Sony: PlayStation in the Future Will Be "a Service"

[Saltyk]

Knee jerk reaction much?

I can already see some of what they are saying here. The roots are already there with the Vita and the PS3. Remember how they said, you could have one account across your PS3, PS4, and Vita? I'm certain that is at least an element of what they mean by this. And that, is a good thing.

As for the rest of it, it is far too vague to say anything one way or the other. But, I don't see any reason to believe this means DRM, online requirements, or any of the idiotic nonsense that some other companies tried to cram down our throats.

Honestly, I don't care if the system supports Facebook or Twitter. Or anything else. As long as it plays games, everything else would be icing on the cake at best. And a feature that exists which I don't use, at worst.

I am curious about the "non-Sony devices" line, though. I remember seeing an ad with someone ordering games for their PS4 over their phone and even talking to people playing games via their phone. I wonder if they could have some sort of Sony App in line for iPhones and Androids. That could be an interesting touch. Admittedly, I am basing that on nothing but a short ad I saw a while back.

 

[EnigmaticSevens]

I'm only going to do this once, as an exercise in reasoning.

While I agree, even with my above statement, the vagueness of the announcement is part of the problem. "In the future, PlayStation will be a service" is dangerously vague.

Dangerous in what sense? Dangerous in the sense that the over-caffeinated, ill-tempered, slow-witted public might misconstrue a statement and make a fuss over a load of nothing? Please don't lend credence to the marketing mantra that customer is a child and must be spoon-fed. We're grown folk, we can handle a touch of the unknown without jumping to conclusions. That statement lacks context (even more so since it's not even a direct quote of the man, but a statement based on a quote), context will come, when it does, evaluate it and create an informed opinion.

And as far as branding is concerned, what else is there? They've already made consoles, handhelds, phones and associated peripherals. The already have their own digital distribution service through PSN. What more is there to do? Even Apple doesn't really do more then that (computers, tablets, phones and a digital distribution service; which is the same thing on a different scale). What kind of "service" could they possibly perform, or "brand" that could create that they don't already provide?

Your imagination =/= Sony's, for one, you're not a group of well paid but overworked Japanese men. Again, don't fear the unknown, and for god's sake don't get mad about it. A certain wariness is reasonable, but let that caution preclude vitriol as surely as it does hope, because apparently hope for the future just isn't cool anymore. And as far Apple is concerned, you obviously haven't perused CNET in the past few months... it's all about watches, mate, watches and curved smartphones. *sigh* I rather wish I was joking....

An online only, cloud-based Netflix-like distribution system where you pay a monthly fee and gain access to your library is only one option, but a realistic one.

You mean like the kind that gives you a body of free games to choose from so long as you maintain the service, the very same provides you discounts on various upcoming titles and early access to beta releases? Do you mean PS+, the little mongrel that inspired an extension of the service provided by Xbox Gold? The console services that maybe, just maybe, will one day evolve into Steam? Hype the good, and see what comes of it. It's a much better use of your time than speculating about a nonexistent, retrograde system. 'Realistic' is hardly the term I'd use considering the current market clime.

Making it so you can play your games on multiple platforms barely qualifies as a "service". Adding tons of social networking features is not providing a service so much as it's taking advantage of other people's services.

Tread very carefully, that first statement smacks of the worst sort of entitlement, especially when ten years ago, the though of playing a console game on a handheld was a pipe dream. The second statement is silly, that's like saying AAA isn't a service because it takes advantage of the Government's roads, services piggyback off of one another all the time, and any potentially helpful activity is by definition a service.

So yeah, speculations is just that, speculation, but unless they follow up this statement with something more concrete, all we're left wondering is what the hell they're talking about, since they've already done much.

If they've done so much, give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[ryo02]

I just want a game console and physical games both of which I can own is that really so much to ask?.

 

[The_Echo]

Lots of cynical conclusion-jumping up in this thread. They barely even actually said anything.

Calm down.

Anytime a company starts referring to their product as a "service", they're trying to restrict how customers use their products. I suspect no one will be owning any PlayStation devices in the near future. Instead, we'll be signing up for service contracts and equipment leases.

Nah, I don't think it'll be like that.

Do you remember the Xperia Play? The phone with a slide-out PlayStation controller? You could play PS1 games on it. I think this 'service' mentality is about allowing you a wider range of access to PlayStation. If I had to guess how it'll work, it'll be the same concept as owning a console, only it could be your phone, or TV, or whatever else.

 

[aelreth]

Thank you for the warning Sony.

Glad I have the skills to improvise for the future.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Well... they certainly did everything they could to make themselves sound as unappealing as possible, didn't they? I am even somewhat considering cancelling my Launch PS4 pre-order now, or selling it on ebay. The only thing stopping me is remembering how much worse Microsoft is being about this.

Thank god for my wiiU and PC.

 

[TallanKhan]

I really despair at the constant attempts by companies to put leashes on their consumers, to take away the straightforward relationship in which they have a product, I have money and if I want the product I buy it. Generally if companies talk about a "Service" the word "Sunscription" is lurking somewhere nearby so in that sense it won't be something that apeals to me, I don't even plan to take up a PSN subscription when they start charging for it with the PS4.

That said even if it was free I don't think it would make much odds to me. My PS3 already does 101 things I don't need it to, I have netflix, singstar and a dozen other bits of rubish that i have no interest in but that it won't let me delete kicking around in their taking up hard drive space.

Why isn't it enough to make a good console that plays good games? Who is all the rest of this for?

 

[Quantum Glass]

I'm really not sure what they're trying to say here. It's not like they're getting rid of the consoles, but they're not really adding much new either.

So...I guess now it'll be easier to look at your account or whatever on other devices? Like, synch your friends list and trophies and whatnot?

That's cool, I guess.

 

[The_Scrivener]

E3: We're going to be only about the games. Microsoft is stupid because they're trying to be an everything entertainment device.

Now: We're going to try to be an everything entertainment device.

I don't go to a car dealership when I need a place to live. I don't go to the grocery store when I need clothes.

I DON'T GO TO MY GAMING CONSOLE TO WATCH FOOTBALL OR CALL MY FATHER-IN-LAW. DO WHAT YOU DO AND KNOCK THE REST THE FUCK OFF.

 

[RicoADF]

While I agree, even with my above statement, the vagueness of the announcement is part of the problem. "In the future, PlayStation will be a service" is dangerously vague. And as far as branding is concerned, what else is there? They've already made consoles, handhelds, phones and associated peripherals. The already have their own digital distribution service through PSN. What more is there to do? Even Apple doesn't really do more then that (computers, tablets, phones and a digital distribution service; which is the same thing on a different scale). What kind of "service" could they possibly perform, or "brand" that could create that they don't already provide? An online only, cloud-based Netflix-like distribution system where you pay a monthly fee and gain access to your library is only one option, but a realistic one. Making it so you can play your games on multiple platforms barely qualifies as a "service". Adding tons of social networking features is not providing a service so much as it's taking advantage of other people's services. So yeah, speculations is just that, speculation, but unless they follow up this statement with something more concrete, all we're left wondering is what the hell they're talking about, since they've already done much.

Potentially they could be thinking of having a Playstation Store on Android etc to buy games from, which considering they are doing a PS app for tablets etc does make some sense. But as you said it's extremely vague and at a time where Microsoft has turned service into a bad word they should have explained what they mean more.

This... does not bode well. I don't want to pay monthly fees for a service. I want to own a product. As long as Sony remembers that then the happy relationship we've enjoyed for almost two decades will continue. Don't pull a Microsoft on me Sony, you've done well by me so far.

Who said anything about monthly fees? A PSN store on android offering games or other such extras are services and their only cost is buying a product if you decide to do so. I understand Microsoft has made service a bad word though.

 

[Dragonbums]

The only hypocrisy I see in this, is that they gave Microsoft buttloads of shit for announcing an idea very similar to this at E3, and now a couple months later they come out and say they had plans for something like this too.

Stay classy guys.

 

[Foolery]

Yeah, no. The only place you really can get away with being a service in gaming and being successful at it is on PC. And that's because there is a variety to choose from, even with Steam's ridiculous amount of market share in digital distribution. When someone buys a console or a console game, they want a product. Physical discs, and so on. Simple as that.

PS+ caught on, because it's not essential to the console functionality and purpose. It's an optional service.

Anyway, I wouldn't get too worked up. They basically just threw out a bunch of buzzwords that don't mean anything. But I don't blame anyone for being skeptical. Sony's made some dumb decisions in the past.

 

[N3squ1ck]

Oh God, I hate, _hate_ the whole concept of just getting some sort of streaming service, mainly because I live in a country whioch is happy to censor everything. You can import a boxed game, but you can't import a streamed game, at least not in a playable state.

Actually just some weeks ago an album from some rap artists got banned here and suddenly you couldn't listen to it on spotify anymore (naturally). I imagine gamestreaming working out like that too.

 

[Strazdas]

This felt less of "we are goign to restrict" and more of "we are giving you more options to play playstation without having the box". as long as i can stream those few PS3 exclusives to my PC that are the only thing i care for PS3 to begin with im fine. If not, well, there are plenty of other games out there.

Capcha: little sister
did you mean big brother by chance?

 

[Doom972]

Too bad that there is no indication of them using Gaikai to allow playing PS3/PS4 games on the PC via cloud.

 

[Zeitgeist1983]

The PS3's generation will be the last console generation for me. I don´t need more slightly improved grafics and this whole marketing- and service BS.

Branding my a**.

I´m out.