PlayStation 4 Console Discussion

[DriftKaiser]

I thought we are getting a trailer for PS+ free games for May today?

[Hero-of-Time]

EA Access finally heads to the PS4.

Quote

Electronic Arts is bringing its EA Access subscription service, which offers early access trials to new games and a library of existing games as part of “the Vault,” to PlayStation 4 this July, the publisher announced on Tuesday.

EA Access for PS4 will cost $4.99 per month or $29.99 annually, the same price as the existing EA Access service on Xbox One.

Currently, EA Access promises subscribers access to more than 50 games as part of the Vault. That selection of games includes older and recent releases like Star Wars Battlefront 2, Burnout Paradise Remastered, Fe, The Sims 4, Battlefield 1, and EA Sports’ most recent Madden, NBA, and NHL games. On Xbox One, EA Access also offers backward-compatible Xbox 360 games.

EA did not provide a list of compatible titles coming to the Vault for PS4, but presumably the list will be smaller than what’s available on Xbox One, given that the PS4 does not support PlayStation 3 games through backward compatibility.

 

[Mandalore]

2 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

EA Access finally heads to the PS4.

 

They must be desperate to boost the Anthem player count.

[drahkon]

Exactly what I wanted to see/hear.

Add streaming as an option for those who want to use it but still keep the remaining means to play available as long as possible  

[Ronnie]

Well, duh

[bob]

Who is SIE?

[S.C.G]

56 minutes ago, bob said:

Who is SIE?

Sony Interactive Entertainment.

(Yep, I had to search for it to be sure)

[Julius]

It's nuts as a statement in a Wired article. A bit more nuts in a video. 

Looking forward to next gen 

[Sheikah]

Well, duh

You say that but it's not really obvious to these companies at all. Player choice doesn't mean most profit in their minds.

Just look at what Microsoft did with used games at the start of this generation...basically the opposite of player choice.

[Ronnie]

23 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

You say that but it's not really obvious to these companies at all. Player choice doesn't mean most profit in their minds.

Just look at what Microsoft did with used games at the start of this generation...basically the opposite of player choice.

They're not doing this for "player choice", they're doing it because it makes most business sense for them.

Is this really news that the next Playstation will play purchased, retail games? Obviously it's going to. Don't get me wrong, let them say it, but it's hardly noteworthy.

[Sheikah]

They're not doing this for "player choice", they're doing it because it makes most business sense for them.
Is this really news that the next Playstation will play purchased, retail games? Obviously it's going to. Don't get me wrong, let them say it, but it's hardly noteworthy.

Right, backup. You said "well duh" to drahkon's post about the fact they're not taking away any current ways to buy. But here's the thing...it's not "well duh". I agree it SHOULD be "well duh", but it's not the case. Because companies DO do the "duh" approach. Microsoft did it just this generation with the X1 and basically ruined their chances this generation, having to U-turn many of their policies. Companies do not always do what is the most business sense. So even if this is sound from a business and common sense point of view... I'm happy about it. If Sony and Microsoft between them decided to distribute digital only this generation there would be diddly squat we could do about it.

[Ike]

A lot of people were worried new consoles would be streaming only because of the Google Stadia.

[Ronnie]

24 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Right, backup. You said "well duh" to drahkon's post about the fact they're not taking away any current ways to buy. But here's the thing...it's not "well duh". I agree it SHOULD be "well duh", but it's not the case. Because companies DO do the "duh" approach. Microsoft did it just this generation with the X1 and basically ruined their chances this generation, having to U-turn many of their policies. Companies do not always do what is the most business sense. So even if this is sound from a business and common sense point of view... I'm happy about it. If Sony and Microsoft between them decided to distribute digital only this generation there would be diddly squat we could do about it.

It is "well duh" because there is no way that in 2020 Sony and Microsoft would totally and utterly cripple themselves by releasing streaming-only consoles. It would just be idiotic, and makes no sense, for many reasons. In a decade when online infrastructure around the world has caught up, sure maybe, next year? No way.

And I'd be very surprised if anyone genuinely thought Stadia meant Xbox 2 and PS5 would be streaming only.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Ronnie

[Sheikah]

It is "well duh" because there is no way that in 2020 Sony and Microsoft would totally and utterly cripple themselves by releasing streaming-only consoles. It would just be idiotic, and makes no sense, for many reasons. In a decade when online infrastructure around the world has caught up, sure maybe, next year? No way. And I'd be very surprised if anyone genuinely thought Stadia meant Xbox 2 and PS5 would be streaming only.  

 

You could just as easily argue that in 2013 there is no way a home console would release without the ability to play used games AND require an internet connection (the latter being necessary for streaming also; you shot down the idea of an internet-only console in 2020 and it basically already existed in 2013!). 

And you could reason that if a console DID launch in 2013 with those features I mentioned missing that there would be outrage and mass shift to the competitor unless the features were added in.

 

And then you realise, that actually, all those things happened!

 

Do you see how what you're arguing - fundamentally something that won't fly with the customer - actually DID happen at the start of the current generation? You say "well, duh" but the "well duh" doesn't always happen! There are other instances of truly bizarre, non-business sense (in the long run), greed-motivated instances of things happening in the past, so this is by no means the most farfetched.

[drahkon]

Sooo...we all agree that more options are good for us? Yay?

[Ronnie]

36 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

You could just as easily argue that in 2013 there is no way a home console would release without the ability to play used games AND require an internet connection (the latter being necessary for streaming also; you shot down the idea of an internet-only console in 2020 and it basically already existed in 2013!). 

And you could reason that if a console DID launch in 2013 with those features I mentioned missing that there would be outrage and mass shift to the competitor unless the features were added in.

 

And then you realise, that actually, all those things happened!

 

Do you see how what you're arguing - fundamentally something that won't fly with the customer - actually DID happen at the start of the current generation? You say "well, duh" but the "well duh" doesn't always happen! There are other instances of truly bizarre, non-business sense (in the long run), greed-motivated instances of things happening in the past, so this is by no means the most farfetched.

Nothing you mention there is on the same level of implausbility as a home console being streaming only. It's not even within the realm of possibility at this point in time. Hence the well duh, of course the next Playstation is going to play discs.

DRM and needing an internet connection are totally plausible decisions these companies could have made, but no retail games at all from next year? That was NEVER going to happen.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Ronnie

[Sheikah]

Nothing you mention there is on the same level of implausbility as a home console being streaming only. It's not even within the realm of possibility at this point in time. Hence the well duh, of course the next Playstation is going to play discs. DRM and needing an internet connection are totally plausible decisions these companies could have made, but no retail games at all from next year? That was NEVER going to happen.   

 

First off, something on a colossally stupid/implausible level already DID happen with Microsoft, hence why they had to reverse all the policies (yet much or the damage was already done). You're arguing that something is stupid/implausible as a means to say it's obvious it won't be done, when something now PROVEN to be stupid has already been done, just this generation. 

 

Second, there's the PSP Go and the discless Xbox One S - online-only consoles. Existing alongside physical solutions yes, but bear with me. The PSP Go was released in 2009 - so even 10 years ago these manufacturers saw the benefit of an online-only console. Fast forward 10 years from the PSP Go release date and you now see video game retailers on the high street massively struggling and so having much less importance in the eyes of the manufacturer, in terms of needing to keep them on side. Also, if Sony and Microsoft both went digital only, while they'd lose people with shitty internet connections, on the other hand they would have total market control (setting their own prices) and no money loss due to used game sales - so gaining money that way. The way most games need patching today anyway, it wouldn't surprise me if enough people had good enough internet for them to at least consider it.

 

I still think it's a dumb idea. But the point is...dumb ideas happen all the time. Nintendo for instance, think the idea of using your mobile phone as a gateway to voice chat is a good idea. As I say, strange shit does happen. We should be thankful when good things are announced, and I'm personally not taking anything for granted these days.

[Ronnie]

5 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

First off, something on a colossally stupid level already DID happen with Microsoft, hence why they had to reverse all the policies (yet much or the damage was already done). You're arguing that something is stupid/implausible as a means to say it's obvious it won't be done, when something now PROVEN to be stupid has already been done, just this generation.

DRM/not being able to play used games = stupid + plausible

Not being able to own your own games in 2020 = catastrophic + utterly implausible.

Strange shit does happen. Playstation 5 being streaming-only is in the next universe to strange.

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by Ronnie

[Sheikah]

 

 

 

DRM/not being able to play used games = stupid + plausible

Not being able to own your own games in 2020 = catastrophic + utterly implausible.

Strange shit does happen. Playstation 5 being streaming-only is in the next universe to strange.

 

 

If it's stupid why is it plausible? Especially if they had no fucking clue whether their competitor was also doing it? (they weren't).

 

Microsoft crucified themselves over it - it makes you think if they even did any market research to see whether people cared about the things they were implementing.

 

Which to me, makes the whole proposition very implausible indeed. But hey, it happened.

 

Also, your point of "not being able to own your own games in 2020" - let's get real here. Steam and Epic are already doing that - you don't own the games. Everything suggests the majority of people will sacrifice 'true' ownership for convenience and price. Just look at Netflix, too.

 

No, this is entirely a conversation about internet connection, not ownership.

[Nolan]

Received an email today from Sony informing me that I’ve been invited to the closed Alpha. Came with a code, anyone interested in my code? I don’t plan to use it. 

 

Crossposting in Nioh 2 thread. 

[DriftKaiser]

I think Sony will use PS5 as a step-stone to improve their streaming infrastructure with the help of Microsoft Azure Cloud. We really need a new technology breakthrough towards gaming experience before 2030s. Maybe VR/AR like Ready Player One/Sword Art Online.  

[Kaepora_Gaebora]

PlayStation noob question; if I buy an online subscription (the PS version of Gold, Network is it?) Can more than one person use it on the same PlayStation? 

[Hero-of-Time]

11 minutes ago, Kaepora_Gaebora said:

PlayStation noob question; if I buy an online subscription (the PS version of Gold, Network is it?) Can more than one person use it on the same PlayStation? 

According to this you can.

Quote

Sony's lagging behind with PlayStation Plus options for families, but there are still benefits that multiple users can get under one membership.

As long as the PS4 is set as the primary console for whichever account subscribes to PlayStation Plus, other PSN accounts on the same console can play online multiplayer, play downloaded games purchased with a PSN discount, and play the free monthly games available to PS Plus members.

What other accounts cannot do is use the PS Plus discount for themselves to take advantage of savings when purchasing games, access online game save storage, enable auto patch downloads, or access exclusive early game trials for PS Plus members.

https://www.androidcentral.com/how-manage-multiple-accounts-your-playstation-4

I've no idea how accurate that is though. I always thought it was account specific. 

Edited May 28, 2019 by Hero-of-Time

[Hero-of-Time]

I played the hell out of the original on the 360. It was such a good game in co-op.

[Fierce_LiNk]

3 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

I played the hell out of the original on the 360. It was such a good game in co-op.

Seriously looking forward to it. Didn't play this last generation, so mega excited.

I hear that this is basically the third film. Corrrreeeeecccttttt?