CriticKitten said:
Strazdas said:
Oh, i dont like always online as much as anyone else, in fact i stopped buying AC games for the sole purpose of thier always online creating more problems for costumers than for pirates. but to say that no game can be sucesful with always online is ridiculous. we already have TONS of games like these, they are called MMOs and online shooters/brawlers, MOBAs. there are more people playing online than offline at any given moment.
I didn't say that no game can be successful with Always On DRM, in fact I pointed out an example where it worked. But other companies don't have the brand trust that Blizzard has. Ubisoft has tried it on several games and those games didn't sell as well as they were expected. This isn't some obscure thing, it's a well known fact of the industry that Always On DRM haven't tended to sell as well as games that lacked such "anti-piracy" measures.
The lack of Ubisoft success was two-sided. from one side, they provided a piss-poor service, meaning that for half the people the game didn't even run at all because servers were crashing. this brought al ot of bad press. another is that they were one of the first ones to do it, and early adopters always have to hit a few bumps before things get ironed out, in this case, public outlash.
take GTA4 for example, it had the Game For Windows Live always on DRM (well you had to be online at the start of game and saves were saved online but it was possible to set them to mirror offline, still you couldnt save the game if your offline, but you could play it) and it sold well. those games arent that rare. and nice way to totaly ignore all other numeriuso examples i gave and continue claiming that only oen game suceeded.
We're not talking about the Vita, we're talking about the PS4.
strange, and here i though you said VITA had similar design to PS4 and emulated PS3 games. guess something got lost in translation.
And it's not impossible for the Vita either. The Vita plays a number of PS3 games just fine, and has Cross Play functionality for both the PS3 and PS4. People need to stop repeating "it's the architecture" because I'm beginning to think they don't know what architecture even means with regards to an electrical system. It's got shit to do with the "architecture", because if it was truly an architectural problem, the console wouldn't be able to play those games at all.
but if there was ever a case for architectural problem in consoles it is the PS3 case. it was unique, sonys attempt to be "Different" that didnt work. they tried, i like that, but it didnt work the way it should have. trust me, i defended my share of PS3 in the past, but it simply is built different. you can play games on VITA that are either emulated (software since vita dont have space for PS3 hardware) and likely the emulation takes mosto f the power or are same game with two codes, that is, a game coded for PS3 and recoded for VIta. this is nto as far feched as you may thing, as some games released on PC and Xobx had to be significantly recoded for PS3.
They both use very similar optical disc drives. I'm betting that PS3 games call and allocate resources differently than PS4 games, or that the optical disc drives are built to read PS4 discs differently than PS3 discs (possibly a side effect of the jump to Blu-Ray technology). But in even if that's the case, the fact that the console can still play PS3 games through online streaming *proves* that the console can play those types of games. But they left that hardware out for two reasons.
same disc. different commands. lets say you start a PS3 game, it wants to load a map, it asks the PS4 to put the tectures into this cluster of ram. oh wait, there is no such cluster of ram, as PS4 is different. error error system crashed. now what to do to avoid that is to make a software in background that catches that command and redirects that to correct location. problem in this case is that PS3 is so different that such program would take a significant amount of time needed to code and significant resources to run. granted if PS4 is as powerful as they claim it should be able to run it. but are you willing to pay 100 more to cover the developement costs?
For the stream service, i imagine it is something like On-Live. you dont actually run the game, you got video streamed to you and you send out the controller commands. the game runs on thier servers, likely on a virtual PS3 (or possibly even real PS3 with games sit firmly in the HDD if they didnt create the emulator). all your PS4 does is recieve VIDEO stream and send out commands from the key. sort of like playing a browser based game. this avoids the need for local game emulation that they seem to have problem with.
1) Sony wanted to cut costs, because selling the PS3 at a loss last generation cost them dearly in terms of revenue.
2) Sony wanted to make its purchase of Gaikai into a worthwhile investment.
and both of those are fair and reasonable reasons and i doubt you would be willing to pay 100 dollar more for the console if the only difference would be a local buggy emulation of PS3 (bugs may be ironed out in, say, 3 years or so, but first emulation is surely to be buggy).
Again, the Wii did it, and that console was sold at a profit, but that's because the Wii uses low-spec hardware.
yes, exactly, wii uses the low-specs and thus it is cheap to make. it caters to certain audience, one that SONY isnt going for, they are and were going for the "I WANT MAH POWERFUL GAME ON MAX ULTRA GRAPHICS" audience. and theres nothing wrong with that. if your not that audience dont buy the console, its not for you.
Their "architecture" is very similar, but the console would be utterly incapable of playing GCN games if it hadn't received several hardware upgrades specifically designed to allow for GCN compatibility.
Thats the thing, PS4 and PS3 isnt. you need more than a several hardware upgrades, you need to build in a second console inside the box if you want to do hardware emulation. and you dont want to buy the PS3 with PS4 together when you already have PS3.
So by making assumptions? Mkay, just thought that needed to be established.
i said that Microsoft had shitty backward comapctability. it is true, the Xbox bacward compactability on 360 was shitty. i wasnt talking about the next console.
Ah yes, the old "Nintendo is ruining gaming" argument....that hasn't gotten stale at all.
Not at all. i dont think nintendo ruined the gaming. i think they took it into a direction i, personally, hate. But they have their costumers, and i wont be one of them.
Then why is Sony making a big selling point out of its Cross-Play compatibility with the PS Vita?
Oh, right, because Sony can't come up with any of its own ideas, as the Sony Wiimote....er, sorry, the "Move" clearly shows.
i dont know, why? maybe because it seems that majority of gamers want that? i know i dont.
companies in ALL industries have been tryign to copy eachothers sucess for ages. this is nothing new.
No, people who whine about graphics that much are the ones who buy PC.
hah, you must not remember the xbox vs PS3 graphics wars when those two launched.....
And that's the problem: who is going to buy a new console in this economy for its "potential" value?
i dont think we have enough fingers to count these people. trust me, people are richer than they act.
As the Wii U, PS Vita, and 3DS show, that isn't working very well any more. Eventually the idiots creating these consoles need to learn that lesson.
very good, i really want the "buy now get games in 3 years" to stop. however gaming industry seems to have a lot of blind fanboyism and early adopters still. dont think its going to be this generation that kills this tactic yet. Besides, there is always the PC where you have potentian AND a backcatalogue.
Then don't make up fake statistics to try and make a point. It's perfectly acceptable for me to call you out on stats you can't back up.
fair enough, you have the high ground here.
Cpacha:hit the sack
Im tellign you, capcha is skynet....
