Sony Exec: PS4 Versions of Multiplatform Games Must Be The Best

[ResonanceSD]

Sorry sony, by the end of the year I'll have one of these, so good luck in your efforts.

But why have sony forgotten that the main point of consoles? What does the PS4 do that no other console will? "looking good" isn't an option.

 

[Sight Unseen]

I'm sorry, did he just say that they're giving us a button that allows us to share our experiences, except only the game's developer may deem what we're sharing is appropriate? I was pretty mad about the share button right off the bat, but this borders hilarity.

This just confirms that the button is 100% useless. It's just a resource hog. I wonder if it's an annoyance too.
After all, the nly parts of the game you'll ever may want to actually share is the ones that developer don't want you to.

You guys do realize the share button isn't a Facebook nor a twitter or any social media button? It's a button that allows you to record your most recent gameplay and live stream... I don't see why that is a problem.

The entire point of the feature is to be able to record and share the cool moments of a game (or some s00per coolz quickscope bullshit or the like) with your friends. If devs can just say "nope I dont want you to be able to film/ screenshot this" for all the cool moments in the game, then what's the fucking point?

Also, someone with a capture card or a PC will just record it and post it online anyway so it really makes no fucking difference and just serves to make the share button a pointless and redundant feature that anyone who wants to record with and degree of quality will avoid like the plague.

Implying that cutscenes and such are the only cool parts of the game? I think you're getting way over worked about this and taking it to the extreme by implying that EVERY game will deny access to it. I doubt they would be that stupid.

I just don't see the the point of including a share feature and then censoring what is possible to share. It's like cutting the legs out from under your new feature, when sharing is already pretty easy to do and people can stream the censored parts pretty easily by other means if they want to. It's not like they'll be able to hide anything.

It also enables devs to be shady and censor all the bad parts of their game to try to prevent the spread of negative hype. Not saying it will happen often or at all, but this would enable them to do that if they wished.

EDIT: I also never said anything about cutscenes. The article stated that devs could censor boss fights from being shared and such so why do you think they can limit it only to cutscenes? If you're playing a story heavy game, devs could disable sharing of almost the entire game due to spoilers, at which point the feature is worthless.

Censor? No. If you honestly think that would stop people from showing the bad parts of games, then you could say that right now on current consoles the whole fact that they don't have share functions is censoring the game. :/

Also until we see how devs use it, there is no point in being all doom and gloom and damning it before we see it in full use. I bet you there will be a good chunck of games that allow you to use it at any point.

And yet, all your posts seem to do is highlight perfectly good reasons as to why dev wouldn't censor any of their content. There's clearly no point in doing it for spoilers because anyone with a capture card will upload a "spoiler". You seem to be under the impression that just because they can do something stupid they will. If that were true then every console game this generation would have come with pc style serial codes to prevent used game sales

In a way that's my point... I don't understand why Sony would release a share feature that enables you to record, stream, or take screenshots of a game and then allow the devs to limit what the players can use it for. The only "good" reasons I can think of to disallow people from recording would be for spoiler reasons or to hide things that would make them look bad. But since there are really easy ways to circumvent that I don't see the point of it. It just seems to me like Sony is willfully enabling the crippling of their new feature and I don't understand why.

There are also much better ways to prevent spoilers like allowing recorders to hide things behind spoiler tags in some way, like someone mentioned above.

I just don't get it.

Also just for fun:

You seem to be under the impression that just because they can do something stupid they will.

EA. Nuff Said

 

[Big_Boss_Mantis]

an Xperia Play

Someone else has one!?

Flabbergasted shock aside. Sony are owning up to their mistakes with the PS3 here guys. They fucked up and fixing the problems that CELL caused them means they have to create new problems like no backward compatibility. That sucks donkey balls its true but just look at the position they managed to put themselves in for designing the PS4.

It in effect boils down to three choices they could have made.

#1. Design the PS4 with a CELL processor to allow for backward compatibility and maintain all of the issues with attracting third party devs to code for the bloody thing.

#2. Design the PS4 with another processor type that devs know how to program for already like the X86 pc architecture and in doing so, remove all backward compatibility due to the horrific mess that software emulation of CELL would be.

#3. Design the PS4 with an easy to use processor for devs and a CELL processor built onto the board for hardware emulation of PS3 games (the 60gb release model of the PS3 has a PS2 processor for the same reason) and in doing so run the risk of slightly buggy hardware and a high price tag for development of the console and so, price tag on sales.

What Sony have done is a mix of 2 and 3. But rather than put the CELL on the console itself they are looking at trying to build servers to process PS3 games and stream them to consoles which will cut down on the cost per console immensely. I don't know how well this will work and the always online nature of such a service worries me. But I'm willing to wait and see what they do before slamming them.

Open note to the people yelling "Show us the games!"
Please calm down. Sony has already shown us far more than Microsoft and it is likely they are waiting for E3 to show their box and games off now that we all know the innards of the box which, surprise surprise, is more important than what the plastic shell looks like.

Own one, and absolutely love it! I think it would have catched on if it wasn`t horribly priced at launch and din`t have to deal with so many Android issues! (like depending on the incredibly limiting internal phone memory unless you wasted precious time learning how to hack the device)

Still about your very valid points:
1- there was another alternative. Sony could have put the x86 processor in the PS4 and still put the PS3`s Cell on it and use it for something OTHER than games. (SEGA did this, and every Mega Drive had an Master System processor in it, working alongside for another function) How about putting a Cell on the PS4, and using it exclusively for the multitasking network activities? Would that make the thing that much more expensive? Would the network gain doesn`t make up for it? I am not a programmer. Is my idea that impossible?

2- The streaming. You could give Sony the benefit of the doubt. But, as a fan of the brand, I just CAN`T DO IT.
For instance: Sony is promising remote play since PS3 launched. They have promised it between PS3 and PSP. Didn`t work.
Then they promised it among PS3 and PS Vita. Nope, doesn`t work.
But now, with PS4 and Vita they say it will probably work. Really? WHY?!
I can`t even use my Vita as an PS3 controller. (with very few exceptions)
I can`t play PSP games on the PS3 (pirates could do that for you).
I can`t play most of the PSP`s library on my Vita. (again pirates)
I can`t play most of the PS2 library on a PS3. (guess what? Yes, pirates)
I can`t even charge my Dual Shock with my PS3 off (EVERYONE asked for it).

My point is: Sony is a recurring offender of not providing EASY services (some of them even PROMISED) for their consumers.
And they have repeatedly made promises they couldn`t keep.

I love the brand, but I am friggn` tired of their lies!
So when they say "remote play will work", I say "let`s see". When they say: "PS3 games will be streamed", I reply "show me the goddamned money".

I honestly doubt they are gonna stream MetaI Gear Solid 4, or God Of War 3, to my PS4, when they can`t even import my small PSN purchased games to the PS4.
They won`t let me play Braid and Mega Man 9 on the PS4 (they won`t compromise to say that I will be able). So, no, I don`t think you will provide a service worthwile for upgrading.

I am so very tired of their old and hallow promises... I am not going to just waste my money on another frustration machine!

Captcha: start from scratch. If only Sony would listen to the mighty captha ...

 

[RicoADF]

So far there is nothing really getting me excited about this upcoming (or current if you include the WiiU) generation of consoles. With GTA5 and Watchdogs both getting PS3/360 releases it's looking more and more like I might just hold tight with my PS3/360 for a year or two before making the jump into any consoles from this most recent generation.

The way it stands now I have such a back log of games on my cuurent consoles I've bought and not played yet I could probably start a new game and play it through to completion then repeat the process and not have to buy another game until sometime next year.

Spread the word!

Sony just can`t seem to gasp that GAMES SELL CONSOLES. Isn`t that so simple?
The PS4 has NO BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY and NO SYSTEM SELLER.
GTA 5, Metal Gear Solid 5, Bioshock, Gran Turismo 6, God Of War, The Last Of Us, Beyond: Two Souls, Dark Souls 2. All these games were announced/released for the CURRENT generation. Those could be system sellers if they came for the new hardware (depending on the taste of the player).
Instead, we have PS4 with Killzone, Infamous and PS3 ports. People won`t buy new hardware to play: 1. franchises that sold poorly, 2. ports of games that can be played on a system they already have. See the WiiU.
Until another one of the BIG NAMES I mentioned above gets released it will be a couple of years minimum. Those ain`t annualized franchises (that`s why most of them remain good)...
Not to mention the huge backlog this current generation left. (I haven?t finished more than half my games)

I may be repeating myself, but I am an Playstation heavy user. I own everything from the PS2 ahead (PSP, PS3, Vita, an Xperia Play and even a Move controller). Still, I see no reason to be remotely interested in the PS4.
So, really? Who is gonna buy this thing?!

While I agree that backwards compatibility would be great to have (seriously I want it to be done), I also know it isn't a simple task. Your talking about converting a game from cell processor to x86 which would require the devs to go back and convert the game over (or more likely port the PC version to PS4). They wont do that for free, some may release PS4 versions to make some easy money but that'd be it. To put this into perspective, it's like converting an ARM processor program to x86, it can be done but the devs need to do it which costs time, money and thus requires a new sale.

Honestly people are getting to the point of complaining for the sake of it, Sony is making a console that:
- Is designed from the ground up as a gaming console first and foremost (unlike xbox) by having features designed around games and the system built around easy of devs use of the hardware to ensure the lineup will build up quickly.
- Because it's made on the x86 processor it's forward compatibility wont be an issue (solving this problem in future)
- By using standard PC hardware costs are kept down over the board, so the console will be cheaper for Sony and us the consumer, and games will be cheaper to make and sell to us.
- And most importantly, it's already confirmed NOT to be an always online required console. Yes devs can make their game always online (like they already can on PS3 and Xbox), but it's not a feature built into the console, it's something the devs have to setup.

As for those going "Oh, but the PS3 still works fine why should I upgrade", err guys the PS3 is getting old, yes I love my little machine Ive had since release day and I wont be letting her go, but at 256mb of RAM it's seriously under powered. It's video card is also outdated and the processor is really the only good part about it. She's had a good long run but now it's time for the next generation to come along and continue the cycle. If you want to stay with current gen consoles then so be it, it's not like the police are going to come around on release day and collect all current gen consoles to force you to upgrade. You've just got to accept that you'll be left behind just like anyone who sticks with outdated technology.

EDIT:

Still about your very valid points:
1- there was another alternative. Sony could have put the x86 processor in the PS4 and still put the PS3`s Cell on it and use it for something OTHER than games. (SEGA did this, and every Mega Drive had an Master System processor in it, working alongside for another function) How about putting a Cell on the PS4, and using it exclusively for the multitasking network activities? Would that make the thing that much more expensive? Would the network gain doesn`t make up for it? I am not a programmer. Is my idea that impossible?

The cell processor is the main reason the PS3 was so expensive (bluray being the other). Putting it in there for any reason, weather backwards compatible or for system use, is going to drive the cost up. Heck even moreso because then you'll have 2 processors in the same machine plus the GPU all generating massive amounts of heat, which brings in other issues. I wish it was that easy but the 3 options were as he stated.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

In a way that's my point... I don't understand why Sony would release a share feature that enables you to record, stream, or take screenshots of a game and then allow the devs to limit what the players can use it for. The only "good" reasons I can think of to disallow people from recording would be for spoiler reasons or to hide things that would make them look bad. But since there are really easy ways to circumvent that I don't see the point of it. It just seems to me like Sony is willfully enabling the crippling of their new feature and I don't understand why.

There are also much better ways to prevent spoilers like allowing recorders to hide things behind spoiler tags in some way, like someone mentioned above.

I just don't get it.

Also just for fun:

You seem to be under the impression that just because they can do something stupid they will.

EA. Nuff Said

Well a legit reason I can think might be that rendering videos in the background would be an intensive process and a dev might want to free up space. But what I think Sony is trying to do is make their platform more open to devs by not telling them what they can and can't do. Like you said, EA might be stupid enough to want to limit sharing so why alienate a huge company? Sony is providing the hardware and no one has to develop anything for it so the fewer walls the better

Maybe you're right but I really don't see any reason to assume devs are going to fuck shit up at this point. Considering this (I assume) is the first console to have video capture built in, I don't see any reason to complain at this point. I'd rather cry over "share button abuse" when the problem manifests

 

[heroicbob]

what a misleading title for an article

I'm not sure what the point is for the share button other than to flood YouTube with hundreds of identical videos of people playing video games

i guess since you are constantly capturing some people might use it for machinima or something

 

[vallorn]

EDIT:

Still about your very valid points:
1- there was another alternative. Sony could have put the x86 processor in the PS4 and still put the PS3`s Cell on it and use it for something OTHER than games. (SEGA did this, and every Mega Drive had an Master System processor in it, working alongside for another function) How about putting a Cell on the PS4, and using it exclusively for the multitasking network activities? Would that make the thing that much more expensive? Would the network gain doesn`t make up for it? I am not a programmer. Is my idea that impossible?

The cell processor is the main reason the PS3 was so expensive (bluray being the other). Putting it in there for any reason, weather backwards compatible or for system use, is going to drive the cost up. Heck even moreso because then you'll have 2 processors in the same machine plus the GPU all generating massive amounts of heat, which brings in other issues. I wish it was that easy but the 3 options were as he stated.

Not to mention coding for the already horrible CELL architecture on top of the X86 would be a nightmare. And this doesn't even go into the massive cost this would add to the console, seriously take a look around and see what kind of price range your looking at for multi CPU motherboards and that's JUST the motherboard.

Then remember how the flimsy 360 melted on a warm day and look at the sheer amount of heat in this thing as well as the power consumption. you would have a console the size of a large ATX case full of fans just trying to keep the temperature down in there.

Captcha: one stop shop

Stop trying to make me buy things from Steam Captcha I'm busy playing The Hidden!

 

[Big_Boss_Mantis]

While I agree that backwards compatibility would be great to have (seriously I want it to be done), I also know it isn't a simple task. Your talking about converting a game from cell processor to x86 which would require the devs to go back and convert the game over (or more likely port the PC version to PS4). They wont do that for free, some may release PS4 versions to make some easy money but that'd be it. To put this into perspective, it's like converting an ARM processor program to x86, it can be done but the devs need to do it which costs time, money and thus requires a new sale.

Honestly people are getting to the point of complaining for the sake of it, Sony is making a console that:
- Is designed from the ground up as a gaming console first and foremost (unlike xbox) by having features designed around games and the system built around easy of devs use of the hardware to ensure the lineup will build up quickly.
- Because it's made on the x86 processor it's forward compatibility wont be an issue (solving this problem in future)
- By using standard PC hardware costs are kept down over the board, so the console will be cheaper for Sony and us the consumer, and games will be cheaper to make and sell to us.
- And most importantly, it's already confirmed NOT to be an always online required console. Yes devs can make their game always online (like they already can on PS3 and Xbox), but it's not a feature built into the console, it's something the devs have to setup.

As for those going "Oh, but the PS3 still works fine why should I upgrade", err guys the PS3 is getting old, yes I love my little machine Ive had since release day and I wont be letting her go, but at 256mb of RAM it's seriously under powered. It's video card is also outdated and the processor is really the only good part about it. She's had a good long run but now it's time for the next generation to come along and continue the cycle. If you want to stay with current gen consoles then so be it, it's not like the police are going to come around on release day and collect all current gen consoles to force you to upgrade. You've just got to accept that you'll be left behind just like anyone who sticks with outdated technology.

EDIT:

Still about your very valid points:
1- there was another alternative. Sony could have put the x86 processor in the PS4 and still put the PS3`s Cell on it and use it for something OTHER than games. (SEGA did this, and every Mega Drive had an Master System processor in it, working alongside for another function) How about putting a Cell on the PS4, and using it exclusively for the multitasking network activities? Would that make the thing that much more expensive? Would the network gain doesn`t make up for it? I am not a programmer. Is my idea that impossible?

The cell processor is the main reason the PS3 was so expensive (bluray being the other). Putting it in there for any reason, weather backwards compatible or for system use, is going to drive the cost up. Heck even moreso because then you'll have 2 processors in the same machine plus the GPU all generating massive amounts of heat, which brings in other issues. I wish it was that easy but the 3 options were as he stated.

While I agree that it can not be simple to have cell based backwards compatibility, I still have my doubts about it not being VIABLE. And, yes, viable from a business stand point.
I don`t know how much expensive it would end up being but there is still two things that I think should be considered.

1- Cell was VERY expensive. FIVE YEARS ago! But this things get cheaper, more energy efficient and, yes, don`t make that much heat nowadays. PS3 super slim is cheaper, smaller, more energy efficient and seems to produce less heat (since it is considerably smaller). And coolers can help that
What I said (two chips) is hard to pull of? Hell yes! Definitely! Would it that be IMPOSSIBLE (even considering market and costs)? I still think no. But I really, really can be wrong...

2- Sony could simply release a PS4 Deluxe which would come with full hardware-based backwards compatibility. AND MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE. That way, no one could complain.
If backwards compatibility is that important to you, then you can buy it. How about "trade in your old PS3 and get a PS4 Deluxe for the price of a standard"?
I lost so many great games in the transition from PS2 for PS3. Some of them only came to PSN last year, like Okami or Nights: Into Dreams remake. Others probably will never come (Mortal Kombat Shaolin Monks, Yakuza 1 & 2, the original Guitar Hero). PS3`s backlog is even bigger!
Sony`s stand is "deal with it", and find room under your TV for two Playstations.

Look, as I stated, I am an avid Playstation consumer. I love the brand exactly because of the things you stated.
They respect game(r)s. Online is free (as it should be). PS Plus is great. They keep a lot of studios developing exclusive content for them, some with niche games. And their products and ideology are aimed at hardcore videogame users.
I respect them for that, and I vote with my wallet!

Still, the thing is that, for the last half a decade, it seems that every good decision they make, they also made another terrible, terrible one.
Perhaps my best judgement is being clouded by how much they have let me down in the past! (yeah, I need a hug.)

What you said, in a nutshell (sorry for over simplifying), is that the PS4 is promising to be a great machine, an much needed update over its predecessor, and that it does NOT adopt some draconian policies that are unfortunately becoming standard business practices in the industry.
And, believe me, I really agree with you. It sounds great.
But you know what other piece of tech has those exact same qualities? The Playstation Vita.
I own one, it has lots of potential. And it saddens me to see its potential going to waste because of Sony`s own stupidity or incompetence.

Look, I admit that I am probably going to buy an PS4 along the way, exactly because I am not going to be clinging to outdated technology, and because I am sure it will still be the best deal on the market (in spite of everything I have said).
And I really can live without backwards compatibility (I survived the PS2 after all).
What I am just saying is that, without a solid launch line up (which seems to have been cannibalized by the upcoming PS3 content) and without backwards compatibility, I really think Sony is going to have a very hard time selling units. And the machine will have the same rough start as the PS3.
And, with that, Microsoft might get more market share, in spite of their bad consumer practices...

EDIT: carefully reading other comments I have changed my stance about the whole "two processors thing" a la Emotion engine or the Sega Mega Drive. I agree that it seems like a nightmare to pull it off. Still, my other point about Sony`s "good intents, poor delivery" still stands! For now, anyway... LOL.

 

[Big_Boss_Mantis]

Snip

Snip

Well, you guys really seem to know much more about it than I do!
I won`t be standing my ground against much more well-researched opinions!

So I am officially putting that "two processors" idea to rest! Thanks for the valuable insight.

Still, I think it WILL cost Sony dearly. Specially if the Nextbox manages to make it work... (because of the simpler architecture and all)

 

[RicoADF]

*huge snip for my sanity and yours*

I do agree with you regarding the idea of having a 'collectors' or 'ultimate' PS4 with backwards, I'd so buy that up on day 1. Perhaps we should make some noise on the Sony forums for this?

I agree with what you've said, they have made some bad choices over the years but really at the end of the day no company (or even person) is perfect, and atleast they are trying and do seem to be learning so credit where it's due. btw, add me on PSN, need more people that play games on it as the PC has been winning due to more friends play on it lol.

 

[Fireprufe15]

If you want the PS4 version to be the best multiplatform version, you're truly fighting a losing battle. PC versions will always be top if the developers are competent enough.

 

[Fireprufe15]

If you want the PS4 version to be the best multiplatform version, you're truly fighting a losing battle. PC versions will always be top if the developers are competent enough.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Sorry sony, by the end of the year I'll have one of these, so good luck in your efforts.

But why have sony forgotten that the main point of consoles? What does the PS4 do that no other console will? "looking good" isn't an option.

I dont think the titian is going to come down to less than 800 by the end of the year, or are you going to be throwing that much cash at it?

Selling my two gtx 580's and picking up a Titan Ultra edition when it comes out.


Also I have a job, so, you know.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Sorry sony, by the end of the year I'll have one of these, so good luck in your efforts.

But why have sony forgotten that the main point of consoles? What does the PS4 do that no other console will? "looking good" isn't an option.

I dont think the titian is going to come down to less than 800 by the end of the year, or are you going to be throwing that much cash at it?

Selling my two gtx 580's and picking up a Titan Ultra edition when it comes out.


Also I have a job, so, you know.

Thats still gonna be a chunk of change for the Ultra edition if you buy it bleeding edge, must be a nice job...you guys hiring?

http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_ultra_and_gtx_titan_le.html

"The Ultra would be a small upgrade for the 'regular' Titan, opening up one disabled SMX cluster bringing 2880 Shader cores with 240 TMUs towards the Ultra.

There remains a lot of speculation of course, but this could mean the Titan LE at 599 USD. The Original Titan at 799 USD, and the GeForce Titan Ultra at 999 USD."


I kinda feel sorry for people who dropped $1k+ on the Titan at launch only to be told that this is possibly in the pipeline.


Also, maybe?

http://careers.newscorp.com/

 

[Fireprufe15]

If you want the PS4 version to be the best multiplatform version, you're truly fighting a losing battle. PC versions will always be top if the developers are competent enough.

Pretty sure Diablo 3 fans would disagree with you.

Notice how i said 'competent'