News & Rumours: Playstation 4/ Orbis *spin*

[Phil]

I don't know that it is. Only MS have tried that, and no-one's followed. Steam doesn't charge an online fee to play your Steam games online, nor anyone else. For a subscription fee, I'd expect it to work like movie streaming - you select from the library of games and play them. An online fee like MS is somewhat like asking you to buy a BRD and BRD player and then pay to be able to play the movie. shift all the optional fancy features to subscription if you must, but a fee just to access the internet (that's pretty much all you're doing in peer-to-peer gaming) is just rude, and there are other options (Ouya, Steambox, PC).

Maybe I'm understanding it wrong then. Multiplayer-only games haven't been the norm. Most games have an offline as well as the online component. The problem I can see is that it costs money to maintain the online aspect. Sure, we could go back to the days of pure P2P gaming, but what PSN and Xbox deliver are a more or less consistent user-experience - build up a user-identity with trophies, voice-chat, chat with your buddies etc. You also get leaderboards and other features across the platform.

Now, we can argue about how much it effectively costs these multi billion companies to actually offer this as a service, but the point is, it costs money. Another problem I'm sure many game-developers/publishers are facing is that people seem happy to play what works. Why upgrade to the newer game at all if you can still keep playing the older version online for free. Most people seem to happy to "upgrade" as long as their friends upgrade so they can all play the new game together, but surely, as long as its free and having to maintain that service must be frustrating.

Now I'm not sure if paying Sony (or Microsoft) will actually help this, but at least this way, some of the money it costs to keep this service run could potentially go back to the developers. As a gamer, I would prefer paying Sony a hundred times more for a consistant service than to pay every publisher for their game seperately for "extra features" (i.e. like for Call of Duty Eite).

I'm not sure if it works like this, but if you have a pay for online service, it opens up the possibility for a better product, a better service and one way of how to give something of that money you make back to the publishers could be by asking for less royality fees for sold games on your platform (as an example).

 

[patsu]

The issue with this gen's paid MP is that the gamers have played free P2P gaming before. It is also inferior to server based MP. And there is no way out from the situation except to jump ship.

This is why I feel that if Sony want to charge for online, they should show something better and different from PC games. They should also focus on PS+ level of benefits.

If they can tier the service for gamers, rather than milking gamers, then it should be able to avoid backlash.

 

[London Geezer]

What we might be left with is a highly lucrative, shallow niche, with gaming becoming even more marginalised on those platforms. The intelligent approach is to get everyone on board. Make it open and socially attractive. Make multiplayer and coop commonplace and seamless, so people invite their friends who partake and invite their friends who partake and... That's how Facebook got anywhere, and all those viral success. Once you have users, you can monetise them, selling content and services, but a big barrier to entry is stupid. Sony have enough examples of paid MMOs that went F2P and did far better financially to know how that works.

£15 a year for party chat, I'll bite. But pay to play online, I'll switch to PC for the solo gamer experience.

Or it might make developers actually focus more on the single player, which for me is +++

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Or it might make developers actually focus more on the single player, which for me is +++

But the PC would be the better choice then IMO. Save my £300 off PS4 and put that towards the PC fund, and take those games with you for the next 20 years with full BC (and they improve). IMO console gaming has always been more about sociable gaming. that doesn't have to be flippin' Wii waggleathons, but mates sat together playing footy or shooting aliens or whatever - it's all great fun together. If the experience is solo only, I can just stick to the intimacy of PC gaming.

 

[London Geezer]

But the PC would be the better choice then IMO. Save my £300 off PS4 and put that towards the PC fund, and take those games with you for the next 20 years with full BC (and they improve). IMO console gaming has always been more about sociable gaming. that doesn't have to be flippin' Wii waggleathons, but mates sat together playing footy or shooting aliens or whatever - it's all great fun together. If the experience is solo only, I can just stick to the intimacy of PC gaming.

I disagree. I like to play games on my big plasma, full surround, Sony games and whatever PC FPS ports the PS3 can run. I have no interest in buying a PC as the games don't interest me. Also it's a lot more expensive to have a rig that makes games look drastically better than what will come out on PS4 for the next couple of years. That £300 would pay half of your graphics card alone...

What's 'intimate' about PC gaming, apart from sitting 2" from the monitor, that i can't call 'intimate' from the coziness of my sofa?

I never thought as console gaming vs PC gaming as multiplatform vs single player.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree about the library, but it's changing. The majority games are cross platform with PC and that'll improve. Steam and Big Picture Mode takes care of the TV in the living room,although in my case if I'm playing solo, I sit in front of the monitor (PS3 or PC). That's of course different for different people, but if I'm playing solo on my own, I get a better experience sat closer to the monitor. that'd probably be different if I had a huge TV!

As for the £300 pays for half your graphics card, that's just not going to be true. Heck it's not even true now as more powerful graphics cards can be bought for £200. The rumoured specs are not monster machines. A £700 PC workstation capable of handling my productivity software is likely going to trump Orbis and Durango in many titles. If I get the £700 workstation anyway, Orbis is then another £300 on top of that. What do I get for that if it's still a matter of solo gaming? Any console has to differentiate itself more than just on price, which isn't happening to a great extent in the hardware from what we're hearing.

 

[London Geezer]

I agree about the library, but it's changing. The majority games are cross platform with PC and that'll improve. Steam and Big Picture Mode takes care of the TV in the living room,although in my case if I'm playing solo, I sit in front of the monitor (PS3 or PC). That's of course different for different people, but if I'm playing solo on my own, I get a better experience sat closer to the monitor. that'd probably be different if I had a huge TV!

As for the £300 pays for half your graphics card, that's just not going to be true. Heck it's not even true now as more powerful graphics cards can be bought for £200. The rumoured specs are not monster machines. A £700 PC workstation capable of handling my productivity software is likely going to trump Orbis and Durango in many titles. If I get the £700 workstation anyway, Orbis is then another £300 on top of that. What do I get for that if it's still a matter of solo gaming? Any console has to differentiate itself more than just on price, which isn't happening to a great extent in the hardware from what we're hearing.

Well personally i don't give a flying rat about the specs. I know that PS4 games will be technically better than the PS3 ones i'm playing now - which on my new plasma are starting to look like they need some polishing... And that's more than enough for me.
At the same time, i like to have a little box under my TV that can play those games i've grown to love, or any games by studios i've grown to love. As well as the odd Bluray and Lovefilm movie watching. Turn it on, it just works.

For me a PC is the last thing on my mind, especially for such a trivial matter as what chips are inside the bloody thing.

But that's just me.

 

[liolio]

I'm not sure about where all of this is heading, if both Sony and MSFT require subscription, prevent one way or another the sale of used games, etc.

I think that it all comes down to an unsustainable approach, with on one hand subsidized hardware and on the other games with crazy high budgets. Blend in business people which as soon as they see a good pile of money are likely to come with unflexible but unquestionable laws about how business should be done and then... I don't know.
I see here quiet a recipe for disaster, not really for gaming but for Sony/MSFT and the "business as usual" /lets push the boundaries till something happens and ding out if "black swans" really exist.

Pretty much like everything men do it works till it doesn't, those policies if enforced by Sony and MSFT might be the wake up call for the companies powerful enough to make a serious try at disrupting the market and its practices. I see some truth (stated already) in what the original xbox "creator" stated on the matter.

 

[Phil]

No I agree. I have no idea how this turned into a discussion where the PC is brought into this. If Sony goes the route of customers having to pay for multiplayer, then I certainly don't see the average joe (the people that make up most of the million of sales on consoles) will suddenly decide to go the route of putting a PC in their living room. Nor do I see them suddenly chosing some box with a fancy name but no history over either the established Xbox or PlayStation brandname.

 

[London Geezer]

No I agree. I have no idea how this turned into a discussion where the PC is brought into this. If Sony goes the route of customers having to pay for multiplayer, then I certainly don't see the average joe (the people that make up most of the million of sales on consoles) will suddenly decide to go the route of putting a PC in their living room. Nor do I see them suddenly chosing some box with a fancy name but no history over either the established Xbox or PlayStation brandname.

I agree.

 

[TheChefO]

No I agree. I have no idea how this turned into a discussion where the PC is brought into this. If Sony goes the route of customers having to pay for multiplayer, then I certainly don't see the average joe (the people that make up most of the million of sales on consoles) will suddenly decide to go the route of putting a PC in their living room. Nor do I see them suddenly chosing some box with a fancy name but no history over either the established Xbox or PlayStation brandname.

Unless that new box has a fruit logo on it. People seem to love fruit for some reason. Google would be another name with a lot of weight behind it. Then again, Samsung has been building quite a rep as well lately. If Sony/MS slip up, there are quite a few big players which have the resources to compete ... maybe even dominate.

IMO though, Sony will do rather well this gen.

They still have a very healthy stable of 1st party and 2nd party devs, they have decent hardware in ps4, and many potential revenue streams to pursue. They will be in good shape (as far as the playstation division is concerned).

 

[Phil]

Google has a name, as well as Apple, but I'm not sure any of them can just decide to build a console and have everyone expect them to do well. I'm sure Microsoft can tell a tale that getting into the console business is a long and hard process. You have to put in a lot of work into building capable hardware first, while also building up partnerships and collaborations with game publishers so that they will invest time and money to support your console.

If Google or Apple decide to build a console - great - maybe will see a great game machine for thousands of mini games like you find them on their other hardware. For serious gaming though from big game developers like Konami, Square, EA etc. it certainly wouldn't be my choice. And since PS4 is likely to be on the market first - I'm not sure why we're even discussing "potential threats" beyond the year 20XX.

 

[wco81]

If Google or Apple got into the business, you know they'd come with a different business model.

It would be 100% download, meaning the publishers would have some flexibility on pricing, as they don't have to split sales proceeds with stores and distributors or spend money to manufacture, transport and warehouse games media.

These theoretical products would integrate with their large mobile ecosystems, which means more liberal DRM. That's why it's madness for them to even contemplate charging for online or cutting off used games sales (which is one of the main advantages to the consumer, to be able to trade the games).


Of course there will be services beyond games -- Netflix and other streaming and download stores.

There would be a huge opportunity if they integrated DVR features. Tivo and cable companies charge upwards of $20 a month for guide subscriptions so there's an opportunity for someone to come in and clean up.

Apple has shown little interest in DVR. They want people to download/stream content. MS has done work with DVR in WMC but they've never sold a box, whereas a WMC requires people to put together a box, which doesn't necessarily fit well in the AV rack in the living room.

Let people plug in cheap USB 3 external drives to record shows and download content from the video stores, don't charge monthly service for the guide data and offer easy ability to sync recordings to tablets and phones as well as remote ability to set up recordings.

Of course, if people bought consoles only as DVRs and rarely bought games, they wouldn't make money off those consumers. But then again, Netflix seems to be a very popular use of consoles now so there's no reason that a better DVR than Tivo wouldn't have similar effects.

 

[Scott_Arm]

MS and Sony have built huge networks to support Live and PSN. If they sell their consoles at a loss, they have to pay for it somehow. You don't buy your PC at a loss to the hardware manufacturers. Valve doesn't even sell hardware. I'd also like to know how much money Valve makes off of a Steam sale relative to how much MS and Sony make off royalties for a disc distributed game.

Gamers want a super computer in a small box, sold to them at a loss, and they want a network that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to come free, all while complaining that they don't want the price of games to increase. Take your pick.

I'd be shocked if Sony didn't charge for some tiered online services. I just hope they make basic online multiplayer part of the free service.

 

[Bagel seed]

Geoff Keighley‏@geoffkeighley

Police guarding Hammerstein Ballroom, location of PlayStation Meeting #gtliveps4 @ Hammerstein Ballroom

http://instagram.com/p/V9gK7fosGy/

Serious business

 

[Arwin]

I agree about the library, but it's changing. The majority games are cross platform with PC and that'll improve. Steam and Big Picture Mode takes care of the TV in the living room,although in my case if I'm playing solo, I sit in front of the monitor (PS3 or PC). That's of course different for different people, but if I'm playing solo on my own, I get a better experience sat closer to the monitor. that'd probably be different if I had a huge TV!

As for the £300 pays for half your graphics card, that's just not going to be true. Heck it's not even true now as more powerful graphics cards can be bought for £200. The rumoured specs are not monster machines. A £700 PC workstation capable of handling my productivity software is likely going to trump Orbis and Durango in many titles. If I get the £700 workstation anyway, Orbis is then another £300 on top of that. What do I get for that if it's still a matter of solo gaming? Any console has to differentiate itself more than just on price, which isn't happening to a great extent in the hardware from what we're hearing.

I think it is easy to forget that the two years before the next gen consoles launch are some of the best times ever to have a PC. While this *may* change this time, I remain skeptical.

And I bought an 849 euro PC, partly because I know this is a good time to own a PC. But this won't last - great if it does mind you, but I'm not quite seeing yet why it will.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

MS and Sony have built huge networks to support Live and PSN. If they sell their consoles at a loss, they have to pay for it somehow. You don't buy your PC at a loss to the hardware manufacturers. Valve doesn't even sell hardware. I'd also like to know how much money Valve makes off of a Steam sale relative to how much MS and Sony make off royalties for a disc distributed game.

Gamers want a super computer in a small box, sold to them at a loss, and they want a network that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to come free, all while complaining that they don't want the price of games to increase. Take your pick.

Yet your understanding of their methods ends, when they want to get paid from the software people are playing, I'm referring to the used games sales.

I pay for the console, the game and the internet connection. I don't think I should pay to use those together, but I'm ok paying for the game I'm playing, instead of borrowing it from a friend.

 

[London Geezer]

Google and Apple clearly want to (and already are) getting into the business of the 'one box under your TV to provide content'. The Apple TV only needs to run video files, a little network and a simple interface.

But consoles are able to run what i'd call the 'Blockbuster games'. Not only technically but because they are supported by their own maker's first/second party developers.

Google and Apple would need a whole lot of time to build a group of first party studios to rival Sony (i say Sony because that's where my exposure is limited to). Otherwise they'd just release machines that play multiplatform games - what's the point?

Google seems to be quite happy providing affordable computing (chrome book?) and free services (ad revenue). Apple... well we all know what they're doing.

I don't believe that either of those are in any way, shape or form interested in getting into the Blockbuster Gaming business. And you can say what you want about iphone/android gaming, but at the end of the day the Big Games market is massive and growing, and until that reality is changed, Sony/MS/N will keep releasing their lovely boxes and people will keep buying them, multiplayer or not.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Sony have enough examples of paid MMOs that went F2P and did far better financially to know how that works.

£15 a year for party chat, I'll bite. But pay to play online, I'll switch to PC for the solo gamer experience.

That would be an interesting business model. Something similar for a "F2P online multiplayer" thing could be...

Online multiplayer is free for a small selection of maps. Pay X dollars to unlock the ability to play the rest of the maps or Y per map.

Online multiplayer is free for 1-2 hours per day. Pay X dollars for each addition Y hour block.

Online multiplayer is free, but is limited to a limited number of in game weapons/classes. Pay X dollars to unlock all of weapons, Y dollars for all of the classes, or Z dollars per weapon/class.

Party chat as you mentioned would be another one. Pay X dollars per year for cross game party chat.

There's certainly lots of ways they could go about offering a very basic free multiplayer with a large incentive to pay for more.

Similar to F2P games, you end up with either less content or paying significantly more money for the same content as you would have had with a set monthly rate.

Unless that new box has a fruit logo on it. People seem to love fruit for some reason. Google would be another name with a lot of weight behind it.

If it were that simple, then Apple and Google wouldn't be huge failures in the set top box market. Apple TV and Google TV are both marginal products at best. Chromebook is still floundering. There is only so much that name recognition will do for you. You still have to make a product that people will actually want to use.

Getting into the game console business has a much greater risk associated with it than set top boxes as the investment in R&D and hardware are significantly higher. If Apple TV and Google TV never succeed, then Apple and Google still likely won't have spent as much money as Microsoft did on the first Xbox alone.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Gamers want a super computer in a small box...

But they're not getting it. They're getting an APU. the hardware isn't hideously expensive and there's little need to sell it at a massive loss, certainly not for any length of time. The hardware can be profitable. The software is. The content is. I don't think a yearly fee is the way to best generate profits, just as I don't think $800 consoles with $40 subsidised games would be, or a $200 console with $100 games. Subscription fees will work, and the console die hards will buy into them, but there'll be others who turn their nose up. I just don't think its necessary or comparable to other services.

I think it is easy to forget that the two years before the next gen consoles launch are some of the best times ever to have a PC. While this *may* change this time, I remain skeptical.

Nah. As I say, I can buy a midrange PC now that'll be better spec'd. Next year I'll be able to buy better hardware without breaking the bank. That's a new position for consoles, not launching with cutting edge tech and room to keep up with the best of the PC for a few years.

I'm not going to discuss PC versus console any more. Suffice to say, I see more reason to consider PC now than ever before. In my thread comparing platforms, one of the most significant costs to switching to PC was sociable gaming. If that takes a nose-dive on consoles (less local-coop and paid online), that's going to greatly change the platform landscape in my eyes.

But that's a big If. Maybe in a few hours we'll learn one way or another?