News & Rumours: Playstation 4/ Orbis *spin*

[Strange]

For IPTV there is very little you can do to get around the internet as a requirement.

Always on requirement for games is totally different.

There lack of an internet connection had never stopped anybody from playing games on consoles for the past couple of decades (except for games that intrinsically required internet like MMOS) and the vast majority of people do not see the value added by doing such a thing worth the sacrifice, especially when there are games that work perfectly fine without your console needing to connect to anything apart from a controller, a display, and a power source.

 

[patsu]

What's the state of Video Unlimited? That seems the natural launching point for a widespread service.

The Video Unlimited library consists of mainly movies. Sony also own Crackle, which is movie oriented.

Their alleged arrangement with Viacom should be TV related. They may keep the TV and movie services separate.

But would anybody sign up to iptv if they know they have a flaky internet connection? Good internet is a requirement for iptv and was also for the always on solution that MS first proposed.
But the difference in my mind is that iptv is an optional service you buy. While always on for gaming means that you needed to have internet and a none flaky one to use the X1 at all, with the previous solution from MS.

Depends on how they structure it. TV back episodes may be download based and SD.

 

[RobertR1]

Going with a solution that includes everyone especially when you know it's a non connected device for many. But internet connectivity apparently is no longer an issue for this platform so nevermind.

Dude I'm on a plane across country and my Internet speed is hit n miss. No way would I carry on an Xbox one and try connecting like this. Thank god they added offline mode.

 

[rockaman]

I have IPTV (Bell Fibe in Canada).

It barely affects internet speeds at my home. In fact, I'm quite certain it's running in parallel with the internet mostly, rather than in "series" where it could interfere.

IPTV is a very broad term, and it doesn't necessarily preclude traditional media companies distribution of TV and TV services (Bell is one of the "big two" and "big three" in Canada).

Bell owns phone lines and fibre optic networks in Canada though, so it's not necessarily the same thing as plugging it straight through the net (hence why I suggest it's actually running in parallel to my home internet connection).

For other companies to do the same thing, they would have to rent the space in different countries for the IPTV services, or they could less desirably simply rely on the internet connection speeds of the everyday user.

IPTV doesn't necessarily have to run on the same individual tubes the internet runs on, is what I'm saying.

Bell Fibe TV requires a Bell Internet subscription. The speed listed for the Internet connection remains unused for the television service. For example, the Fibe 175/175 plan actually has 200 Mbit/s symmetric bandwidth. Of this, 175 is dedicated for Internet usage, while up to 25 is set aside for TV. If the television service is unused at any point, the Internet access speeds can increase by as much as 25 Mbit/s.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Fibe_TV

And more importantly, there are many permutations of IPTV, and it is an hard as rock fact that IPTV has been around longer than a lot of people here seem to think.

 

[BadTB25]

Going with a solution that includes everyone especially when you know it's a non connected device for many. But internet connectivity apparently is no longer an issue for this platform so nevermind.

I think your point is selective outrage regarding platform and I agree to a point. Some users will cherry pick what they are outraged about---they shouldn't be too hard to spot based on what platform the feature is being announced for.

It goes both ways or all three ways if you want to include Nintendo I guess.

 

[patsu]

I think your point is selective outrage regarding platform and I agree to a point. Some users will cherry pick what they are outraged about---they shouldn't be too hard to spot based on what platform the feature is being announced for.

It goes both ways or all three ways if you want to include Nintendo I guess.

Not necessarily platform driven since MS fans also complained about the always connected gaming requirements.

For Sony, they adopt mostly the same DRM and region policies as PS3. The big difference is they sneak in paid MP under PS+. Other fixes like locking game save to user instead of device is a welcomed change for me.

I think someone here is hoping for secondary/kid account upgrade but Sony haven't said anything here.

 

[patsu]

I have IPTV (Bell Fibe in Canada).

It barely affects internet speeds at my home. In fact, I'm quite certain it's running in parallel with the internet mostly, rather than in "series" where it could interfere.

IPTV is a very broad term, and it doesn't necessarily preclude traditional media companies distribution of TV and TV services (Bell is one of the "big two" and "big three" in Canada).

Bell owns phone lines and fibre optic networks in Canada though, so it's not necessarily the same thing as plugging it straight through the net (hence why I suggest it's actually running in parallel to my home internet connection).

For other companies to do the same thing, they would have to rent the space in different countries for the IPTV services, or they could less desirably simply rely on the internet connection speeds of the everyday user.

IPTV doesn't necessarily have to run on the same individual tubes the internet runs on, is what I'm saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Fibe_TV

And more importantly, there are many permutations of IPTV, and it is an hard as rock fact that IPTV has been around longer than a lot of people here seem to think.

Sony usually take a global view. Instead of picking a single unified IPTV platform, they may adopt different strategies or even IPTV definitions for different regions.

 

[JPT]

As a first step I would be very happy if I could ditch my secondary cable box and replace it with either PS4 or X1. It would basically save me the cost of Live/PSN yearly.

But if you know your internet drops out every 15 minutes for 30 seconds and sometimes drops down to 256k. Would you still buy the IPTV service?

 

[Brad Grenz]

Surely not, the same way you wouldn't buy an online only game.

 

[BadTB25]

Not necessarily platform driven since MS fans also complained about the always connected gaming requirements.

For Sony, they adopt mostly the same DRM and region policies as PS3. The big difference is they sneak in paid MP under PS+. Other fixes like locking game save to user instead of device is a welcomed change for me.

I think someone here is hoping for secondary/kid account upgrade but Sony haven't said anything here.

Actually that's my point...all sides have fans guilty of this platform specific outrage.

If it was MS, that announced an IPTV app, I'm sure we would've had the same crowd come out with "I get no TV when my internet craps out" or "my router craps out" issue that happens maybe once or twice a year.

I'm good with both consoles doing more than being a purely gaming machine. My only issue is if too big a sacrifice is made to make it so. Both are striving to strike a balance with Nintendo really being the odd one out.

 

[JPT]

Surely not, the same way you wouldn't buy an online only game.

I totally agree with that, but if, as MS intended in the beginning, that your console have to be connected. Fine you probably could live with 30 LOS every 15 minutes, low downloads. But you would not buy an IPTV package if you did not have online access, because its of no use. The X1 had the same property for offline gaming.

So I see the outrage for the none connected gamers, not so much for people with bad connections. But again its different from a none core function that you have to sign up for, like the rumoured IPTV.

 

[Arwin]

Yeah, this is a bit of a non-discussion. It would only be similar if Sony announced an IPTV service that was mandatory, you were required to always watch TV picture-in-picture with your game, and the game would stop as soon as the IPTV service couldn't connect to its host.

I look forward to the Gamescom news coming tonight, hopefully we'll have more meaningful discussions then afterwards.

 

[Brad Grenz]

If the online requirement led to the reliance on cloud computing like some were hoping for, an unstable connection like that would break games, too. Either way it's a matter of what you get for assuming the risk that your internet delivered service could be interrupted. In the case of IPTV there is a hope that it costs a lot less, could lead to new ala carte pricing model and a non-reliance on shitty DVRs and Digital Receivers. The Xbox One wanted you to spend the same $500 on the system, $60 on the games and didn't seem to offer enough benefits for most people to offset the risk of service interruption.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But if you know your internet drops out every 15 minutes for 30 seconds and sometimes drops down to 256k. Would you still buy the IPTV service?

That's an extraordinarily bad connection which obviously isn't the target of this service, but even then you can download/cache your viewing to watch whatever you want, unlike an always on connection.

If it was MS, that announced an IPTV app, I'm sure we would've had the same crowd come out with "I get no TV when my internet craps out" or "my router craps out" issue that happens maybe once or twice a year.

We've already talked about content services on XB1 and no-one has raised those complaints because they aren't relevant to watching TV/films. Those complaints were based on compulsory connection to play anything, including local, solo games. Different access requirements results in different responses from the same internet quality - the two scenarios are very different and the comparison between people's reactions to IPTV and people's reactions to an always-on console is illogical.

 

[BadTB25]

That's an extraordinarily bad connection which obviously isn't the target of this service, but even then you can download/cache your viewing to watch whatever you want, unlike an always on connection.

We've already talked about content services on XB1 and no-one has raised those complaints because they aren't relevant to watching TV/films. Those complaints were based on compulsory connection to play anything, including local, solo games. Different access requirements results in different responses from the same internet quality - the two scenarios are very different and the comparison between people's reactions to IPTV and people's reactions to an always-on console is illogical.

Illogical...sure and that's my point regarding selective outrage.

The complaints based on compulsory connection as you put it was previously once every 24 hrs to which we got the "acts of nature", "blown routers", etc excuses and alibis. Many pointed out that a tethered smart phone could be used to check in and then to log out, but the outcry was still very much front and center.

Compared to IPTV that has to be always working at acceptable bandwith when viewing, which sounds like more of an issue to you?

I'm not against IPTV or any new service the consoles are bringing, I just wish more people lately would keep an open mind and not necessarily be "for or against" just because it isn't on your console of choice.

 

[Barrabas]

Sony press conference later today http://gamescom.eu.playstation.com/

 

[Strange]

Illogical...sure and that's my point regarding selective outrage.

The complaints based on compulsory connection as you put it was previously once every 24 hrs to which we got the "acts of nature", "blown routers", etc excuses and alibis. Many pointed out that a tethered smart phone could be used to check in and then to log out, but the outcry was still very much front and center.

Compared to IPTV that has to be always working at acceptable bandwith when viewing, which sounds like more of an issue to you?

I'm not against IPTV or any new service the consoles are bringing, I just wish more people lately would keep an open mind and not necessarily be "for or against" just because it isn't on your console of choice.

IPTV requires an internet connection by nature, and it isn't forced upon you when buying the console. When you pay extra the service you're aware that you need to provide a sufficient backbone yourself for satisfactory service.

Playing solo games doesn't require an internet connection by nature, and the initial design does indeed require you to have a connection. It's a hurdle that can be totally avoidable unlike the internet connection for IPTV, which you have to get working in order to enjoy the service.

As many people have said, it's not about keeping an open mind.
They are very, very different arguments and will receive similar criticism no matter which console it is on.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Illogical...sure and that's my point regarding selective outrage.

The complaints based on compulsory connection as you put it was previously once every 24 hrs to which we got the "acts of nature", "blown routers", etc excuses and alibis. Many pointed out that a tethered smart phone could be used to check in and then to log out, but the outcry was still very much front and center.

We're not discussing whether the outrage shown towards MS was justified or not in this thread about PS4. Whatever the hell people's responses were towards MS is immaterial, except when cited as evidence that the Internet is not capable of supporting IPTV. I think we all accept that theory is debunked, and the reference, using forum noise as a means to evaluate the nature of the internet, was ludicrous. So now we can get back to discussing PS4 and its services.

 

[BoardBonobo]

I was just thinking about the PSM support for Sony's other mobile devices, my Xperia Z now supports Sixaxis out of the box etc. But I was thinking that with the Vita support and Sony's new focus on 'one platform many devices' that there would be more available.

And just as I was typing this and update has arrived on my phone!! Surreal...

 

[Cyan]

Gotta go so I am going to be concise.

David Cage on next gen consoles... He says that they are getting really closer to photorealistic visuals.

http://www.edge-online.com/news/nex...er-to-photorealistic-visuals-says-david-cage/