PS4 Impressions

[Alek The Great]

That was great. Dat last panel.

Smart people should only get new consoles 3-4 years after launch. Let the fanboys get suckered into beta testing it for us

Right, because without the fanboys buying the console day one you wouldn't HAVE any support of the system 3-4 years down the line because they company will deem the console dead in the water.

Perhaps people who say stuff like this should realize you don't have the choice to purchase "smart" when the only reason this outcome exists is because of the very people supporting the console day 1.

There should be no NEED for people to give their money away just so that they can support the future of a platform - this isn't a Kickstarter project. If a company as successful as Sony cannot provide compelling enough reasons for their console to be bought, maybe they need to have spent a bit more time ensuring they have something better. A product should be able to stand on its own at launch, not rely on future promises. If a product is compelling enough (and at a competitive price-point, of course) at its launch then customers WILL buy it.

That said, I'm sure there are people who are genuinely interested in the launch titles and they can spend their money however they want; however, no one should ever feel obligated to buy a product like this just because they want to secure its future - that is the job of the billion-dollar corporation that is making it. You'll excuse me if I don't want to spend that large a sum of money to support Sony on the premise that games that interest me will come in the future. It's not my job to ensure Sony's success - it's theirs - and, yes, I think that's a smart decision on my part.

 

[Alek The Great]

Shame Knack isn't received well as I hope it would. Its the most overlooked game, so I hoped it would shine.

It's the one I was most interested in; it's a shame it's also the one that got the worst reviews

 

[Darth_Payn]

Still, though, if I'm gonna buy a system at launch, I'd like at least SOMETHING to do with it, don't want it to be gathering dust for months while I wait for the game that's actually worth playing to come out.

It also used to be that there was one or two "killer apps" at launch. You may not have been showered with good games, but there was some motivator to buy.

I hate this "of course there's no good games for a new system, guys!" attitude.

Exactly. I admit the joke must have flown over my head, because I'm sure there SOME games to play at launch, like the new Killzone, the new Batman, or Assassin's Creed IV.

 

[Falseprophet]

But at least the PS3 allowed you backwards compatibility on most PS2 games (Soul Calibur 3 not included, which annoyed me and my friends greatly). The PS3 only dropped backwards compatibility when the slim version was released.

They dropped it earlier than that. I picked up a fat PS3 about a year before the Slim first came out, and it doesn't have backwards compatibility.

 

[hentropy]

I want an insanely high res version of that last panel printed on high quality poster board so it can take up most of my wall.

 

[themilo504]

Turns out removing backward compatibility is a bad Idea, how shocking.

 

[Dr.Susse]

The kids reaction.

"No all my copies of Hyperdimension Neptunia!"

 

[Ipsen]

That was great. Dat last panel.

Smart people should only get new consoles 3-4 years after launch. Let the fanboys get suckered into beta testing it for us

Right, because without the fanboys buying the console day one you wouldn't HAVE any support of the system 3-4 years down the line because they company will deem the console dead in the water.

Perhaps people who say stuff like this should realize you don't have the choice to purchase "smart" when the only reason this outcome exists is because of the very people supporting the console day 1.

If the fanboys didn't buy it....wouldn't it just be considered a bad system?

I also really don't think that early adopters make a difference that actually comes back as an increase in quality. A console selling well at launch just looks good for investors; it sure as hell doesn't lower prices, I'll stake that much. 3DS and Vita are outstanding examples.

It's not that I wouldn't be one of those people who buy an expensive console on day 1. I just need better reasons than 'It 'will play all the latest games!' Coupled with the clauses of 'doesn't play previous generation', and 'two PS4-dedicated games on release day!', and Sony has bought itself a hellno from me. That's limitations in two directions!
This isnt even a sacrifice; leaving out BC didn't leave room for more launch titles, or vice versa. It's just barren variety for now, and it's a terrible trend that shouldn't happen with a console manufacturer with near 20 years experience under their belt.

I've learned from this past generation that making a company rich because you support them based on previous (and bafflingly disparate) endeavors is a faulty cause. Making them rich when the quality is apparent to all, even in face of the competition sounds better.

The kids reaction.

"No all my copies of Hyperdimension Neptunia!"

I lol'ed.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I'm getting it for Christmas. I'll probably get ACIV with it as well as Flower (never got it on PS3) and Resogun.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

Very true, for a related example, I'm quite a dedicated Nintendo fan and even I haven't bought a WiiU yet, since I haven't seen any WiiU games advertised that I might actually want.

Also, nice name change Grey, almost missed that.

Same thing here, waiting until end of first quarter next year. That's the thing about first year for consoles, they can be quite lacking in good exclusive games to begin with.

That said, there seems to be this weird trend for next gen game reviews complaining about gameplay being the sort we already have, like genres were supposed to explode with new ideas right off the bat and give you totally different experiences. To begin with, the games will look nicer, as devs get used to the hardware, then we will see the true strengths of them both.

I think Knack looks fun, same with Killzone, but they're not enough to get one at launch, the indie titles for it look worth playing too.

 

[Ipsen]

for all this talk on having no backwards compatibility, I don't recall anyone whining when the N64 couldn't play SNES games...or the Sega Dreamcast not playing Saturn games... most consoles then you needed to buy an adaptor to play older games, like the Mega Drive's Master System Converter.

On the subject of older consoles, the Nintendo 64's US launch titles consisted entirely of Super Mario 64 and Pilot Wings 64, the Mega Drive's Japanese titles: Space Harrier II and Super Thunder Blade, and so on. So don't go whining you spoiled brats.

History, yo.

When N64 hit, what was behind it? Nes and Snes. You can also say the Gamecube didn't have it either.


For Sega Dreamcast, Saturn, Genesis (are your really going to make me count the 32X?), SMS.

2-3 generations, for these companies.

Not sure which came first; people noticing that their library was growing larger with more systems that can't play them, or that Sony put up a solid with BC in the PS2 (Wii did it as well), and some consolidation happened. Only helps that it makes sense for everyone, in that it answers the universal question of 'shouldn't my old discs work on my new system?'

And for the record, SM64 and Pilotwings were excellent. Can't say much about this launch lineup, though (on multiple levels).

 

[karkashan]

And the exact opposite is what I love about the Wii U. If it didn't have backwards compatibility, I wouldn't have gotten the Wii U as early as I did. And then I wouldn't have been curious (after transferring my Wii Data) about the Wii E-shop.

And I would have missed out on "My Life as a Darklord", and that would've been a travesty of Kalosian proportions.

 

[Dragonbums]

There should be no NEED for people to give their money away just so that they can support the future of a platform

There shouldn't be. But look at the Wii U. No dev wants to make games for it BECAUSE not many people have it. So it makes sense that if nobody buys a console, than no games will come out for it. The few games that would of come out for it would probably end up being backtracked. (take Rayman for the Wii U)

If a company as successful as Sony cannot provide compelling enough reasons for their console to be bought, maybe they need to have spent a bit more time ensuring they have something better.

Right, like paying other devs up the ass to make their games a console exclusive?

Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo aren't videogame sweat factories. Videogames don't grow on trees. Therefore they need the combined effort of third and first party titles to line up their. But since games don't just pop out of thin air, and since rushing a game for launch always tend to be complete shit, you just have to buy the console day 1, and wait until the games arrive.

A product should be able to stand on its own at launch, not rely on future promises. If a product is compelling enough (and at a competitive price-point, of course) at its launch then customers WILL buy it.

And consumers do buy it. Yet we still can them idiots because of obligatory things like bugs, and glitches.

That said, I'm sure there are people who are genuinely interested in the launch titles and they can spend their money however they want; however, no one should ever feel obligated to buy a product like this just because they want to secure its future

They aren't buying the console to secure it's future. They are buying it because they want to be the first to own it and brag about it to their friends. At the end of the day a console it a business investment. If it's not selling than it's ass dead.

the point I was trying to bring up is that you have people on here going "hahaha day 1 buyers are tools! I'm gonna wait 3 years before I buy the console like a smart person!" not realizing that if everyone waited 3 years for the X1/PS4/Wii U before purchase the console in it's entirety would be discontinued because zero people own it.

The only reason you have the luxury to buy the console 3 years later knowing good stuff will be on it is BECAUSE enough people bought it at or around launch year to justify the companies to continue putting support on it.


It's not like I don't agree with what you are saying at all.
I agree, a console should have compelling games right out of the gate. However that is not how it is anymore. This is the reality.

 

[Dragonbums]

That was great. Dat last panel.

Smart people should only get new consoles 3-4 years after launch. Let the fanboys get suckered into beta testing it for us

Right, because without the fanboys buying the console day one you wouldn't HAVE any support of the system 3-4 years down the line because they company will deem the console dead in the water.

Perhaps people who say stuff like this should realize you don't have the choice to purchase "smart" when the only reason this outcome exists is because of the very people supporting the console day 1.

If the fanboys didn't buy it....wouldn't it just be considered a bad system?

I also really don't think that early adopters make a difference that actually comes back as an increase in quality. A console selling well at launch just looks good for investors; it sure as hell doesn't lower prices, I'll stake that much. 3DS and Vita are outstanding examples.

It's not that I wouldn't be one of those people who buy an expensive console on day 1. I just need better reasons than 'It 'will play all the latest games!' Coupled with the clauses of 'doesn't play previous generation', and 'two PS4-dedicated games on release day!', and Sony has bought itself a hellno from me. That's limitations in two directions!
This isnt even a sacrifice; leaving out BC didn't leave room for more launch titles, or vice versa. It's just barren variety for now, and it's a terrible trend that shouldn't happen with a console manufacturer with near 20 years experience under their belt.

I've learned from this past generation that making a company rich because you support them based on previous (and bafflingly disparate) endeavors is a faulty cause. Making them rich when the quality is apparent to all, even in face of the competition sounds better.

If the fanboys don't buy the system within a year after launch it automatically takes away your "smart" choice to buy the console when good games come out and with a lower price point 2 years later. That's the point I was getting at. If nobody supports the system early on there won't be a lower price point with great games because there will be zero support on what the company has long since deemed as a dead console.

 

[Dragonbums]

I still have a ps2 and ps3 that still run perfectly so I can honestly say I don't give a damn about backwards compatibility.

the whole thing is kinda silly if you ask me, I mean as far as I can remember the only home console to ever have any real backwards compatibility with no significant issues was the playstation 2, 1 console (not counting handhelds here) now people act like its some kind of industry standard that they're entitled to.

Im really sorry you can throw out all your old consoles now because the new one came out but im sure if you really care about the games you'll find some room for them.

Oh my bad I forgot the wii mainly because I don't really care about the wii

Yeah, because everyone has space to keep 4-5 consoles on them.

Sorry, but ever since the handhelds, Nintendo has been the only one of the big three to implement backwards compatibility into all of their systems (consoles included) without needed the fans to beg at their feet for it.

Going around and saying "I have all my consoles so I don't see what the big deal is' is a classic example of "it doesn't affect me so why is this an issue for everyone else"

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Awesome! can't wait for the XBOX 1 impressions

It'll probably be the same as this only with mention of the dumb camera Kinect. I would love to see Xbox One impressions next week and a year-old Wii U impressions the following week if only to see three comics with the same exact content except of course for the console swaps...and the stinger at the end where a kid with like, 2 Wii Games being told that yeah, he can play those.

 

[TomWiley]

Yeah and the number of frames in this comic accurately depicts the PS4's lag issues.

 

[gamegod25]

You can say that about pretty much any console ever when it comes to backwards compatibility honestly. Not saying its a good thing but its hardly anything new. I'd still keep my PS3 anyway so its not a big deal to me.