I guess it's pretty easy if you force the games to render letterboxed on a 4:3 tv. Then all you have to do is downscale. I'm just not expecting anyone to do a true 4:3 rendering mode.
*spin-off* Always on/connected... stuff
- Thread starter Rockster
- Start date
I guess it's pretty easy if you force the games to render letterboxed on a 4:3 tv. Then all you have to do is downscale. I'm just not expecting anyone to do a true 4:3 rendering mode.
I think Microsoft will cover themselves (sort of) during their announced press conference when they tell people it is an online only system and basically make that the company line afterward. No doubt, there is probably something all over the box saying a mandatory connection is needed, but I hope it is just something like the WiiU Connect24 or similar.
If the hardware of the console is online only, there are always those consumers who get that holiday list from someone who is not aware of this and doesn't know and that ball of confusion spreads, and I would feel sorry for them.
Eh, we'll see...
Sure, that is certainly the least of my worries.
I hope online only means certain services, and nothing else.
If it is an online only console, I just hope MS let people to pause the console.
Offline gaming in single player mode = some more free time because a person can pause things. :smile: Online games make people fatter, less hygienic (they must shit their pants if they cannot pause the game to go to the bathroom) and also angrier (because of losing items to scammers & getting frustrated over something which isn't even real).
Aside from that, I am subscribed to The Happy Video Game Nerd & The Angry Video Game Nerd on Youtube.
And I LOVE their humour and videos. If the Xbox 720 has an expiring date, things like that can never exist for it, which is a shame.
Meanwhile, people can enjoy their PS3, Xbox 360, PS2, Xbox, GC, N64, NES, SNES, Megadrive, Master System, Turbografx, Neo Geo, for as long as they can.
You make it sound like nobody is making money in the business.
Yeah if there are dozens of publishers and devs going out of business, they couldn't produce products that people wanted.
It may just be that the market for console games is much more limited. While the console makers like to boast libraries of thousands of games, only a dozen or two make good money each year.
A lot of people try, hoping to produce the next COD. But for all we know, the market got downsized to the few dozen franchises which are able to move millions of units.
Umm... many are?
Tell me what makes you believe that an always on console requires it lose functionality at the start of a new generation or some arbitrary time point thats picked by the platform provider.
Why does "always connected" supposedly have a "kill switch" thats pointed to the console primary function and not pointed strictly at the "always connected" feature of the console when the platform is at EOL.
If the platform is not worth supporting, there is no need to worry about piracy on that platform.
Last edited by a moderator:
Your 1st paragraph perfectly describes how the big corps are thinking and calculating. They want to make sequels of sequels of sequels for big AAA titles and only thing they think can be safely improved is graphics (and that inflates your budget a lot). They do not innovate or try to compete with innovative ideas. They think that if something worked in the past it should work in the future when you just add cherries on top of it.
And i personally think that effects of that thinking is showing very well for the past few years. Big development studios fall or get bought out. At the same time we see spectacular crowdfunding success that shows people are willing to spend money on the right things.
Big game labels need to realize that trying to squeeze more money out of customers will get them nowhere (Laffer's curve concept comes to mind).
As a funny example of Laffer's curve at work i can tell you that in 2003 in Poland govt lowered excise tax on alcohol by 25%. That reduction led to actual increase of alcohol excise tax income by 15%.
I am not saying that direct price cuts would be the perfect solution but i think people want a little bit more bang for their buck. I hate it when i see parts of the game cut out just to sell them to me later as DLC.
That kind of tricks lower my perception of purchase value. I think similar psychological effects are at work when you get restricted access to your games (via always online) or you are deprived of right to own or resell your purchased product (via always online).
Edit: We can see that all new games are sold at the pain threshold price - they all cost 60$ (50€). This trick could work when you had many different new, innovative titles that could not be compared easily. But now everything is the same and access to information is easy. Game reviews can destroy your sales if you make crap game. Of course company can react with quick price drops but the first impression your title made is not easily erasable (and its the same for all types of entertainment - games, music, movies, etc.)
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll answer that
An always on console requires a server(s) to connect to. Running a server costs money
do you think microsoft will fund the servers indefinitely keeping in mind that the last time they run a similar service as soon as it stopped being profitable they shut it down and their customers lost all their purchases.
You honestly think there's a greater than 0% chance that they won't allow games to be paused?
I've played games that can't be paused, therefore, I don't see the big deal if no games can be paused...
You haven't answer my question because my question is "why do you believe its impossible to shut off an 'always connected' feature".
"Always connected" was an initial feature of Steam, it was removed a long time ago. Is it still impossible play HL2 offline?
There is nothing that says that "always connected" can't be stripped away if MS desires to permanently takes its Durango servers offline.
Last edited by a moderator:
He was questioning whether they'll allow any games to be paused, which is completely ridiculous.
That wasnt your question (re read your post) but i'll answer it anyway. no ones said its impossible
sure they could do it. all I know is they never done it last time, they just screwed their customers .
I know you've posted numbers a few posts later, but it's actually easier to reply to this one.
It's common knowledge that for the most part, the hardware is sold at a loss at the beginning of its cycle and throughout the generation, through hardware shrinking, the hardware eventually becomes profitable. Most of the profits are generated through royalties when they sell software.
I've only glaced over your numbers in Sony's case, but it's clearly evident that PS3 was anything but a controlled situation - they had problems with the blue laser diode for Bluray, the HDMI interface, huge R&D investments and some other reasons, why the PS3 lost huge amounts of marketshare, was delayed and generated its huges losses over the generation. Looking at your numbers, I'm also not sure how much of those numbers are down to purely the PS3, because Vita would also be within the timeframe. I'm also not sure if the numbers include the entire gaming devision with hardware and software or are specific numbers.
It doesn't really matter. PS3 is anything but the ordinary situation. Sony have had two very successfull generations before that, which shows how the business model works when executed well. If every generation had been the bottom-less money pit this generation has been for Sony, then yes, I would agree that others means of finding ways to gain profitability (i.e. through ads) would make sense - or I would rather say, it's time to find a new business model - one like Nintendo has made, where hardware was relatively inexpensive and profitable from day one.
This is not the case. There is no reason to push more ads down our throats. If they can't maintain the business model that generated huge profits during the PSone and PS2 era because of competition, change of the market etc, it's time to change that business model.
Sony's problems with profit sustained itself for years, so its just not issues that surfaced pre launch and during its first year. Furthermore, the wii had no problem launching with in the same time frame. PS2 was still a strong seller during this time so its possible it hid additional losses realized by Sony.
Sony biggest problem was that its hardware was too costly to justify its retail prices. The PS1 and PS2 lacked this problem because Sony knew that unlike Nintendo, MS was willing to push the performance envelope as much as it could by stretching hardware subidization as far as it could. Nintendo was far easier to deal with because of it strong distate for losing money on hardware. MS served as a bigger threat not only because its deep pockets but its willingness to expand upon the functionality of its consoles.
Sony felt the need to heavily invest in hardware and software because MS had changed the landscape and a PS3 being a simple upgrade of hardware performance with the same basic features would have hurt Sony in the long run. The 360 and the PS3 represent a massive jump over PS2 in not only visual performance. HDDs, online stores (that sell games, movies and music), streaming, achievements and friendlists represent just a part of a massive evolution that console have under taken in just one generation.
The experience we recieved by the 360 and the PS3 has come at a cost and the amount of bang per buck we recieved probably won't happen again.
Ads as an extra revenue stream does not bother me. It would take ads being so invasive that they impede my ability to experience my games. Forced watching of ads is something I am totally against as well as experiencing ads during gameplay that out of place nor try to seamlessly intergrate themselves into a game. Working down the street and seeing a Taco Bell or looking at billboard will real advertisement in GTA wouldnt bother in the least. Seeing an ad for a ipad in RRD would.
So as long as I can easily get to the play button on the ui, Sony and MS can make the ui look like a sundays paper coupon sheet for all I care. I spend 99% of my time playing games and the other 1% trying to quickly navigate past the ui.
I want MS and Sony gaming business to be as healthy and competitive as possible so if a part of that reality is driven by profits generated through marketers and not my wallet, I am cool with it.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
If the NextBox requires an internet connection just to play SP games I'm not even gonna touch it.
There is no benefit to the consumer for having an on-line connection forced as a requirement on a platform level. Anything you can suggest can be done on a system that doesn't force it. By setting such a rediculous requirement you totally aren't adding anything to the gameplay experience, and you will only be excluding players entirely unnecessarily for the sake of stupid draconian drm and selling ad space/marketing data.
It's entirely retarded, extremely arrogant and in many ways extremely short-sighted on MS's part considering the rumours are true.
Any platform holder to risk such a thing is simply asking for trouble.
There is no benefit to the consumer for having an on-line connection forced as a requirement on a platform level. Anything you can suggest can be done on a system that doesn't force it. By setting such a rediculous requirement you totally aren't adding anything to the gameplay experience, and you will only be excluding players entirely unnecessarily for the sake of stupid draconian drm and selling ad space/marketing data.
It's entirely retarded, extremely arrogant and in many ways extremely short-sighted on MS's part considering the rumours are true.
Any platform holder to risk such a thing is simply asking for trouble.
dobwal,
I agree with the general message of your message in that yes, we all want both Sonys and Microsofts gaming business to be healthy and competitive. I however, don't agree with some of your conclusions, why this hasn't been the case with the PS3.
You named as a reason that "the 360 and the PS3 represent a massive jump over PS2 in not only visual performance. HDDs, online stores (that sell games, movies and music), streaming, achievements and friendlists etc..." - I don't think you are accounting for all the facts here.
The PS3 was a loss making machine because Sony put in a lot of weight behind Bluray. Why is well documented and for obvious reasons - reasons that expand beyond just the gaming-division. This not only raised costs (and indirectly their loss), but also impacted their business model. They were always going to be on the backfoot financially.
Including a harddrive also raised costs, which was partly put onto the customer with a higher selling point, which in itself impacted image and ultimately their marketshare. In other words, the PS3 is a plan that went wrong. Then there's also the argument to be made that Sony decided to offer PSN for free, where as Microsoft offered Live memberships to regain some of their loss.
I don't see the relation between adding a massive jump in technology, some nifty hardware features like HDD, building their online network as being the reasons why PS3 was unprofitable for most of its time. The PS3 was clearly aiming to push the boundaries and be "cutting-edge" in many areas - but so was the PS2 for its time and I'm not sure one could say the PS4 won't be if you look at the big picture.
There's not a single reason why either Sony or MS can't push the boundaries next generation without making the mistakes they did with this one. And I don't see any reason why they aren't doing exactly that. Sure, the hardware seems less of a jump like when they went from PS2 to PS3 - but then again, that's not only down to costs, but the way the market is changing and that it is better to have simpler more efficient hardware, than exotic that is difficult to utilize. Graphics have also evolved beyond the point where polygon performance accounted for a lot. They are prioritizing adding costly features that should help them offer a more complete experience, like PSeye or Kinect or a fancy new controller with more tech inside.
I simply don't see the argument, that they suddenly need ads to make their business model more profitable. The only reason they weren't profitable on PS3 isn't the point that they lack ads, but because they made some mistakes along the way that turned out to be very costly. The bottom line though is, for a company like Sony, the loss was/is still a better outcome in the long run, since the PS3 has a reasonable marketshare and the importance of Bluray winning the HD optical disk format.
If they hadn't had the blue laser diode problem and the HDMI spec issue which caused delays, they might have launched earlier, at a better price and the generation might have unfolded quite differently and we wouldn't be talking about ads at all, because perhaps they'd have been a whole lot more profitable.
Now, to what I think they should do - if ads really has such an impact - I would simply offer PSN for free with ads - or offer a subscription model that offers an ad-free experience. Most programs on Android are offered in this way and I think it's fair. Paying and having ads however is something I don't see as necessary nor a good idea.
I agree with the general message of your message in that yes, we all want both Sonys and Microsofts gaming business to be healthy and competitive. I however, don't agree with some of your conclusions, why this hasn't been the case with the PS3.
You named as a reason that "the 360 and the PS3 represent a massive jump over PS2 in not only visual performance. HDDs, online stores (that sell games, movies and music), streaming, achievements and friendlists etc..." - I don't think you are accounting for all the facts here.
The PS3 was a loss making machine because Sony put in a lot of weight behind Bluray. Why is well documented and for obvious reasons - reasons that expand beyond just the gaming-division. This not only raised costs (and indirectly their loss), but also impacted their business model. They were always going to be on the backfoot financially.
Including a harddrive also raised costs, which was partly put onto the customer with a higher selling point, which in itself impacted image and ultimately their marketshare. In other words, the PS3 is a plan that went wrong. Then there's also the argument to be made that Sony decided to offer PSN for free, where as Microsoft offered Live memberships to regain some of their loss.
I don't see the relation between adding a massive jump in technology, some nifty hardware features like HDD, building their online network as being the reasons why PS3 was unprofitable for most of its time. The PS3 was clearly aiming to push the boundaries and be "cutting-edge" in many areas - but so was the PS2 for its time and I'm not sure one could say the PS4 won't be if you look at the big picture.
There's not a single reason why either Sony or MS can't push the boundaries next generation without making the mistakes they did with this one. And I don't see any reason why they aren't doing exactly that. Sure, the hardware seems less of a jump like when they went from PS2 to PS3 - but then again, that's not only down to costs, but the way the market is changing and that it is better to have simpler more efficient hardware, than exotic that is difficult to utilize. Graphics have also evolved beyond the point where polygon performance accounted for a lot. They are prioritizing adding costly features that should help them offer a more complete experience, like PSeye or Kinect or a fancy new controller with more tech inside.
I simply don't see the argument, that they suddenly need ads to make their business model more profitable. The only reason they weren't profitable on PS3 isn't the point that they lack ads, but because they made some mistakes along the way that turned out to be very costly. The bottom line though is, for a company like Sony, the loss was/is still a better outcome in the long run, since the PS3 has a reasonable marketshare and the importance of Bluray winning the HD optical disk format.
If they hadn't had the blue laser diode problem and the HDMI spec issue which caused delays, they might have launched earlier, at a better price and the generation might have unfolded quite differently and we wouldn't be talking about ads at all, because perhaps they'd have been a whole lot more profitable.
Now, to what I think they should do - if ads really has such an impact - I would simply offer PSN for free with ads - or offer a subscription model that offers an ad-free experience. Most programs on Android are offered in this way and I think it's fair. Paying and having ads however is something I don't see as necessary nor a good idea.