Report: Sony Rejected Download-Only PlayStation 4

[Vault101]

good thing....I wouldnt have been able to use a console like that even fi watned too...in fact going PC would have made more sense

all of the drawbacks none of the benefits type thing

 

[Flailing Escapist]

So DRM is ok but download only is too much? Well, I suppose if it was download only they wouldn't be able to FUCK US!

And before you buy into this post too much, remember - don't be a chicken!... Little!

 

[Something Amyss]

Sony feels that its customers who reside in countries with slower internet connections would be crippled by a requirement to download its games rather than just insert a disc.

Hell, even in the US, that's an issue for a good chunk of gamers. Slow or unreliable speeds are still a big problem for gamers. And then there's bandwidth caps (Console and game manufacturers probably don't want you to opt to purchase their games because it's a tenth of your limit or more per) and such.

Just glad someone actually remembers not all of us have blinding fast internet.

 

[bluegate]

The word 'duh' comes to mind...

I mean, everyone with half a brain could predict this. People that were screaming that the next gen would go download-only are frankly, idiots.

 

[zombiesinc]

Glad to see they figured that one out...

Now, it'll be interesting to see how they decide to handle previously purchased and downloaded PSX/PS2 titles with the next Playstation. I mean, I was already forced to purchase the digital versions of so many PSX titles I already owned, I don't really want to do it again. =/

 

[Beautiful End]

Speaking as someone who hasn't bought a game physically for at least 6 years, that article is pure nonsense. If inter connections are so bad, why is steam the biggest PC game retailer. Do PC's have miraculous abilities to improve internet connections or do internet connections remain the same regardless of platform? The reason why, possibly, the next of consoles will have optical drives is cost pure and simple. The cost of increasing bandwidth and higher sever support cost versus the download only higher margins. If the report is true, then they have run the numbers say its not going to make them enough money to be worth the cost of bigger server infrastructure and bandwidth. The money spent on the capital costs would have to show more than about 4% return on investment to be worth while.

That may be all true but launching a system that required download-only games means alienating a big chunk of their clientele. Look at the Wii, for example. It is aimed at families and specifically parents who buy pretty games for their children. What about children, or adults for that matter, who save their money to buy or preorder the next CoD? Or people who need money for something and decides to sell their games? I'm not talking specifically about retail problems, by the way.

It's not the same for someone to buy a game that might look okay, play it, decide it sucks and try to sell it to someone to buy the next new thing. With digital games, you can't do that. Whether that's good or bad doesn't matter; a big amount of people will not like that and they will think twice before buying a game. So that means less profit.

Also, I'm pretty sure at least 30% of those who own a console (PS3, 360, or Wii) don't really care about playing online or having anything to do with the internet and connectivity while playing their game, just like in the ol' days. And 30% might not sound like much but no company wants to lose that profit especially now that games are not as profitable as they used to be because of the economy and price tags and whatnot. Believe me, I see it every day at work.

And yeah, I probably would have to hold back regarding my gaming habits if the next console does that digital game thing. I'm fairly knowledgeable when it comes to games and computers and stuff but my games do take ages to download, which is why I skip that altogether. At the moment, I don't need a better modem; it does the job just fine with my laptop. So yeah, just think of all the extra stuff you'd need just for the next console. As if this current gen. didn't need enough peripherals.

 

[WanderingFool]

Makes sense. An all-digital console just isn't feasible [http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/the-all-digital-console-is-a-myth-despite-steam-box-and-discless-xbox-rumor] right now. And won't be for the foreseeable future.

This is what I was hoping for. and as you said, its just not feasible now.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Makes sense. An all-digital console just isn't feasible [http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/the-all-digital-console-is-a-myth-despite-steam-box-and-discless-xbox-rumor] right now. And won't be for the foreseeable future.

Quite true, quite true. As I say to my CS friends whenever this comes up in conversation, the infrastructure just is not in a place where something like this can be created without alienating and/or horribly inconveniencing a massive chunk of the consumer base. This sort of thing will probably work like 20+ years in the future, but not now.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

I agree with those who say "well no fucking duh." Sony would have been cock blocking a huge audience. Download caps were a foreign idea to be until recently but a lot of rural places in the US have limits to how much they can download and it can get expensive and it can be slow.

But I do look forward to games being digital only. There's something special about holding the disk but analysts say that with the cost of manufacturing, delivering, and retail taken out of the equation, the cost of games would go down. I would love for my ps3 to be more like Steam

 

[MrCherry]

Speaking as someone who hasn't bought a game physically for at least 6 years, that article is pure nonsense. If inter connections are so bad, why is steam the biggest PC game retailer. Do PC's have miraculous abilities to improve internet connections or do internet connections remain the same regardless of platform? The reason why, possibly, the next of consoles will have optical drives is cost pure and simple. The cost of increasing bandwidth and higher sever support cost versus the download only higher margins. If the report is true, then they have run the numbers say its not going to make them enough money to be worth the cost of bigger server infrastructure and bandwidth. The money spent on the capital costs would have to show more than about 4% return on investment to be worth while.

Ok, so what about the people with limited internet connections? Or people in other country s who can't have unlimited downloads and a 10GB game can easily be double their monthly allowance? Of course Sony have done the numbers and realized they'd lose out on money, what company wouldn't do their research?

You have forgotten that the Internet is still a Luxury for our so called "First World"...

You sound like you're only thinking about a small percentage of the population, remember there are 7 BILLION people in this world, and not all of them are well off like ourselves.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

THANK GOD!!! Disaster averted

 

[Icehearted]

Too much risk of a DRM catastrophe. With Ubisoft and Blizzard's missteps public perception of DRM hasn't exactly improved.

 

[Baresark]

Speaking as someone who hasn't bought a game physically for at least 6 years, that article is pure nonsense. If inter connections are so bad, why is steam the biggest PC game retailer. Do PC's have miraculous abilities to improve internet connections or do internet connections remain the same regardless of platform? The reason why, possibly, the next of consoles will have optical drives is cost pure and simple. The cost of increasing bandwidth and higher sever support cost versus the download only higher margins. If the report is true, then they have run the numbers say its not going to make them enough money to be worth the cost of bigger server infrastructure and bandwidth. The money spent on the capital costs would have to show more than about 4% return on investment to be worth while.

I'm with you on the PC. I would never go back to buying physical PC games again. There are potential future risks about it, but they are negligible. But, this is not nearly the same thing. Steam has had as many as 5 million concurrent users. That is awesome and proves that PC gaming is far from dead and is even growing since that number is much bigger than it used to be. But look at what the consoles did in worldwide sales. As of March 31st on this year, they have sold almost 70 million units. That means having potentially a large portion of them doing a similar or same operation. The numbers are just way different. All of that aside though, you can still buy PC games on physical media. To go exclusively online is not a smart move. I think they should move towards digital sales definitely. Just not cloud gaming.

 

[kayo of the Well]

As an Australian who has never in his life had a decent bandwidth allowance, I fully support this decision.

 

[zefiris]

100% fake.

A large company caring about consumers having trouble due to their DRM shemes? As Blizzard proves, such a company surely cannot exist.

 

[Maxtro]

Anybody remember the PSPGo?

IMO, I think dics are a way of the past. As a replacement, games should come on write-protected flash drives. Or in other words, a return to cartridges

 

[Albino Boo]

Speaking as someone who hasn't bought a game physically for at least 6 years, that article is pure nonsense. If inter connections are so bad, why is steam the biggest PC game retailer. Do PC's have miraculous abilities to improve internet connections or do internet connections remain the same regardless of platform? The reason why, possibly, the next of consoles will have optical drives is cost pure and simple. The cost of increasing bandwidth and higher sever support cost versus the download only higher margins. If the report is true, then they have run the numbers say its not going to make them enough money to be worth the cost of bigger server infrastructure and bandwidth. The money spent on the capital costs would have to show more than about 4% return on investment to be worth while.

Ok, so what about the people with limited internet connections? Or people in other country s who can't have unlimited downloads and a 10GB game can easily be double their monthly allowance? Of course Sony have done the numbers and realized they'd lose out on money, what company wouldn't do their research?

You have forgotten that the Internet is still a Luxury for our so called "First World"...

You sound like you're only thinking about a small percentage of the population, remember there are 7 BILLION people in this world, and not all of them are well off like ourselves.

Just how many of the 7 BILLION people in this world, do you think can afford to spend $60 on entertainment? High speed internet goes hand in hand with high disposable incomes. What sort of internet speed do you think you are going to get in the jungles of Sulawesi and just how many consoles are sold there. Where as the capital of Indonesia, Jakarta has the same speeds as New York with enough people with high enough disposable incomes to actually buy games and a console. Guess what, gaming is even more of a luxury than the internet.

That may be all true but launching a system that required download-only games means alienating a big chunk of their clientele. Look at the Wii, for example. It is aimed at families and specifically parents who buy pretty games for their children. What about children, or adults for that matter, who save their money to buy or preorder the next CoD? Or people who need money for something and decides to sell their games? I'm not talking specifically about retail problems, by the way.

It's not the same for someone to buy a game that might look okay, play it, decide it sucks and try to sell it to someone to buy the next new thing. With digital games, you can't do that. Whether that's good or bad doesn't matter; a big amount of people will not like that and they will think twice before buying a game. So that means less profit.

Also, I'm pretty sure at least 30% of those who own a console (PS3, 360, or Wii) don't really care about playing online or having anything to do with the internet and connectivity while playing their game, just like in the ol' days. And 30% might not sound like much but no company wants to lose that profit especially now that games are not as profitable as they used to be because of the economy and price tags and whatnot. Believe me, I see it every day at work.

And yeah, I probably would have to hold back regarding my gaming habits if the next console does that digital game thing. I'm fairly knowledgeable when it comes to games and computers and stuff but my games do take ages to download, which is why I skip that altogether. At the moment, I don't need a better modem; it does the job just fine with my laptop. So yeah, just think of all the extra stuff you'd need just for the next

People made the exact same argument about PC gaming when steam first came out. The reality of the market place has disproved those arguments. Why would consoles be any different? Is the ipad a failure because its download only for apps but cell phone coverage isn't universal?

Good. The infrastructure just isn't there yet for this to be feasible except in a small handful of countries.

Maybe because the people who are more inclined to use Steam already have good internet connections and use it for that reason? Just a thought.

The countries that have the infrastructure are the same ones that are rich enough to spend money on games and consoles in the first place. How many units do you think are sold in Zimbabwe?

If you live in rural Nebraska and have a slow internet connection, even if it takes twice as long as the 2 1/2 hours or so that it takes me to download. Its still faster than waiting for the 24 hour turnaround from ordering from amazon. Rural Nebraska isn't known for its high density of game stores.

 

[Moontouched-Moogle]

100% fake.

A large company caring about consumers having trouble due to their DRM shemes? As Blizzard proves, such a company surely cannot exist.

I think they're less concerned about their DRM inconveniencing people, and more concerned with people not being able to buy and play their games if they go download-only, causing them to lose a large chunk of potential profits. With the Blizzard example, you could buy physical copies of Diablo III. So what if their always-online DRM and server failures made it hard for people to actually play the games? They had your money already.

 

[Moontouched-Moogle]

Anybody remember the PSPGo?

IMO, I think dics are a way of the past. As a replacement, games should come on write-protected flash drives. Or in other words, a return to cartridges

Except cartridges are still way more expensive. A 4 gigabyte flash drive or SD card will run me roughly $20, whereas I can get a stack of about 20 DVDs, each holding 4.7 GB, for $5 or $10. Granted, flash memory does have the advantage of being more stable, but you pay for that stability.

Remember how the Playstation won out over the N64, which also formed a solid base for the Playstation 2's dominance? It was because optical discs could hold a lot more information for a lot less money than cartridges.