Topic: PlayStation4 - News/Rumor/Speculation - Over 1 Million Sold on Day 1

[Chozo Ghost]

Personally, I like the triumvirate we have right now.  Microsoft pushes online, multiplayer, and media integration advances; Sony seems to have the best variety of experiences, has this tendency to pick up these weird little art projects, and they're the standard-bearer for pushing the technical boundary of console gaming; and Nintendo pushes a lot of more "classic"/"retro" experiences, interface advances, and odd hardware gimmicks.  In their own weird way, the 3 complement each other well.  It'd be a pity to lose any one of them.

It might seem that way, but don't forget Microsoft entered the race immediately after Sega dropped out and usurped the niche that Sega had filled since the Genesis. So if one of the three dropped out now it wouldn't be a big deal because someone else would come along (Apple? Steam? EA? Sega again?) and would cleanly pick up that niche and business would continue as usual almost uninterrupted.

The only people who would be upset by this shift would be the respective loyal fans. When Sega dropped out it was a great blow to Sega fans, and the same goes for Atari fans when Atari dropped out. But to everyone else it was no big deal, and things just carried on without interruption.

That said, I think the biggest blow to fans would be if Nintendo dropped out because Nintendo has been in the business the longest by far. Microsoft has only been in the business about 10 years, so it would be the least blow if they disappeared. Sony would be somewhere in between. In any case though, only the fans would suffer and the video gaming industry would survive regardless of who the players are. It's like Darwinism. Species evolve and go extinct all the time and have done that for millions of years. Its sad when a species goes extinct, but life persists, and some other species comes along and fills in the old niche.

[broodwars]

Yeah, a company like Apple could take the place of Sony or one of the other Big Three, but do we really want a company like Apple in the console industry?  With all the damage that the App Store already seems to have done to mobile gaming w/ the emphasis on extremely cheap and extremely limited experiences, I don't want to see that happen to console gaming in the near future.  Valve could jump in, but while they have their own respectable in-house titles, I really don't see them as being enough to justify being a 1st party platform holder.  I like them where they are with Steam doing things to keep PC gaming relevant and accessible/affordable.

[nickmitch]

MS is pretty good and aren't crazy arrogant yet.

Microsoft entered the video game market crazy arrogant. Remember this is the company that had illegally monopolized the computer industry for years. They entered the video game industry hoping to do to everyone's living rooms what they had already done to everyone's computer.... you might even go as far as to say crazy arrogance is the reason they even got involved in video games in the first place.

Arrogance is a strong word. It's always been MS's endgame to try and connect everything in your house, hell be you house. They put out those videos every few years showing you their vision of the future with all the fancy gadgets and gizmos. They saw a clear opportunity to buy their way in to the industry and took the chance.

[oohhboy]

Arrogance is about the right word. They had expected to steamroll the then smaller game industry, backed by the then unlimited funds of Windows. MS never expected to encounter so much resistance even with the money hat party during Xbox one. Overall it has been a loss making exercise and it was never really an viable entry into the living room due to the resetting nature of the console generations.

Apple has done much better at getting into the living room by making their products available 24/7, not just a box in a room, it's closer to a life style than a product.

[nickmitch]

Moneyhats were the only way MS was gonna get exclusives, or even any attention to their console for that matter. In fact, I think only a company like MS could fill in the void if one of the big three bowed out at this point. The required capital is enormous, and if you didn't already have game developers, you'd need to buy some.

[tendoboy1984]

Arrogance is about the right word. They had expected to steamroll the then smaller game industry, backed by the then unlimited funds of Windows. MS never expected to encounter so much resistance even with the money hat party during Xbox one. Overall it has been a loss making exercise and it was never really an viable entry into the living room due to the resetting nature of the console generations.

Apple has done much better at getting into the living room by making their products available 24/7, not just a box in a room, it's closer to a life style than a product.

Microsoft is nowhere near as arrogant as Sony has been this whole gen.

[Spak-Spang]

You know I don't think money hating into a generation is exactly arrogance.  It is more like a desperate move to get into a highly competitive market and become relevant early on. 

The Xbox, may have had to buy its way into the market...but the Xbox 360 did many things right...and despite having to pay for online gaming...everything else MS did with the Xbox 360 was of high quality...and good for gaming.  (Yes I know the ring of death disaster...but not even that hurt MS too badly, because they were bringing the games people wanted to play.) 

And, for all its worth MS's online structure is still the best in the business, so perhaps paying for it actually did bring the gamers a higher quality online experience. 

[tendoboy1984]

everything else MS did with the Xbox 360 was of high quality...and good for gaming.  (Yes I know the ring of death disaster...but not even that hurt MS too badly, because they were bringing the games people wanted to play.) 

Buying a console with that high of a failure rate shows how people love to waste their money. People were buying multiple consoles to replace their broken ones. When I buy a game system (or any device), I expect it to last and be of high quality. Nintendo consoles and the PS3 do that for me, and that's partially why I avoided the 360 this gen.

[NWR_insanolord]

But Microsoft extended the warranties for them, and they've been at a point where the hardware has basically the same failure rate as the Wii and PS3 slim for almost four years. You don't want that hardware defect to happen, but if it does happen I don't really think you could handle it much better than Microsoft did.

[tendoboy1984]

But Microsoft extended the warranties for them, and they've been at a point where the hardware has basically the same failure rate as the Wii and PS3 slim for almost four years. You don't want that hardware defect to happen, but if it does happen I don't really think you could handle it much better than Microsoft did.

The slim Xbox 360 only has a 1-year warranty. So either Microsoft completely fixed the hardware defects, or their customers are being fooled by the standard warranty.

[Chozo Ghost]

basically the same failure rate as the Wii

I don't think either the PS3 Slim or the post 2009 Xbox models have the same degree of rock solid stability and very low failure rate that the Wii has. Are they more reliable than the PS3 Phat and older 360 models? Sure, absolutely. But nothing compares to the Wii in that respect. That's one good thing about going with older more well established hardware like Nintendo did.

[Oblivion]

Funny, what about all those reports about the disc drive crapping out? In my small school of 200 kids, I would say about half of them own a Wii, and about 10-15 of them have broken Wiis. The problem? Broken disc drive. I myself have had two disc drives break on me.

[oohhboy]

And, for all its worth MS's online structure is still the best in the business, so perhaps paying for it actually did bring the gamers a higher quality online experience.

Wrong. That distinction goes to PC/Mac. Remember you can game with computers too. Xbox Live compared to what's on offer on the PC is a laughing stock worthy of derision. When they tried to bring the same system over to the PC it was DOA, twice. When asked to pay for it it was met by a universal "**** off" before the sentence finished.

It took MS 3 years to handle the RROD problem and just the RROD problem. Other than sunk costs, rabid fanboyism and unlimited funds, I have no idea how the 360 survived the electronic equivalent of producing a Pinto.

Sony is well past arrogance, it's more "Disconnected from reality". Insanity is even better. They keep trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Add a dash of willful ignorance, bake at 230c for 20 minutes it's ready to eat fresh.

[NWR_insanolord]

But Microsoft extended the warranties for them, and they've been at a point where the hardware has basically the same failure rate as the Wii and PS3 slim for almost four years. You don't want that hardware defect to happen, but if it does happen I don't really think you could handle it much better than Microsoft did.

The slim Xbox 360 only has a 1-year warranty. So either Microsoft completely fixed the hardware defects, or their customers are being fooled by the standard warranty.

The first one. They actually eliminated the RROD (for all intents and purposes) in the last revision of the original hardware, even before the slim.

And, for all its worth MS's online structure is still the best in the business, so perhaps paying for it actually did bring the gamers a higher quality online experience.

Wrong. That distinction goes to PC/Mac. Remember you can game with computers too. Xbox Live compared to what's on offer on the PC is a laughing stock worthy of derision. When they tried to bring the same system over to the PC it was DOA, twice. When asked to pay for it it was met by a universal "**** off" before the sentence finished.

It took MS 3 years to handle the RROD problem and just the RROD problem. Other than sunk costs, rabid fanboyism and unlimited funds, I have no idea how the 360 survived the electronic equivalent of producing a Pinto.

Sony is well past arrogance, it's more "Disconnected from reality". Insanity is even better. They keep trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Add a dash of willful ignorance, bake at 230c for 20 minutes it's ready to eat fresh.

Outside of dedicated servers, how exactly is the PC experience that much better than XBL? I'd argue the failure of Games for Windows Live stems more from the elitist attitude of a lot of PC gamers, who wouldn't have liked a service ported from a console no matter how good it was. And charging on the PC side is flat out stupid, considering the comparable experiences given away for free.

As someone who's used the online capabilities on all the current gen systems, Xbox Live is easily the best. Whether that's a testament to the quality of Microsoft or an indictment of the incompetence of Sony and Nintendo can be debated. Microsoft charges for it because they can get away with it; if someone on the PC side could, they would as well. The way to stop that is for either Sony or Nintendo to do as well as XBL without charging, which might force Microsoft to step down.

[oohhboy]

GFWL was a referendum on the direction of PC gaming. Steam had already offered a unified system to not only play games, but be a one stop store, voice chat, community, modding, SDKs, acceptable DRM and of course the dedicated servers. GFWL offered nothing comparable with a slimy layer of monetizing. It was doomed to fail not because the people on PC were elitist, far from it. MS failed because they brought a substandard service to the market that had the freedom of choice where a higher level of service has always existed for free in on form or another.

For the consoles, XBL might be the high water mark, but that is an indictment as to how low the quality of service exists on consoles.

[ShyGuy]

Xbox 360 still doesn't have a web browser!

[nickmitch]

Whether that's a testament to the quality of Microsoft or an indictment of the incompetence of Sony and Nintendo can be debated.

Nintendo's incompetence, then MS's quality over Sony. Debate over.

[Spak-Spang]

And, for all its worth MS's online structure is still the best in the business, so perhaps paying for it actually did bring the gamers a higher quality online experience.

Wrong. That distinction goes to PC/Mac. Remember you can game with computers too. Xbox Live compared to what's on offer on the PC is a laughing stock worthy of derision. When they tried to bring the same system over to the PC it was DOA, twice. When asked to pay for it it was met by a universal "**** off" before the sentence finished.

It took MS 3 years to handle the RROD problem and just the RROD problem. Other than sunk costs, rabid fanboyism and unlimited funds, I have no idea how the 360 survived the electronic equivalent of producing a Pinto.

Sony is well past arrogance, it's more "Disconnected from reality". Insanity is even better. They keep trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. Add a dash of willful ignorance, bake at 230c for 20 minutes it's ready to eat fresh.

You can game with computers yes.  But computers are NOT consoles.  They will never be consoles and are viewed as a completely different beast.  And I don't even care about the debate about which is better, because it doesn't matter.  Computers are really part of the console market...even though consoles might be part of the computer gaming market. 

[oohhboy]

If you did say "in the console business" I probably won't have an issue. But you didn't. Secondly, PC's is part of the gaming ecosystem as much as consoles, handhelds and iPhones. Then the question becomes "Does paying for an online gaming service make it better?". The answer is possibly, probably not. PCs have shown time and again that you don't need to pay for good online. The act of paying for something doesn't automatically make it btter or have greater value.

Part of the reason why XBL is top dog on consoles is that they made the investment for online far earlier than Sony or Nintendo. MS is an extra generation of working online experience that the other two don't have. The answers to a good online system is in front of them, but it takes years for that information to become institutional knowledge unless somebody upends the tea table. Nintendo has nobody with that kind of experience to drive online for them and Sony had to do a Manhattan type project to get an online system for the PS3.

When they tried to bring XBL to PCs, they went up against decades of development and refinement by countless people since the first online game in 1973. There was no way they could have ever match that with just 5 years of experience in a community that partially didn't function on money hats and valued freedom more than convenience.

Before you continue Spak-Spang, have a peek into this thread here. You're going to talk pass yourself if you continue like Ninsage did.

[tendoboy1984]

Outside of dedicated servers, how exactly is the PC experience that much better than XBL? I'd argue the failure of Games for Windows Live stems more from the elitist attitude of a lot of PC gamers, who wouldn't have liked a service ported from a console no matter how good it was. And charging on the PC side is flat out stupid, considering the comparable experiences given away for free.

As someone who's used the online capabilities on all the current gen systems, Xbox Live is easily the best. Whether that's a testament to the quality of Microsoft or an indictment of the incompetence of Sony and Nintendo can be debated. Microsoft charges for it because they can get away with it; if someone on the PC side could, they would as well. The way to stop that is for either Sony or Nintendo to do as well as XBL without charging, which might force Microsoft to step down.

Paying for an online gaming service is stupid regardless of what device it's on. Which is why I'm glad that Nintendo has theirs completely free. Sony offers an optional premium subscription (PS Plus) that nets you early beta access, free games, discounts, etc.

[Spak-Spang]

Nya...I will not talk past myself, because I don't know much about PC games.  And you are right I should have included console systems in my post.  I didn't because being on a console board and talking strictly about the 3 console makers, I believed I didn't have too.  However, I can see that was a mistake as it left out the computer gamers that do make up a part of the gaming community and have had huge effects on online games and the direction of gaming as a whole.

That said, I have always been a console gamer, and in my mind have always separated PC gaming and console gaming...I know many others do the same. 

[Evan_B]

The way I see it (and I'm just chiming in on the Sony arrogance thing), is that Sony's arrogance is a marketing ploy. The more of a douchebag you appear to look like, the more douchebags you'll get buying your games and your systems. Considering the majority of Sony all-star titles involve quick matches of shooting each other to death, killing things brutally, and being irredeemable assholes, I'd say they're reaching their target audience.

There's other stuff to play on the PS3, sure, and props to you who actually DO play those games. But whose raking in the dough year after year with a new FPS?

[broodwars]

Considering the majority of Sony all-star titles involve quick matches of shooting each other to death, killing things brutally, and being irredeemable assholes, I'd say they're reaching their target audience.

And by "majority", you mean...four, at best: Resistance; Uncharted; God of War; and Killzone, and people play Uncharted for its story-focused Single-Player so I am tempted to disqualify it. There's also Twisted Metal; Warhawk; and now Starhawk for multiplayer combat, but those are 3rd person vehicular combat franchises (two of which are built around team play), not FPS games (and not particularly graphic either).

As for "whose raking in the dough" (nice grammar, by the way), that would be Activision.  Nothing Sony has released can even approach selling half as well as a Call of Duty or Battlefield title, or for that matter the Shooter-heavy Microsoft franchises like Gears of War and Halo.  Meanwhile, you casually disregard exclusive franchises or titles like Sly Cooper; Ratchet & Clank; Jak & Daxter; the Team Ico trilogy; LittleBigPlanet; Modnation Racers; Flow/Flower/Journey; Infamous; The Last of Us; Heavy Rain; Valkyria Chronicles; etc.

I think some Nintendo fans are just a little too quick to insult and mock shooter fans, but I suppose it's understandable when Nintendo doesn't have a 1st party shooter franchise.

[Evan_B]

Yeah, I'm just gonna not leave the console discussion forum anymore. Good job pointing out my grammatical mistake, too- you're certainly doing a good job of proving my stance wrong. If you wanted to say I'm a dumbass, you could have just said it outright.

Now, as for my comments before- I KNOW who is making money off of these game sales, but there's the extremely dedicated FPS fanbase on the PS3 who is continuously buying these games, so I'd like to think that Sony somewhat relies those sales and the promise that their console-owners will have a new FPS shoved down their throats every year to further promote their system. Seeing as the gaming industry is essentially graphics and online-multiplayer driven these days, essentially any game that promotes that image would be beneficial to Sony. Also- I apologize, I shouldn't have said "Sony all-star titles," I should have said "games that sell well on the PS3". My bad.

Also, Sly hasn't been seen for years (Sly 4, I know, but still), neither has Jak, The Last Guardian is coming out god-knows-when (though I'm certainly excited for when it does), and Valkyria Chronicles is more niche-y than any FPS. Heavy Rain is a title I'm not going to get into- I have nothing to say about it.

I am sincerely sorry for making such a shallow and not-well-thought-out post. I knew I was sure to piss someone off, but I'm not going to take back what I said. To me, Sony represents a lot of what's wrong with modern video-gaming, despite their ability to create a quality title on occasion. I won't deny that there are a number of impressive Sony titles out there, but the games that get the most support are hyper-violent titles and are often sequels. Most of the games that find their home and make money on the PS3 are hilariously not Sony titles. It just seems like they embrace that rather than attempt to do anything innovative.

Which leads into the whole issue of Sony being all about graphical hardware and software and online functionality- two things that aren't bad but are nowhere near as unique and interesting as, well, what Nintendo attempts to do every generation, which is give developers new hardware that they can try new things with. But that's not relevant, and probably doesn't mesh well with your views. In fact, nothing I've said probably does, so it's a moot point and I probably shouldn't have posted this in the first place.

And don't get me wrong, I like shooters. I also like shooters that attempt to do something interesting. Which is actually why I respect Killzone, and to a much lesser extent, Resistance.

Off to lurking in the console forums again.

[Chozo Ghost]

The way I see it (and I'm just chiming in on the Sony arrogance thing), is that Sony's arrogance is a marketing ploy. The more of a douchebag you appear to look like, the more douchebags you'll get buying your games and your systems. Considering the majority of Sony all-star titles involve quick matches of shooting each other to death, killing things brutally, and being irredeemable assholes, I'd say they're reaching their target audience.

There's other stuff to play on the PS3, sure, and props to you who actually DO play those games. But whose raking in the dough year after year with a new FPS?

That would be Activision, and to be fair they do usually put COD on Nintendo's systems as well. MW2 back in 2009 was the only exception. Every other time its been on the Wii.

I think some Nintendo fans are just a little too quick to insult and mock shooter fans, but I suppose it's understandable when Nintendo doesn't have a 1st party shooter franchise.

I have suggested before in other threads that this is the game Nintendo needs to make. The problem I think is the Nintendo company is too focused on the Japanese market, and in Japan no one cares about FPS games. They are a HUGE deal over here in the west though, but this is the one genre which Nintendo's library of franchises is glaringly lacking in. The Metroid Prime series moved into this direction, and the result was the Prime series became the best selling Metroid games ever. I don't think Metroid should fill that genre, though. It should remain the Adventure that it has always been. But Nintendo needs to make something FPS, and instead of shoehorning some existing franchise into it they need to make it from scratch. Maybe they can't do it, but Retro can, and they own Retro.