Playstation 4: No backwards compatibility, used games locked out.
- Thread starter WarPig
- Start date
cboath
Master Member
I think it's funny they believe blocking used games will help them much. Lots of people rent before buying to try it out or borrow from a friend. Eliminate that and you'll lose more than you gain. As noted above just look at dive machines. If Sony wants to do this Microsoft just needs to keep the status quo to drive Sony out of the biz. Theres a reason dive died a super fast death.
If this actually lowered prices they might have a shot but everyone knows that will never happen. Anyone remember the launch of CDs being 2x the price of records and tapes? They said once it became the norm the price would fall. Never happened. They raised the price of tapes instead.
If this actually lowered prices they might have a shot but everyone knows that will never happen. Anyone remember the launch of CDs being 2x the price of records and tapes? They said once it became the norm the price would fall. Never happened. They raised the price of tapes instead.
DuneMuadDib
Sr Member
Way to stay classy, Sony.
Ronan87
Sr Member
What bothers me now a day, is paying $59.99 + 13.5% taxes for a new game, that comes as a download.
So in Canada it means this:
A new high-end game can be 10 gig... up to 20 gig... and sometimes more... On average, you get 50 gig of download per month allowed.
You pay the same price as a game that comes on a CD/DVD...
Oh and now they sell games at the stores that STILL need to be downloaded. The CD/DVD is simply the Installer/Download program...
Timmythekid
Sr Member
Aaaaaaand keep in mind Telus, Bell, and Rogers have all been agitating to start charging more for the bandwidth you use for netflix and other download/streaming services. Can't wait to find out they've lumped in Live with that thinking so they can collect extra for the 10 gig game DL.
Solo4114
Master Member
This. Make no mistake, fellas. Streaming content is the future. And, as broadband internet and data storage become more widely and cheaply available, it's not that bad a problem either. Because...
Eventually they'll figure out that there's still a market that's willing to pay to play, but the trick is finding the price point that's acceptable to the public. If they can do that, they'll score big. Netflix Streaming is the model.
Offer people subscription services at different levels, then you never pay for a GAME again -- you pay for the SERVICE, and the only way to get to the game is thru the service. While people like having a physical thing to play, what if you could pay, say, $12/month for not simply one game, but access to a developer's entire catalog? Or pay $40 a month for unlimited access to ALL games on the system, including day-one releases? Or pay $4/month for access to a specific individual game?
I dunno, I think people will go for something like that. I would, certainly. but maybe the physical game market has to become such a crappy experience first that they'll willingly accept the alternative as a solution to the problem.
cayman shen
Master Member
I would be ok with this. I would not be ok with disabling used games in the absence of this. I suspect the game industry will have some growing pains in the next few years.
division 6
Master Member
Portal 2 for the PC.
I just picked up Alice, Return to Madness for my PC and it needs to be registered and decoded to play.
So I go to register it and it says my email address's is on file (really???) well then since I don't recall ever registering with the company before I hit the forgot password button, then it tells me than none of my 3 addresses are on file even though a minute before is said they where.:angry:darnkids
So now I have a game I can't play because of this stupid BS.
Daemon324
Active Member
Heh, and here I waited something like, two or three years before getting a 360...
Gives it time to work out the kinks and bugs.
The PS2 is still one of the best systems around. Plus, it's backwards compatible. Yeay!
And, I agree, companies wonder why people pirate when they pull stupid stuff...People are dumb, companies are dumber.
Gives it time to work out the kinks and bugs.
The PS2 is still one of the best systems around. Plus, it's backwards compatible. Yeay!
And, I agree, companies wonder why people pirate when they pull stupid stuff...People are dumb, companies are dumber.
Not backwards compatible is a game stopper for me which is why I've got a 360 instead of a PS3. I'm at the point in my life where purchasing new games is VERY rare but I have some old ones I enjoy very much.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
"What's this? Paul is using logic and reason? To hell with that!! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!"Guys. I realize this is the internet and bitching about rumors is what we do, but come on. We're more than a year out from new consoles (in all likelihood). Breath. It'll be ok.
division 6
Master Member
I bought one just to play the Uncharted games and to finish Tomb Raider Legend since they never patched the bug in the PC version.
More fool you for paying for a PC game, cough, ahem, etc. I'm really almost at the point where I feel that way. Console games are fine still so far; I'm not finding enough difference in the experience to be willing to bother with the PC EULA/download/DRM/whatever crapola du jour. Plus, comfier chair.
It almost was for me too; when they pulled the emulation chip out it felt like a kick in the teeth and I very nearly abandoned my purchase. Especially since they also pulled a decent-sized HDD in my market at the same time.
I got one in the end, but it did delay me about a year, until after the non-BC 80gb version came out. We just kept our PS2 in commission. We also have a library of stuff we're attached to - wife's just restarted an FFX playthrough, for example, for about the fiftieth time, lol.
We're more than a year out from new consoles (in all likelihood). Breath. It'll be ok.
Heh. I actively hope you're right, with accent on the 'more than'. PSIII still feels like a very recent release to me.
Solo4114
Master Member
Minor point on this, since I've been on both sides of the divide on this issue.
For many years, I had a sub-par PC for gaming purposes. It was fine for web surfing and word processing, but it was waaaaay out of date for gaming. I didn't feel like spending the cash to fully upgrade because, at that point,that's what I would've had to do. I'd maxed out my RAM, couldn't get a faster CPU without requiring a new power supply, and I had one of the faster video cards for the slot type at the time (this was a PCI or AGP or something -- like I said, it was old).
So, I started getting into console gaming. Good stuff. Lots of fun games and, once you get the hang of it, using the controller really isn't that bad even for FPS games.
That said, there are a few gaming experiences that you really just CANNOT get on a console:
- Any game that supports mods. Bethesda games like Fallout 3 and Skyrim and such are famous for this. Some FPS games too. No console will EVER allow mods. Ever. I mean, setting aside what a monumental pain in the ass it'd be to vet each mod, it'd also eat into their livelihood. How you gonna sell lameass DLC to people when they can get free user-created DLC? You think Battlefield Bad Company 2 would've been able to sell its awful map packs (which were really just repurposed existing maps for different game modes) if players had been able to create mods and maps for the game? Like hell.
- Private custom servers. For any kind of multiplayer gaming, private servers are essential. It's only in the last few months actually that I've seen private servers pop up for consoles with BF3 introducing them. Interesting move, but I wonder how much of a headache it'll turn out to be for EA/DICE. Regardless, being able to admin your own server or play on a server that's actively adminned is critical to fostering a really good gaming experience. Much better than just being stuck with random folks. Friends lists on consoles are a step in the right direction, but you're still stuck with whoever else is on the team. On an adminned server, likeminded players can group together AND control who else plays, as well as other aspects of the gaming experience. Can't usually get that on console (at least not til recently).
- Certain game types just SUCK on console. Any kind of real-time strategy game is garbage on a console. Flight sims are usually crap too, unless you have some flight-stick + throttle bundle that came with the game, but that's usually way more expensive and only supports, like, 2 games per console. Sad, really. Some other turn-based point-and-click style games really require PCs as well.
- There are certain hardware limitations for consoles. For example, you can often get double the players in an FPS on a PC that you can on a console. That's not always ideal, mind you, but it's still an option if you want it. Now, I know some games have managed to address this (what's that PS3 game with, like, 100 players at a time?) but it's rare that happens. Usually you're capped around 24 players per game, if not fewer. Graphically I tend to think PCs handle the graphics load better with less risk of, say, a RLOD, but I do think the quality is pretty damn close these days. PCs are capable of doing more, of course, but nobody develops the games that way anymore so it's a moot point.