Activision CEO Worried NextBox, PS4 May Have "Slow Start"

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

I just don't see the point in buying a new console. It's like, you have a car, and it's a good car. It runs great, has enough room for your family, etc. Then this guy comes up to you, and he's like "Hey, if you liked THAT car, wait till you see THIS car!" But it's almost the exact same car. Why do I need another car? I already have a good one!

I'll wait and see, maybe once they formally announce the PS4/Xbox Whatever-They're-Gonna-Call-It I might change my mind, but it doesn't really matter to me.

[sub][sub]To me...[/sub][/sub]

Pretty much. We're not going to see huge leaps anymore due to huge leaps being WAY too expensive to gain a profit on. And I bet you anything that TERRIFIES a lot of devs because it means they have to make due with what they have, thus meaning they have to use actual finesse instead of brute force.

 

[grumpymooselion]

The Wii U, PS4 and whatever the heck the new Xbox will be called . . . I have a very simple thought for each of them. Not now. Not yet. Not even soon. I'm not at all interested in a next generation platform at this point. Give it another three years and we'll talk. That's the soonest I see myself purchasing an next gen console. When their prices have gone down. When their software line ups have filled out, to give me an idea of which has the most of what I'm interested in.

Backward compatibility, at least with the digital stuff from the last generation is a must, and I don't care - you'll never get me to care - about cost for hardware backwards compatibility because, quite simply, I do not feel like starting my collection all over again each generation. I will not. I would sooner snub your console entirely. I do not feel like starting my digital persona all over again either, the note from Sony that the PS4 would not only lack hardware compatibility but that its digital PSN stuff I've purchased already wouldn't be available on the PS4 PSN . . . was an utter deal breaker. The reality is I may not get a next gen console, at all, if this and other industry nonsense keeps up.

You know what? I am entitled. I'm entitled to spend the money I work my butt off for, however I want. And unless things change, massively, the console makers can be entitled to little more than the lint from my pockets, that might happen to blow their way.

 

[grumpymooselion]

Double post out of nowhere.

 

[MammothBlade]

Players have not been convinced that there is a case for buying new consoles. We fear that they will be little more than expensive bricks with few games. The handheld consoles and Wii U aren't exactly promising.

And, because of their immense investment in this generation and the availability of multiplat games, players are reluctant to splash out on new consoles until there is a solid reason. Let's be frank, too, manufacturers have been very secretive about what they're bringing to the table. Wtf, are gamers supposed to be hyped because of a few vague specifications? The PS4 sounds too good to be true, what's the catch?

 

[Big_Boss_Mantis]

True, they cut out the PS2 processor in a desperate attempt to control their manufacturing costs early on, but do you know how much it cost to stick the PS2 chipset in there? About $20 were the estimates experts were coming up with.

You are positively right about this.
And people ignore the fact that there is a very strong possibility that, more than cutting costs, Sony were actually PUSHING PS3 SOFTWARE SALES.

That makes a lot of sense from a market standpoint.
PS2 was widely popular (and the best system ever, by accounts of many, including myself), so abandoning it would have been a terrible decision. So Sony paied for its backwards compatibility on the PS3, making the system more attractive to consumers looking for upgrade! (specially those who bought an HD TV and were suffering with PS2's low res graphics)

As soon as PS3's library started picking up steam, Sony took out PS2's backward compatibility. Did it reduce costs? Yeah, PS3 were suffering and every penny counted.
But more than that, since it could start walking on its own legs, they wouldn't have to worry with competing with consumers still playing the great PS2 games over recently released PS3 ones.

Doubt me? Then tell me, why, even after Sony perfected software PS2 emulation on PS3 (that's how classics work on PSN AND what makes PS2 ISOs playable on custom firmware Playstation 3s), they wouldn't make it available for everyone through a firmware update?
It was a very requested feature by the users, actually...

 

[Big_Boss_Mantis]

*Thinks the PS4 will have a slow start*

Of course it will...? What other outcome could possibly happen? The PS3 had a slow start to, and the PS4 has more going against it then the PS3 ever did. What is really going to make the start agonizing is the fact that it's a new machine, not an upgrade. That's a harder pill to swallow, because that means after people play the few launch games they are interested in, the PS4 will literally become a doorstop, as it can't do anything else (no backwards compatibility). People won't be encouraged to keep it plugged in over their PS3 or 360; which will have much larger and more appealing libraries in comparison.

I also have to say, I put off getting a PS3 at launch but I admit I found the stuff they showed of it impressive. Nothing the PS4 has shown has been impressive to me. That's not the way to start a new generation... if you can't even get me excited, then what hope is there? I actually found the whole PS4 press conference condescending and backwards. Lets hope E3 shows something drastically different.

The Wii U, PS4 and whatever the heck the new Xbox will be called . . . I have a very simple thought for each of them. Not now. Not yet. Not even soon. I'm not at all interested in a next generation platform at this point. Give it another three years and we'll talk. That's the soonest I see myself purchasing an next gen console. When their prices have gone down. When their software line ups have filled out, to give me an idea of which has the most of what I'm interested in.

Backward compatibility, at least with the digital stuff from the last generation is a must, and I don't care - you'll never get me to care - about cost for hardware backwards compatibility because, quite simply, I do not feel like starting my collection all over again each generation. I will not. I would sooner snub your console entirely. I do not feel like starting my digital persona all over again either, the note from Sony that the PS4 would not only lack hardware compatibility but that its digital PSN stuff I've purchased already wouldn't be available on the PS4 PSN . . . was an utter deal breaker. The reality is I may not get a next gen console, at all, if this and other industry nonsense keeps up.

You know what? I am entitled. I'm entitled to spend the money I work my butt off for, however I want. And unless things change, massively, the console makers can be entitled to little more than the lint from my pockets, that might happen to blow their way.

I just agree so damn much with both of you.

I still think that the consoles will survive, because of new consumers and new sales.
There is always gonna be a parent walking on a store buying a videogame for his son. And he will purchase the new one over the old one.
And the old one will only get OLDER.

Still, both of them will probably tank in the beggining, porecisely because of what both of you said.
It is not impressive. There is NOTHING going for it.
And they are asking for their consumers start from scratch.

"Remember those discounted games that you bought on PSN for when you had the time? Sorry, you can't play them on your new system. They are old, that system is old, your account is old. Thanks for the money, though."

They made a whole infrastructure, with accounts, purchases, friends, trophies, cross-purchases, cloud saves...
Now all these things are garbage.
That is the Playstation experience they were talking about in the presentation?
They are simply taking TOO MUCH, and giving NOTHING back.

Apple doesn't do that. Android doesn't do that. Steam doesn't do that.
What makes Sony think they are going to get away with it?

 

[Lightknight]

I'm not 100% sure we'll ever see the type of adoption rates we saw with the ps1 again. Not when current gen technology can still handle things like Skyrim and whatnot. Companies like Sony and Microsoft just need to pace themselves. Encourage the adoption rate as much as possible and give people real reasons to move forward. Hopefully we'll see a two year phase out of the ps3 like we did the ps2.

It's been well over the 5-year standard for a new console.

 

[LordLundar]

So does this mean that developers and publishers are going to start gleefully blaming Sony and Microsoft for why they're going to stop making games for the platforms?

No, they're still going to make them? Then they're still hypocrites.

 

[Gunner 51]

(Source: http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/games/1296739/xbox-720-release-date-specs-news-and-rumours)

So you're ranting based on baseless rumours?

I would have thought that there's a combination of things that's going to lead to slow sales for the new consoles.

Firstly, there's the fact that there's very few killer apps for the new X-box, I don't really know about the PS4, but I'm trying to stick to what I know here. I suppose there's Call of Duty, but I've noticed that people in general aren't as stoked about Activision's latest cash grab. CoD fatigue is well and truly upon me.

Secondly, there's the price - the new consoles are rather expensive.

Finally, they're riddled with DRM and presumably over priced games with bits cut out of them only to be sold back as DLC. From what I've seen, there's a lot of folks getting sick of being well... ripped off left, right and centre.

You do realize that almost nothing you've said here is based on actual facts right? Let's break it down point by point:

Few killer apps for the next Xbox? It hasn't even been officially announced so we don't have any way of knowing what is specifically in development yet.

The new consoles are expensive? No prices have been announced for the new Xbox or the PS4 so this is based on absolutely no facts.

Riddled with DRM? What DRM? The PS4 has been confirmed to not require a constant online connection and if I'm not mistaken Microsoft has denied that the new Xbox will be always online. But even if they haven't denied it, it hasn't been confirmed either so this assumption would still be mere speculation at best. There's also no confirmation of game prices so again we have something you made up.

Now scrolling down a bit and seeing your next post, you mention the DRM you were talking about is the no second hand games type of DRM. Something which hasn't even been rumored to be in the next Xbox, and which we know isn't in the PS4.

My point being, how about you stick to discussing facts about new consoles instead of a combination of rumours and stuff you just made up? None of the points you made are at all relevant since none of them are based on actual facts. In fact, it's worse than your points simply being irrelevant. Attempting to pass off rumours as 100% confirmed fact could even simply confuse people who don't follow the new console news that closely into making decisions about them based on utter bull and continuing to pass along that information as fact.

@Zachary Amaranth - I wouldn't quite dismiss it as baseless rumours just yet. Games journalism as rotten as it is, is slightly better than hearsay. Though perhaps I should use more sources.

@Vivi22 - I'm not referring to the PS4 at all. Like I said, I don't know about it, and furthermore, I'll bet it's a whole different ball game to the new X-box on several levels. But what is a fact is that there is so much hearsay about the games consoles mixed with a lot of schtum from the manufacturers doesn't give me much faith. While hearsay is often a big croc, I'll grant you - there's usually a small kernal of truth to them. That's what scares me.

More than one source has been saying that you need an internet connection for the blasted thing to function. I'll bet you dollars for doughnuts that it's a sign-in screen. What's wrong with single player gaming anonymously? *dons tin foil hat* I tell you, it's DRM.

But I shall wait until the big live launch and if I am wrong - I'll gladly suffer some metaphorical egg in my face. And in this case, I really do hope I am talking out of my rear. (Boy, I've been hanging around conspiracy theorists for too long now that I think of it.)

New sources:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/403228/always-online-new-xbox-not-as-draconian-as-many-believe-report/
http://windowsitpro.com/paul-thurrotts-wininfo/here-comes-next-xbox
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/Xbox/9855438/Microsofts-Xbox-720-to-block-second-hand-gaming.html
http://www.noshitshurlock.com/xbox-720-no-second-hand-games-and-bluray-confirmed/

 

[Lightknight]

So does this mean that developers and publishers are going to start gleefully blaming Sony and Microsoft for why they're going to stop making games for the platforms?

No, they're still going to make them? Then they're still hypocrites.

What we'll likely see is the same scenario we saw in the move from the ps2 to the ps3. Several titles will be made for both systems but some really huge system selling titles will be ps4 only. This will be used to get the new hardware out there and with the same magic that caused us all to migrate consoles in the past, things will progress as normal and system will sell.

But honestly, I'm a little confused by your post. Why would the transfer or slow start mean that they're hypocrites for making games for them?

 

[Zeras]

And this will be why I'll be stickin with my 360 (an arcade [tricked out] that was manufactured in 2005 [if I decide to do a factory restore] that I bought in 2008 and has never RROD (except for a heat-related warning that went away once I moved it away from the TV and let it cool off before turning it back on)and my PS2 (still running since getting it as a Christmas present in 2002).

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

WiiU has no good games, i personally dont like Nintendo games anyway. But it sells on Metroid, Mario and Zelda and those games are never launch titles. Plus, apart from those main titles, there are many games not being made for it eg Watchdogs. I think they tried a copycat the Wii fame but i guess lightening doesnt strike twice.

PS4 i fear, from what im hearing, may charge to much again and stall. The PS3 sold well when the price went down, but at the start it was to costly. An they have money problems, and did say this is the first time SOny was in profit in 5 years. Except most of that was laying off staff, closing companies and selling property.

Nextbox i think will do well if they show amazing games and the rumours around it are not true. Also it has to be at a good price point, around £300 would be fine. This goes for PS4 as well, £300 and great games shown at E3.

I agree with you on all points except the launch games of Nintendo and the Next Box being successful.

Twilight Princess, although it was supposed to be a Gamecube title, was a launch title on the Wii. Metroid Prime 3 came just after launch, and Super Mario Galaxy not too far after that.

The NextBox, in my opinion, looks like it has the worst deal of the 3. How? Name a franchise outside of Halo that can be put on it. Fable? Not with Peter Molyneux gone from Lionhead. A good Halo game? Not without Bungie behind it. Gears of War? As far as I know, the series is done and CliffyB retired so don't hold your breath. MS' tactic of buying timed exclusivity on JRPGs and piles of DLC from popular games backfired hard with the 360. And some the games what were 360 exclusive went multiplatform with their sequels (Dead Rising, Saint's Row) or died when the sequel was ignored(Crackdown 2.)

The NextBox basically has no franchises of its own, and the golden boy of MS, Halo, is no longer the game it was when it comes to the MP aspect. That being said, unless MS has some pretty amazing exclusive IPs to compete with the PS4s surprisingly decent looking launch lineup, they are in trouble. Never mind the always online rumours, Xbox Live Gold accounts are pissing people off at this point too, so they may as well ditch that.

 

[Something Amyss]

@Zachary Amaranth - I wouldn't quite dismiss it as baseless rumours just yet. Games journalism as rotten as it is, is slightly better than hearsay. Though perhaps I should use more sources.

Except they're rumours without base, so they're baseless. Also, most of your sources involve stories that originate with Paul Thurott (one even names him in the headline), who has been consistently wrong up to this point. He's even undercut his own rumours, which were supposedly confirmed by insiders and documents until suddenly they weren't.

This is rumour mongering for the sake of rumour mongering.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Ya know, this brings up a good point and one I hadn't thought about: what if they've all planned this?

Sounds crazy because that implies that executives actually think ahead, but hear me out a second.

Nintendo had to know, going into this new gen, that their console would be woefully inefficient in terms of hardware. And all three companies also had to know that their consoles would not sell any units without a fleet of good games, games they've not since provided (other than popular ports that most people can get on other systems). The PS4 and NextBox are both releasing at much higher price points than their existing consoles, that much is obvious without even hearing them reveal the price tag. Furthermore, in the first year or two, the games are usually what push sales the most, yet both consoles are offering few-to-no exclusives that their lower-priced consoles don't already offer.

So....what if all of this is intentional?

My thinking is this:

Sony and MS are releasing these consoles with fewer exclusives than normal to try and make their previous generation of consoles seem all the more appealing by comparison. Suddenly that PS3 looks like an even better deal when it offers most of what the PS4 can do at a lower price point. Ditto for MS, especially if the new console is indeed forcing users to use Kinect. So they made these consoles seem less appealing on purpose, to wring out any last drops of life in their existing console sales. Then, a year or two from now, they'll start hammering the consoles with TRUE exclusives and sales will improve.

Nintendo, OTOH, is purposely withholding its top-tier sales makers because they want to wait until the PS4 and Nextbox release, so they can suddenly slam the market with lots of their classic sellers. Suddenly, the Wii U looks an awful lot more appealing because it has a fleet of real exclusives, effectively eliminating Sony/MS's chances to compete with their new consoles.

It seems like a long shot because it implies that a lot of strategy and thought went into this new gen, which I'm not sure I can believe. But it really would be amazing if this were actually the case. This would be some Death Note caliber plan-and-counterplan shit right here.

All according to Keikaku!

Interesting theory, though probably not the truth of the matter. I think it's more interesting timing as Nintendo always tries to follow up launch years with something big. I can definitely see a Mario or Mario Kart release leaving Sony and MS in the dust.

 

[LordLundar]

But honestly, I'm a little confused by your post. Why would the transfer or slow start mean that they're hypocrites for making games for them?

WiiU-> relative slow start -> publishers almost gleefully announcing they won't make games for the system with most citing the slow sales as a reason.

PS4 ->projected slow start -> same publishers still more than willing to create several titles for the system despite no guarantee of high sales figures.

It's odd really. Nintendo has to make their system a blazing success story before publishers will even look at it while Sony and Microsoft can get the same publishers practically begging to jump on their systems despite having nothing more than some concept art and a basic spec sheet. The double standard is fascinating.