to Try out some Aspects of a certain Title (that I won't be Able too if Original Game Prices are high)that will eventually may Convince me to buy a new copy of the next Installment of that certain Title. /my 2 cents anyway
 
If the PS4 is not to be "BC" (backwards compatible) then it might serve them right to solidify the release group of games (and have a combo pack). In recent memory, no system completely messed this up more than the 3DS.

I should say that the 3DS is an okay system (I own one), and the system was also released compatible with DS games (good since the launch games were more than not appealing).
 
I can Understand how Used Games Damage Profit to the Gaming Industry .However Gaming isn't cheap (not in all countries atleast).Buying and/or renting Used Games enable me to Try out some Aspects of a certain Title (that I won't be Able too if Original Game Prices are high)that will eventually may Convince me to buy a new copy of the next Installment of that certain Title. /my 2 cents anyway

That is a lot of rubbish and you know it. US copyright law has this nice little provision in it called 'First Use'. And under that provision, if a owner of a copyrighted material wants to sell, rent, or in other words loan copyrighted material to a friend, a close relative or even a complete stranger, they can do so without any fear of reprisal from the copyright holder. What Sony could be doing just flies in the face of copyright law.

The only reason why they are getting away with the online passes is because the copyright holder is maintaining the servers.
 
That is a lot of rubbish and you know it. US copyright law has this nice little provision in it called 'First Use'. And under that provision, if a owner of a copyrighted material wants to sell, rent, or in other words loan copyrighted material to a friend, a close relative or even a complete stranger, they can do so without any fear of reprisal from the copyright holder. What Sony could be doing just flies in the face of copyright law.

The only reason why they are getting away with the online passes is because the copyright holder is maintaining the servers.

I had no Idea that this law exists (Interesting) ,I am against this as well if you misunderstood me 👍
 
That is a lot of rubbish and you know it. US copyright law has this nice little provision in it called 'First Use'. And under that provision, if a owner of a copyrighted material wants to sell, rent, or in other words loan copyrighted material to a friend, a close relative or even a complete stranger, they can do so without any fear of reprisal from the copyright holder. What Sony could be doing just flies in the face of copyright law.

The only reason why they are getting away with the online passes is because the copyright holder is maintaining the servers.
You sure that is the case? Sony isn't the only one going by this rule as Microsoft has also been rumored. And if that was the case, wouldn't the Online Content fee be slightly breaking this provision as well?
 
I hope Sony conducts some extensive fan base research before deciding what "features" to implement on the next proposed Playstation. Here is a screenshot of today's poll at GameFaqs, and most people are not quite in favor of the rumored "features" that lots of folk are talking about.

gamefaqspotd032912.jpg
 
What Sony could be doing just flies in the face of copyright law.

How so? Sony does not care what you do with the game you purchased new as a first user, they got their money.

The only reason why they are getting away with the online passes is because the copyright holder is maintaining the servers.

Getting away? They did not even create this model and gamers have a choice to avoid the game all together. Most passes come with bonus content. But its also free with the game. Why should non supportive gamers get a free pass on a server for online games?
 
The only thing I worry about is backward compatibility, if Sony goes cheap, BC probably will be the first thing to cut, rumors saying that they'll go AMD for CPU and GPU gives you a clear idea that RSX (Nvidia GPU on the PS3) will not be there and Cell (PS3's CPU) being so complex will be totally out of the question

Worst thing is losing the whole package that is PSN, just not be able to access DD Games + Trophies and start all over again on the PS4 will be crap!

As for no used games, :lol: it's not about what the consumer wants or not, it's about what the retailers want or not, retailers losing profit from used sales (100% for them) would lead to retailers to drop support for PS4, banning the console from the stores and all that, so, it's not gonna happen

Retailers don't make money out of the HW, but they do with the SW: Games: New games = a percetage for them (ie Gamestop) and a percentage for the Manufacturer (Sony), while used sales = 100% to the retailers, get it? :P
 
Last edited:
Interesting news from gameovernews.net:

"There is a rumor that PS4 will focus on point and click (with succesor of Move) games that will bring a revolution in gameplay. Live footage video will play upon clicking on an interactive item within the game! The first video game released, according to trusted rumors is in Beta stage, will almost probably be Street Fighter: The movie: The game 2. The second installment of the cult classic will be radically redefined with attacks initiated by drop down menus and the intensity of the attack by the acceleration of Move 2."
 
So they mean that the PS4 will follow the footsteps of the CD-I? I don't see that working too well *nudge nudge*, you know how those Zelda games went *shudder*.
 
Locking games to an account is a smart idea because, 1, used games will drop in price considerably because no one is going to pay $50 for a demo, and then you can just pay to unlock the game when you have the money. It might be similar to OnLive where they allow you to play 30 minutes of the game, then encourage to buy it, which, again, isn't that bad.

But, I see used copies going for maybe $10 at Gamestop and then you might pay a reduced fee to play the full game...or it could be like the Online Pass that EA adopted where you have to pay a $10 fee to access the online stuff.

Whatever way they go, I think it's a good idea. Not having BC would kinda suck since it's worked well for them in the past, but, Xbox 360 doesn't have it and they're doing fine.

The Point and Click stuff sounds like BS because we already have something like that: a computer. PS3 is a pretty powerful machine, being able to handle large scale games like MAG and DC Universe Online. It also is able to deal with services like Steam. I mean, the thing pretty much is becoming a computer. Adding a mouse would seem kinda weird, I think. I mean, would the system come with a keyboard and mouse instead of a controller?
 
Improve the system, give me full backwards compatiblity with all PS's, allow used games and improve on the PS3. Keep the classic controller but back to the PS2 style without the triggers. Please and thanks.
 
Improve the system, give me full backwards compatiblity with all PS's, allow used games and improve on the PS3. Keep the classic controller but back to the PS2 style without the triggers. Please and thanks.

I like the triggers.
 
How so? Sony does not care what you do with the game you purchased new as a first user, they got their money.
That might be true, but you look at all of the game developers who support some form of DRM, and you will see that all of them publish on a Microsoft or Sony platform. Think those restrictions do not affect you already? They are because PSN and XBLA releases are coded so that they are locked to one account. The PS3 and 360 are testing this technology already for use in future consoles.



Getting away? They did not even create this model and gamers have a choice to avoid the game all together. Most passes come with bonus content. But its also free with the game. Why should non supportive gamers get a free pass on a server for online games?

That is right, EA did. They, and THQ, WB and Sony(over Jaffe's wishes, hint, hint) are all guilty of charging $10 online pass. WB is the worst offender because in Arkham Asylum, the online pass unlocked Catwoman who you actually needed to complete the game 100%. It is disgusting how low these publishers will go to attack the used games industry.

I hope Sony conducts some extensive fan base research before deciding what "features" to implement on the next proposed Playstation. Here is a screenshot of today's poll at GameFaqs, and most people are not quite in favor of the rumored "features" that lots of folk are talking about.

First of all, that is not a scientific poll, and second, Gamefaqs polls are generally ran IP based, not trying to insult your intelligence here, but one nut with a IP reset button on his router could vote as many times as he feels like pressing that reset button.

That said, looking over the data itself, while the majority of those who voted are against Sony's proposed specs, I am actually amazed that some people are actually going along with it at a rate of 15.42%. Going one way or another is 31.26%. Why are these results staggering? Because Sony, with digital downloads, has already preconditioned us to accept this train wreck.

You sure that is the case? Sony isn't the only one going by this rule as Microsoft has also been rumored. And if that was the case, wouldn't the Online Content fee be slightly breaking this provision as well?

One could make that case on the online content, however, David Graham, or UltraDavid, a lawyer that specializes in video game matters wrote an article on SRK that PS2012 on gamefaqs summarizes quite nicely:

PS2012
Like the writer concedes at the end though, there is know way that argument would hold water in court. Even if it wasn't worded as an "Initial buyer reward" I doubt you would win that case. The thing is, online play is more of a post-sale service than a tangible product you own and can then re-sell.

The problem for most people I think is that games have given this service for free for so long that any change is going to be viewed as a "greedy corporation" sticking it to the consumer. When really all they are doing is effecting those who never paid for their product to begin with or those who wish to re-sell their product. Companies shouldn't worry about either of these groups.

Locking games to an account is a smart idea because, 1, used games will drop in price considerably because no one is going to pay $50 for a demo, and then you can just pay to unlock the game when you have the money. It might be similar to OnLive where they allow you to play 30 minutes of the game, then encourage to buy it, which, again, isn't that bad.

But, I see used copies going for maybe $10 at Gamestop and then you might pay a reduced fee to play the full game...or it could be like the Online Pass that EA adopted where you have to pay a $10 fee to access the online stuff.

I disagree for one simple reason, and that is that over time game disks age and break and so does the content in them. That is why there is provisions in copyright law, or supposed to be, that protect the consumer.

Now I say that to say this, Let's agree that Sony's Playstation 4 did what it was designed for, no BC and no used games. How long would you think that your copy of next year's Madden would sit there at, using your example here, $50? While realistically, it wouldn't because everyone here in America loves football, ficticiously speaking, it could go for however long EA wants that price point to be because it is only locked to one user.
 
Why should non supportive gamers get a free pass on a server for online games?

Flawed argument. It makes no financial different from an overhead standpoint whether I play a game for 6 months online, or if I play it for 4, sell it to someone else and they play it for 2. Until the game's servers are shut down, the cost of playing that game online was paid for when the game was bought regardless of how many times it changes hands.


And you can't use the "lost sale" argument because that is even more facetious for this discussion than when it is applied to piracy.



Locking games to an account is a smart idea because, 1, used games will drop in price considerably because no one is going to pay $50 for a demo, and then you can just pay to unlock the game when you have the money. It might be similar to OnLive where they allow you to play 30 minutes of the game, then encourage to buy it, which, again, isn't that bad.

But, I see used copies going for maybe $10 at Gamestop and then you might pay a reduced fee to play the full game...or it could be like the Online Pass that EA adopted where you have to pay a $10 fee to access the online stuff.

Whatever way they go, I think it's a good idea.

Feel free to explain why screwing over consumer's rights is a good or smart idea for Sony and Microsoft to pursue. None of your post did so; and instead basically just explained a bunch of things that might be implemented to mitigate how bad it is.
 
Sony and developers could have it their way and still give us locked used games. A timed release of 12 months, you buy your game and it's temporarily locked to your PSN account, then 12 months later it's unlocked and becomes free to use/sell. Then if people who want the games on release buy them, but those who are not bothered and can wait a year then you can buy one down the line, this will make the games better resale value to the owner as the market wouldn't be flooded as much.
 
Yea I don't alway buy games as soon as they come out I especially did that for NFS cause Hot Pursuit, Shift, Shift 2 and the Run came too close together so I bought Shift 2 used and the bought the Run new but didn't play it for 2 months after buying it
 
Yea I don't alway buy games as soon as they come out I especially did that for NFS cause Hot Pursuit, Shift, Shift 2 and the Run came too close together so I bought Shift 2 used and the bought the Run new but didn't play it for 2 months after buying it

I bought Shift 2 a year after it came out but because of just how the prices fell I got for $20 brand new (meaning it came with the online pass) and to boot it was the limited edition.
 
Locking out used games is a stupid idea, especially when games cost $60 and will probably jump to $70 with a new system. New games are too expensive now and when I do buy a console game it's almost always used unless it's something I've been waiting on for a long time. Also if I do happen to buy a new game and it either sucks, or there isn't any replay value with it, I like to trade them in towards something else.

As much as I dislike EA's practice, I can see where the online pass thing could make sense. This doesn't eliminate used games and allows people to play through single player without any intrusions, but if you want all the features you have to buy the $10 pass. It makes everything completely optional and the gaming company ends up with money in the end without having to create anything. If you can sell one game for $60 and then get another $30 from the same copy off of people buying it used with the online pass, that's a pretty good profit for one item.

I could live without backwards compatibility I think, even though I think that's a poor idea too. I mean this generation was pretty limited with backwards compatibility. I'll just get pissed if Sony tries to offer something like GT5 in their PSN as a "classic" title and try to get another $50 out of people that sold their PS3 and still want to play the game.

I will refuse to buy any system that doesn't allow me to buy used games unless something so awesome comes out that I have to have it. Otherwise I'm just going to buy PC game. Sure I can't buy them used but they are a helluva lot cheaper than console games a majority of the time.
 
Blitz24
I bought Shift 2 a year after it came out but because of just how the prices fell I got for $20 brand new (meaning it came with the online pass) and to boot it was the limited edition.

Wow it cost me 29.99 used at GameStop you got a good deal
 
Back