Nice piece, guys!


Knack did seem like an interesting concept, but I'm not convinced that the gameplay is as cool as the concept.  That little bit they played remotely on a Vita?  Ugly as sin.  Gray hallways.  Fun.


The opening presentation had me excited, but I saw nothing imaginative in the games they chose to show.

I didn't expect Sony to do anything revolutionary and I honestly don't think they need to change much. They'll still find much success in Asia and Europe but the question is how will they usurp Microsoft's leading position in the Americas.

"But I think that the huge increase in fast RAM is going to open up game *design* in a way that has never really been possible. I am looking forward to full-scale battles with hundreds of enemies acting independently on a richly detailed battlefield."

This sounds like it could be quite troubling. Wouldn't designing such games cost a lot more money? Is this going to contribute to inflating the price of game development? If so, is that still considered being developer friendly?

I'll save most of my thoughts on the conference for tonight's podcast recording, but suffice it to say Sony successfully managed to convince me not to buy a PS4.  No backwards compatibility for my retail OR digital games = no buy, at least at full price at launch.  I want no part in any of that constantly-online, constantly eating your online bandwidth B.S., and nothing Sony showed was anything that would get me to buy a PS4.

Yeah, the no backwards compatibility for digital games is really making me angry. As cumbersome as Nintendo's methods were, at least the let me transfer everything to the Wii U. And this is a great opportunity for Microsoft to come out and say, "We'll let you transfer/download all your xbl arcade games for free", and win some gamer's hearts. I suppose they have no choice since they're moving away from the Cell, but still.


As for the conference, it was ok. Like you guys said, they checked a lot of boxes. The games were a big problem for me though. The new ones looked fake (Capcom's game), I don't care about Killzone, and the best looking games are coming out for the current gen anyway (watch dogs, destiny).


And ultimately, I'm not that interested in this upcoming gen because we're just gonna keep playing the same games, with the same controls, and the same corridor shooters. Bethesda's games will still be buggy messes because they bite off more than they can chew, Activision and EA will still annualize everything and come up with more elaborate ways to get money out of you, and only a handful of games will be anything truly special.


Sure, I'll get excited about certain games, because I love certain franchises. But for the industry as a whole? Even if you give me all the RAM in the world, I can't get excited about the next step the industry is taking when it's just a prettier version of what we've done before.

Like Guillaume, my backlog has made me immune to console launch hype.  The only reason why I've come back to console gaming after Gamecube was the Wii and WiiU's unique ways of playing backed by Nintendo's software.  I don't know if it's diminishing returns with graphics or the fact that I have so many games yet to play that span the last 3-4 years, but I'm quite content with my PS3.  Despite some solid features, I forsee myself picking up a PS4 in about 5-6 years for the exclusives.  My PC, WiiU and 3DS are more than enough to get me through this next generation.

The unveiling conference was just another unveiling conference. Until I see actual games doing things truly not possible on the PS3, I really don't care about much of it. The lack of backwards compatibility sucks. BUT, for me, all Sony has to do is remind us that they have a much larger (and I'd argue much better) stable of 1st and 2nd party developers that will only make games for their platforms than Microsoft does. Hopefully devs like Sucker Punch, Naughty Dog, and Insomniac do what they did the last two generations and create new IPs for this generation and everyone else takes their cue from them. Still, it'll be at least 2015 and a price drop or two before I pick up a PS4. So many games from this generation I haven't even played yet.

My first console as a kid was an atari pong machine, then it was the vic-20 (commodore) and after that the c-64 and so the years go by...


But I am still very exited everytime a major console launches, (except xboxes, i just don't buy those).. and I usually pick them up after a year or so when prices have dropped and I have worked myself through the massive backlog from the generation before. But...


The ps4 left me very uninspired, I feel its nothing new about it, this kind of hd graphics we allready seen on good PCs. The media sharing just seem stupid to me, maybe since I am not really part of the youtube-generation. And facebook twitter-like integration is to me the same... why share this? My hobby? My preccious private time waster?


I think the wiiU seems a more visionary console, I am just sorry nintendo couldnt bother stuffing more horsepower in it. After all, throughout my life as a gamer its the visionary and new, and exciting stuff thats been driving it all.


Maybe Im just too old to care, after all, my first modem had me dial a number on the telephone and then put the phone down on on the modems microphone so I could download that chess game, and after two hours waiting, well it sucked.


I want newer things, like nintendo newer.

I thought the 'Playstation Meeting' offered a good balance. Getting Mark Cerny to come out and explain in broad terms what the goal was when designing an architecture for the PS4, and what this would mean for gamers and developers, was a great way to kick things off. Knack looked great, having Bungie on stage was smart (if underwhelming), and I thought Deep Down looked incredible.

Oddly it was features like the touted sleep mode and the streaming tools that were the most interesting aspects of the presentation for me. I'm definitely excited to hear more in the coming months.

I have not yet decided which console I'm going to go with in the next generation. I've owned Nintendo and Microsoft consoles in the past but never a Sony one. After this presentation I'm certainly open to the idea.

*
On an unrelated note. Just so I'm clear, when people say 'I could care less' do they actually mean 'I couldn't care less'? This has always confused me, because saying 'I could care less' means that you actually do care about the thing you're talking about, if only a little. It's fine if that's what people mean when they use that statement, but it strikes me as an odd way to express mild interest.

To me the conference pretty much shows Sony learned nothing from the PS3 launch disaster.  As last gen showed, having the best graphics doesn't mean much if your system ends up costing over $500 to achieve it.  The Vita already showed that repeating the same mistakes your previous console did can have fatal results.

Sony seems to think there's a large audience of gamers out there willing to pay high prices for the most powerful consoles possible, but ignores the fact they've been proven wrong three times now.  People don't want to pay over $250 for a handheld gaming system and they don't want to spend over $500 for a console.  This is a fact Sony just can't seem to learn.

Why would designing the games cost more money? I am talking about memory budgets and the limitations that they create, not monetary budgets. The only possible increase in cost is in a possible increase in art assets per game, but I am not asking for a greater variety of art in total, just on the screen at the same time.

sony has officially destroyed the only thing they still make money on at this rate

i shamelessly bumped the thread i destroyed in the funhouse
mention it now

Do you know something I don't? Let's not criticise Sony for overpricing something which they haven't yet publicly priced.

I admit that the inclusion of 8GB of ram suggests that it's going to be a pretty capable system (and perhaps even an expensive one to build), but that doesn't preclude Sony from learning lessons from the previous generation and pricing it aggressively. I know next to nothing about hardware specifications, but I would have thought that having a more standardised architecture, as opposed to the core processor seen the PS3, would go some way towards lessening costs.

Most report guesstimates seem to think the PS4 will come in at around $400. Which, given the price of the Wii U, I don't see as being an exorbitant amount. We'll have to wait and see; but the Sony on display during the press conference seemed to be much more humble than the company who in 2005 expected people to get a second job in order to purchase their console.

The most reliable reports say $430-$530 for the PS4, which is too high.

I agree with you that anything that's closer to $500 is too expensive. Then again, I think the Wii U is overpriced for what it offers at $350 (especially when compared to the value of a 360 or PS3). Console manufacturers know that they can afford to charge more for new tech when it launches, it would bad business not to. I just think it's a little premature to decry Sony for not learning anything in the last 8 years given that there's still so much we don't know about the platform.

Fun NWR Trivia: We used to call this kind of feature a "Blah Blah Blah". Don't think we've used that designation in a few years, though.

To Sony's credit, they're pretty much using off the shelf PC parts in PS4 which gives them more bang for their buck and is significantly more developer-friendly than Cell could have ever hoped to be. They learned something though this presents its own problems. If PC becomes the lead platform for 3rd party games, that could hurt Sony. Even I would consider playing on PC if it saved me the cost of an entire console, at least until it became far more affordable. I suppose it's better to get those games on PS4 than not have them at all which is a big problem for Wii U.

Sony has an uphill battle in the US.  They need to convince Xbox owners to switch to their system or buy it along with an Xbox.  I don't think this press conference did a lot to convince people to drop their Live accounts and friends lists and make the jump.  To me all they have done is make a gaming a little prettier, and yes, AI will also improve, but I ma relatively confident the 720 will match it in all the ways that count.


Now, this isn't to say that Microsoft won't screw up with their console (like no used games) and piss of their fan base, but that has little to do with this conference and more to do about the next one.


I also feel that if Nintendo can just get some games out that show some real innovation, they will be fine. 


Wow, I have a lot more thoughts, but I am so tired I can't think straight, so POST!

In the end the PS4 looks like a QoL upgrade.  Which it would be IF it had full Backward Compatibility.  There are a lot of gripes that are being addressed and they made it a point to show that. 

I know a LOT of gamers are Hermit Gamers.  This is my past time and I don't want anyone to share it with me.  Then they are the people who want to show and share their accomplishments with the world.  I honestly don't think building in the ability share is DOOOOOM. 

I think the ability show what you are playing is a niche feature at best. Interesting that it has it, but very few people will ever use it (I would guess MAYBE 1% of PS4 owners) and not something the average gamer will use or have any interest in. I am sure those that do use it will do it a lot, but it's nowhere near as important as Sony thinks it will be (hell, they have a button the DualShock 4 dedicated just for it).

I look at the gaming landscape as smartphone/tablet gaming at one end and PC gaming at the other, with Wii U, Nextbox, and PS4 in between. Developers having the ease to port PC games to PS4 is great, but are they exclusive; and will it be enough to drive PC gamers to PS4? Multiplatform PC games today are held back by console limitations because consoles are the lead development platforms. Having 8gigs of GDDR5 is great, but it doesn’t make Microsoft and Nintendo irrelevant. It comes down to what platforms have the install bases that are buying the games. At the end of the day, it comes down to what system(s) are selling and the ability of the platform (and of course duffle bags full of cash.)

People already aren’t running out to buy Vita because you can play PS3 quality games on the platform, and I don’t think it will be any different with PS4. For those who are ready to make the investment, great, but it’s not the mainstream. Would people buy run out to buy 3DS if you could get Fire Emblem: Awakening, Luigi’s Mansion, Animal Crossing, and Mario and Luigi: Dream Team on Wii U? Is investing $150-200 worth having the ability to play games you already own, just on the go? For some, absolutely, for others, no. I hope Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo all flourish in this next generation of gaming because that’s the environment that creates games that I want to play. It will be interesting to see how far PS4 goes once it has a price on store shelves, and games that have actually be evaluated.

That's true. I've heard quite a few people feign surprise that Sony would expect people to spend so much money on a PS4 and Vita. That's the thing though, Sony don't expect this feature to sell either system. What it does do though is allow the Vita to access a larger catalogue of games, which is much needed given it's current state. It, therefore, serves a dual purpose. It allows Sony to pretend like they have a feature which is equivalent to the Wii U Gamepad and it also gives Vita and PS4 owners a cool feature which no other platform is offering (in the form of actual remote play). I think it's a very smart move (one that I wish Nintendo would steal). It may not sell either platform but it does add value for those who are set up to take advantage of it and it gives Sony the ability to tick another box.

As I said in this, the Vita connectivity was the most interesting part of the presentation for me. If I'm going to be deciding between a PS4 or a 720, the Vita stuff is going to be a huge plus in Sony's column.

I am not impressed by anything that Sony has to offer. If I were to express how I feel about their presentation then I would put it like this: If I were an investor in their company I would run, not walk, away from that corporation. All Sony has become is a more expensive version of Nintendo. They expect me to pay well over $600.00 for a PS4 and Vita to do something that cost me much cheaper with the Wii U.

lmao, you guys crack me up sometimes.

Well the 3ds can play along side the WiiU (MH3U) so if nintendo wanted to make the 3ds a controller they can, problem is three screens is going to be convoluted. Also I doubt most devs will use the power in innovate ways if this generation is any indication.

I was left underwhelmed by the Sony conference. They are offering a upper midrange gaming PC for, supposedly, a cheap price. So far so good, but the fact is the PS4 offers a barren ecosystem. Very few exclusive games will be initially available and it is pretty clear that near all third party titles will be multi-platform, many of them also playable on the ps3. Considering this, why should anyone upgrade?


Unlike the competitors' products, the PS4 is unable to play games from previous generations and thus its game library will be very limited at least for a year after the release. One may wonder why this is important as most of the old consoles were released in a similar manner. Well, the gaming space have changed a lot in the last few years. In previous generations' transitions there was a huge graphical improvement (or controller alternative in the case of the Wii). As much as the so called graphic whores will love to protest, there isn't a huge leap this time. To a public that is pretty much comfortable playing on the iPad, I suspect the ps3 is good enough.


Finally, many customers may reject the idea of buying a modified PC that can only run a few titles and go for a real PC, especially if Valve actually release the fabled SteamBox for a competitive price.

if the steam box looks better then that piston thing im biting

I wasn't really impressed by I wasn't disappointed either.  It was pretty much exactly what I expected.  There was nothing that made me think "hmmm, I don't know about this."  I don't care about the sharing or social element of it but that's not something I have to use and Miiverse is equally unappealing to me.  The price is probably going to be high but Sony had to make a follow-up to the PS3 so obviously the hardware jump had to be big enough to justify a new system.  The Wii was a major exception and no other successful system had not provided some sort of noticable hardware boost.

My biggest fear was that Nintendo would stick with last gen hardware again and the PS4 reveal just confirmed those negative feelings.  I know what to expect with a Nintendo console that's a generation behind and I'm not interested in going through that again.  The Wii U seems to better match the PS3 than the PS4 and that's just ridiculously short sighted.

One thing to note about Vita integration, though it will obviously not be as widespread as the Wii U Gamepad, Sony is providing that as an OPTION while Nintendo forces you to pay for it, whether you care about it or not.  If the Gamepad was an optional accessory, I would not buy one because I don't care about it and do not expect much from it in the future (and if it does deliver, I can buy one later).  Nintendo wants it to be standard but I don't consider it to be generic enough to make sense as a standard.  To me it's like Nintendo forcing you to buy a Super Scope with the Super Nintendo.  Now Sony is forcing you to pay for the EyeToy technology and MS will almost certainly make you pay for Kinect, so this is a rather annoying new trend in the console industry.

For games it looks like more of the same but what did Nintendo give us?  NSMB U.  Uh, yeah, this bullshit has infested the industry in general.  I don't expect any of the big three to really innovate in a meaningful way.  I figure some indy dev will drive the new trends as the big guns have become too safe and sterile.  Some new IP will catch on out of nowhere and the copycats will follow.

I'd rather be "forced" to buy a controller with a screen on it than a camera. One of those, if nothing else, acts as an actual game controller and the other potentially broadcast me across the world walking around my living room without pants. Guess which is which.