The Playstation 4Follow

I like that they're aiming for a reasonable price point, but I'm still worried about rumors regarding a touchscreen controller.

IIRC, the rumor in question pegs the controller for a "touch pad" not a touch screen, which would make sense to me. I don't see Sony/Microsoft following Nintendo's lead with the Wii U controller design.

I'd be surprised if that were the case. Sony and Microsoft clearly have one eye on the gamepad experiment. But I think they did the smart thing by positioning themselves to move if it proved wildly successful, while not really investing themselves in the idea. Sony has made the case that the Vita can be used to the same end as the gamepad (if they so chose), and Microsoft seems keen on tablet integration.

A touchscreen controller would be a sizable investment that overlaps a bit too much with their existing tech, and both console makers are looking to keep console costs down, by all reports. Both Sony and Microsoft's backup plans use peripherals that would come at a separate cost (or are already owned, esp. in the case of tablets), keeping the costs optional for consumers. And that's all before we get to the fact that the Wii U is performing relatively poorly right now, and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of potential being mined out of that 2nd screen.

One thing I've heard is that they want to allow multiple users to be logged in, and to sync a user with a controller, so that you can have a 4 player game going and each person earns trophies on their individual PSN account. I think a touch screen controller will actually be good in that case, if only to keep data private.

I think a $399 price point is about right. That's how much a low end laptop costs these days.

My main concern is if they are going to implement that copy protection they were talking about that forbids you from using used games(or requires you to pay a fee to use them).

I'm not sure if they made it to the eshop. I only DLed the Zelda games iirc. They however are on w/e shop the Wii and Wii U can buy games from. I am glad they gave us something, but still...they could have sold it at the Now price, and people like you could have bought the games on the eShop.
Money for them...



I work for a company that re-manufactures Turbos, and seeing/hearing what they deal with has changed my my views (because it is oddly similar) on the whole used game market. I'm so pro for used games now, that if Sony, Bill Gates, and Nintendo do implement a C.P that imo, it will be very bad for them. To the degree that I would boycott them.
Not everyone can buy games new.

See the same issue happens in my line of work. Not everyone can afford to give thousands of dollars for a new turbo for their diesel running engine (truck, tractor, w/e). Buying a remaned one is like going out and buying a used system/game. The top companies do not really like it, because they do not see any of the "extra" money that can be made. Well actually that is a slight lie, see they can. The contract with companies like the one I work for to do the re-man job (tearing down, sorting through parts, cleaning parts, and rebuilding Turbos to be sent back) so they can then have their own line of "reman" turbos to offer to the public. The Big companies might not offer the same protection plan as they would to new ones, but the buyer could still get that "named" item at a lower price due to being used.

Sony/Gates/Nintendo have not figured out a way to get more money from places like Gamestop, or any other big re-seller of used games (Gamestop is the big one around here, and then private owned places).

Same goes for the game companies making the game. If EA can not understand that people do not find their product to be worth the full price, the they have a major issue. When people stop buying their games at full price, it only seems natural that the company will go under in due time.
So what could game companies do? 2 options come to mind that I'm ok with (don't know about the rest of you).
1) Lower the damn price of games. Duh. This shouldn't even need to be explained why.
2) *Disclaimer: I am ok with this idea, for real* Make each game come with a code to unlock game play. If I sell the game, who ever buys it next will also need to buy a new Key Code. All the big game companies will need to see them plastic cards (like WoW time cards, Gamestop has a huge rack full of different game cards for all the online game out there for kids...) that give a Key Code. Scratch it off, register it online, get code..play game. This is where game companies can make their money in the used game market. The only down side is the price. What would be a fair price?

If i take a $60 game, a week old, to gamestop and they give me $20 store credit (total ******* rip off, I don't actually sell my games to gamestop. I sell to friends for decent amount), and they turn around and put it on the shelf for $55, but the Game company sells new Game Key for...10? 20?....30 (half the price of the game)? The used game companies will have a hard time selling used game...
Catch 22 on this idea, but yea.

I think it would just be a very bad idea to try and cut out the used game market. I don't think it would end well for any/all the companies that would try to do some kind of C.P Lock.
I mean I've sat here and re-wrote this bottom half like 5 times (sorry if it doesn't make sense). I can not think of any good point to give to the idea. If anyone has one, please share.
Stopping bootleg games, is however, not a good reason to effect the rest of the "legit" people.

Blah. Really hope the ps4 does not do anything like this thing.

There is a reason I buy consoles. By requiring internet connection whenever you want to play a game throws that reason out the window. Time will tell if that is just a rumor or has Microsoft lost their damn mind.



While my view on used games getting shafted with this next console cycle is indifference I feel as though this is probably one of the better ideas that has been brought up.

Edited, Feb 6th 2013 10:29pm by Criminy

I'm going to guess "Wii U painted black, makes you buy a Vita for use as a controller" but I'm a cynic.

If one does it the other will follow suit. I understand why they would do it also. To cut back on used games and to encourage people to shop on their marketplace. The big issue I have with it is that the US has a rather mediocre internet. Sure in larger communities, especially along the coasts, internet is a complete non-issue. The problem lies with there is a large portion of the US that either has limited internet access or non at all. I am also sure that there are people who may have a xbox and some games but cannot afford the monthly internet bill but how much of the gaming community is like that I have no clue.

The only way I will not have an issue with consoles being always online to play is if there are massive improvements to our internet infrastructure. Until that happens I am staunchly against it.

This means I'll likely get a hand-me-down PS3 from my brother sometime in the next year or so.

I approve.

I'm down with the annoying thing, makes plenty sense. Conversely though, I have several older games I can't play because I lost the stupid 20-character long gibberish code I have to enter when I install the game. Damned if you do, damned if you don't or something. Just as a general "why the connected thing doesn't get me into a rage." If they want to take the consul (cousel, consul, consel... ) gaming the same direction, meh, so be it.

Edited, Feb 7th 2013 10:00am by someproteinguy