The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
With today's announcement of the XBox One we now know all of the contenders in the next generation of the console wars!!!1 In the red corner we have the latest iteration of Sony's gaming powerhouse, the Playstation 4. Nothing original with the name, but why change a winning formula?
In the blue corner (or should that be green) we have the XBox One. Will people think that it is 360 times more inferior that the XBox 360? Will they compare it to the PSOne? Is their naming convention too confusing for anyone to truly follow?
And in the brown corner is the Wii U. At least they're sticking to what they know. Stick with the Wii name, because that works. And why not stick with the same policy of not backing it at launch with enough games either, amIright? Then, when the games do come, they're the same games we already played. When did Nintendo release an original game? I'm thinking GameCube era. No doubt when the games do come along they will be good, but the way Nintendo are likely to drip-feed them through there won't be enough to keep people interested. The tablet is neat, but so far no one is doing anything interesting with it.
I think the Wii U could put Nintendo in some serious trouble, but they'll always make money from their games - but could we one day see a day when Nintendo release games on another platform?
So it will be left to the big boys to duke it out. Punches will be thrown. Blows will be landed. At the end of the day many of the big games will be multi-platform, but there will be some exclusives. If you can't call it from the exclusives and you're looking at what else it can do, well frankly I'd go for the Sony kit. It looks better. It won't make you pay for Kinect you might not even want, and, at the end of the day, it looks better.
So! Who will you back in the next generation!?
In the blue corner (or should that be green) we have the XBox One. Will people think that it is 360 times more inferior that the XBox 360? Will they compare it to the PSOne? Is their naming convention too confusing for anyone to truly follow?
And in the brown corner is the Wii U. At least they're sticking to what they know. Stick with the Wii name, because that works. And why not stick with the same policy of not backing it at launch with enough games either, amIright? Then, when the games do come, they're the same games we already played. When did Nintendo release an original game? I'm thinking GameCube era. No doubt when the games do come along they will be good, but the way Nintendo are likely to drip-feed them through there won't be enough to keep people interested. The tablet is neat, but so far no one is doing anything interesting with it.
I think the Wii U could put Nintendo in some serious trouble, but they'll always make money from their games - but could we one day see a day when Nintendo release games on another platform?
So it will be left to the big boys to duke it out. Punches will be thrown. Blows will be landed. At the end of the day many of the big games will be multi-platform, but there will be some exclusives. If you can't call it from the exclusives and you're looking at what else it can do, well frankly I'd go for the Sony kit. It looks better. It won't make you pay for Kinect you might not even want, and, at the end of the day, it looks better.
So! Who will you back in the next generation!?
Page:
chasfh wrote:
[I]As for the pre-owned restrictions, that will also clearly mean no rentals so unless there are demos made available for every game then how are people supposed to know if they are worth buying or not? (that is certainly not the case at the moment) and what about the many games you play through once in 5 hours or so and never bother with again?, certainly been plenty of those in the last few years. Are games developers suddenly going to stop producing titles like those?
I don't think I've downloaded a demo for a game in, what, five years?
I also haven't managed to buy a game I didn't like in that time, so I'm either the luckiest person in the universe, the best judge of a game in the world, the least choosiest gamer in the history of gaming...
...or it's really not that difficult. Read reviews, look at screenshots and promo videos, trust devs that you've bought games by before. There are a million reasons why I might choose a particular game, none of which are because I've played a demo.
Again, I think this is a case of console gamers being stuck with a perception of how things should work, and not seeing that it can work another way. That's the fault of the devs and their marketing. Currently, it's easy to buy a game, try it for three days and return it to the store for an exchange because you don't like it.
Not so for PC gamers on the whole; have you ever tried to get a refund from Steam?
I'm not talking "right or wrong" here, I'm simply saying there isn't any, and that "different" doesn't equate to unworkable or flawed.[/i]
Steam sales and Humble bundles have ensured that I've bought games I didn't end up liking. Likewise, console game sales on sites like zavvi have done the same (£9.99 for a game that was £40 the week before). Actually, I very rarely pay retail price for a console game.
But then I've had my fair share of surprises, too. Surely that's the flip-side of it all? Games like the incredible Journey on PS3, Mirrors Edge etc. New IPs from teams with little in their back catalogue to suggest the content of their most recent game.
[I]As for the pre-owned restrictions, that will also clearly mean no rentals so unless there are demos made available for every game then how are people supposed to know if they are worth buying or not? (that is certainly not the case at the moment) and what about the many games you play through once in 5 hours or so and never bother with again?, certainly been plenty of those in the last few years. Are games developers suddenly going to stop producing titles like those?
I don't think I've downloaded a demo for a game in, what, five years?
I also haven't managed to buy a game I didn't like in that time, so I'm either the luckiest person in the universe, the best judge of a game in the world, the least choosiest gamer in the history of gaming...
...or it's really not that difficult. Read reviews, look at screenshots and promo videos, trust devs that you've bought games by before. There are a million reasons why I might choose a particular game, none of which are because I've played a demo.
Again, I think this is a case of console gamers being stuck with a perception of how things should work, and not seeing that it can work another way. That's the fault of the devs and their marketing. Currently, it's easy to buy a game, try it for three days and return it to the store for an exchange because you don't like it.
Not so for PC gamers on the whole; have you ever tried to get a refund from Steam?
I'm not talking "right or wrong" here, I'm simply saying there isn't any, and that "different" doesn't equate to unworkable or flawed.[/i]
Steam sales and Humble bundles have ensured that I've bought games I didn't end up liking. Likewise, console game sales on sites like zavvi have done the same (£9.99 for a game that was £40 the week before). Actually, I very rarely pay retail price for a console game.
But then I've had my fair share of surprises, too. Surely that's the flip-side of it all? Games like the incredible Journey on PS3, Mirrors Edge etc. New IPs from teams with little in their back catalogue to suggest the content of their most recent game.
chasfh wrote:
I don't think I've downloaded a demo for a game in, what, five years?
I also haven't managed to buy a game I didn't like in that time, so I'm either the luckiest person in the universe, the best judge of a game in the world, the least choosiest gamer in the history of gaming...
...or it's really not that difficult. Read reviews, look at screenshots and promo videos, trust devs that you've bought games by before. There are a million reasons why I might choose a particular game, none of which are because I've played a demo.
Here is one example of what I am referring to 2010's Medal Of Honor (half baked Xbox 360 version, which at the time would have set you back somewhere in the region of £40).
***The perception***
Generally glowing reviews
Looked great from screenshots
It was a genre that I generally really like and I had enjoyed previous games in the series, yep it ticked all of the boxes... looked like a case of EA please take my money.
***The reality***
The game had an unbelievably short campaign, hired it on the Friday evening (day of release) and had completed it by Saturday afternoon. Not only that the campaign ended so abruptly it was as if the developers got fed up trying to make some excuse for a story and just released the game as it was. You opened a door and it said something along the lines of ''and you met up with all your soldier buddies went for a beer and lived happily ever after...''
...oh yeah and the AI was for want of a better description....retarded. If you attacked enemy soldiers from straight ahead all was fine but if you decided to sneak past and stand along side them then you suddenly appeared to become invisible, also your squad mates were damn near useless. Although I admit some parts of the game were fun the the whole thing just seemed unfinished and unworthy of a full price purchase IMHO.
...and then there was the online multiplayer....oh dear... never have I played such a mess of a game in my life. Hit detection was atrocious, it lagged like you wouldn't believe and led to nothing more than a totally frustrating and joyless experience.
Luckily I had rented this hugely disappointing mess of a game and not parted with my hard earned cash which I did use to buy something which didn't suck quite so much.
If this had been an Xbox One title I could not have rented it and would have parted with £40 odd to buy something which I could only have re-sold at some Microsoft approved centre for a price I seriously doubt I would have been happy with for a game I was totally done with after less than a day.....no thanks.
I don't think I've downloaded a demo for a game in, what, five years?
I also haven't managed to buy a game I didn't like in that time, so I'm either the luckiest person in the universe, the best judge of a game in the world, the least choosiest gamer in the history of gaming...
...or it's really not that difficult. Read reviews, look at screenshots and promo videos, trust devs that you've bought games by before. There are a million reasons why I might choose a particular game, none of which are because I've played a demo.
Here is one example of what I am referring to 2010's Medal Of Honor (half baked Xbox 360 version, which at the time would have set you back somewhere in the region of £40).
***The perception***
Generally glowing reviews
Looked great from screenshots
It was a genre that I generally really like and I had enjoyed previous games in the series, yep it ticked all of the boxes... looked like a case of EA please take my money.
***The reality***
The game had an unbelievably short campaign, hired it on the Friday evening (day of release) and had completed it by Saturday afternoon. Not only that the campaign ended so abruptly it was as if the developers got fed up trying to make some excuse for a story and just released the game as it was. You opened a door and it said something along the lines of ''and you met up with all your soldier buddies went for a beer and lived happily ever after...''
...oh yeah and the AI was for want of a better description....retarded. If you attacked enemy soldiers from straight ahead all was fine but if you decided to sneak past and stand along side them then you suddenly appeared to become invisible, also your squad mates were damn near useless. Although I admit some parts of the game were fun the the whole thing just seemed unfinished and unworthy of a full price purchase IMHO.
...and then there was the online multiplayer....oh dear... never have I played such a mess of a game in my life. Hit detection was atrocious, it lagged like you wouldn't believe and led to nothing more than a totally frustrating and joyless experience.
Luckily I had rented this hugely disappointing mess of a game and not parted with my hard earned cash which I did use to buy something which didn't suck quite so much.
If this had been an Xbox One title I could not have rented it and would have parted with £40 odd to buy something which I could only have re-sold at some Microsoft approved centre for a price I seriously doubt I would have been happy with for a game I was totally done with after less than a day.....no thanks.
chasfh wrote:
I know it's only an estimate, but, really? £90 a game? £600 for the console? Is that in Monopoly money or real currency?
Placeholder price obviously. Amazon have a policy of giving you the cheapest price if you pre-order, so if they put the machine at £300 and it actually cost £450, Amazon wouldn't be able to charge more than £300.
chasfh wrote:
The whole DRM thing really doesn't matter. Blown out of all proportion and totally irrelevant on any level(I know I'll get ripped for saying this, but hey, gotta be said..)
PC gamers, as DL said, have NEVER had a resale market of any use. Doesn't stop us buying games, doesn't make them any less enjoyable, doesn't make them any less accessible. It just doesn't matter. Not to games devs, not to console manufacturers, not to anyone.
It's far from irrelevant, some of us only buy 2nd hand games. It's also worth pointing out that PC games are usually about 25% cheaper than console games so it's not as painful for you not being able to trade in.
chasfh wrote:
If you try to kid anyone that you won't buy games any more because of it, or that the games market will go under because you are buying three less a year, then the only person you are fooling is yourself.
I'm waiting to see what happens but I've a pretty simple policy on buying games. I don't pay more than £30 for new and I don't pay more than £20 for 2nd hand. If I can't maintain that, I'll simply opt out because financially I can't do it.
Just as an aside, even if I wanted the new Microsoft machine it'd be useless to me. Landlord doesn't want a phoneline installed, which means no internet and no way to log-in with it.
Incase that hasn't already been mentioned here, you can't use the machine unless you sign in once every 24 hours. It'd be the worlds most expensive brick.
EDIT
What Pete said. Another policy of mine is I don't ever buy something that I could realistically finish in a week. In that respect Lovefilm is fantastically useful and has saved me a fortune.
I know it's only an estimate, but, really? £90 a game? £600 for the console? Is that in Monopoly money or real currency?
Placeholder price obviously. Amazon have a policy of giving you the cheapest price if you pre-order, so if they put the machine at £300 and it actually cost £450, Amazon wouldn't be able to charge more than £300.
chasfh wrote:
The whole DRM thing really doesn't matter. Blown out of all proportion and totally irrelevant on any level(I know I'll get ripped for saying this, but hey, gotta be said..)
PC gamers, as DL said, have NEVER had a resale market of any use. Doesn't stop us buying games, doesn't make them any less enjoyable, doesn't make them any less accessible. It just doesn't matter. Not to games devs, not to console manufacturers, not to anyone.
It's far from irrelevant, some of us only buy 2nd hand games. It's also worth pointing out that PC games are usually about 25% cheaper than console games so it's not as painful for you not being able to trade in.
chasfh wrote:
If you try to kid anyone that you won't buy games any more because of it, or that the games market will go under because you are buying three less a year, then the only person you are fooling is yourself.
I'm waiting to see what happens but I've a pretty simple policy on buying games. I don't pay more than £30 for new and I don't pay more than £20 for 2nd hand. If I can't maintain that, I'll simply opt out because financially I can't do it.
Just as an aside, even if I wanted the new Microsoft machine it'd be useless to me. Landlord doesn't want a phoneline installed, which means no internet and no way to log-in with it.
Incase that hasn't already been mentioned here, you can't use the machine unless you sign in once every 24 hours. It'd be the worlds most expensive brick.
EDIT
What Pete said. Another policy of mine is I don't ever buy something that I could realistically finish in a week. In that respect Lovefilm is fantastically useful and has saved me a fortune.
Sorry that you felt like that about MoH pete ... but I think that must have been the 'console' version as the PC version was a vastly different experience to that!
Only once in the SP did an AI 'do something strange', yet the SP was extremely linear and by its completion had become quite boring!
However, the 'jewel in the crown' was the outstanding MP ... totally enjoyable and sustaining, good maps and positive contacts, no problems with MoH MP at all on the PC.
Your MP screenshot actually looks terrible ... pity anyone having to play a MP game with that display!
Footnote: MoHWarfighter is the pits ... such a disappointment
Only once in the SP did an AI 'do something strange', yet the SP was extremely linear and by its completion had become quite boring!
However, the 'jewel in the crown' was the outstanding MP ... totally enjoyable and sustaining, good maps and positive contacts, no problems with MoH MP at all on the PC.
Your MP screenshot actually looks terrible ... pity anyone having to play a MP game with that display!
Footnote: MoHWarfighter is the pits ... such a disappointment
I remember you saying the PC version of Medal Of Honor was very good DL, can't comment on other versions but the 360 version was the pits. It was the multiplayer that was particularly bad, bordering on unplayable IMO. Perhaps some of the issues I mentioned were addressed with post release updates? (I played the game day of release).
Allowing people to rent games, buy used, try demos is giving them the opportunity to consider a title that they may not normally have gone for. I bought some of the most fun games made for the current gen machines (Left 4 Dead, Blur & Bulletstorm) but only after trying them out first, would I have bought any of them blind for £40?....not a chance I'm afraid.
What about DLC?, surely developers need as many people as possible to play their product if they are to have any chance of selling them that? I have bought DLC for many games I have picked up second hand as well as titles that I definitely would not have bought had I not tried them first.
I'm not screaming that Microsoft's new trading platform is unjust or unfair but I do believe that are about to make a fatal mistake and that is to alienate a considerable percentage of their market (by creating a machine that seems to focus on crap most current Xbox users couldn't care less about and introducing a trading platform which I suspect is going to make many current users look elsewhere in the future), please remember these current Xbox users are the very same Xbox users who have made that platform so successful, if a significant percentage of those are currently not planning to buy the new machine then who is?
Allowing people to rent games, buy used, try demos is giving them the opportunity to consider a title that they may not normally have gone for. I bought some of the most fun games made for the current gen machines (Left 4 Dead, Blur & Bulletstorm) but only after trying them out first, would I have bought any of them blind for £40?....not a chance I'm afraid.
What about DLC?, surely developers need as many people as possible to play their product if they are to have any chance of selling them that? I have bought DLC for many games I have picked up second hand as well as titles that I definitely would not have bought had I not tried them first.
I'm not screaming that Microsoft's new trading platform is unjust or unfair but I do believe that are about to make a fatal mistake and that is to alienate a considerable percentage of their market (by creating a machine that seems to focus on crap most current Xbox users couldn't care less about and introducing a trading platform which I suspect is going to make many current users look elsewhere in the future), please remember these current Xbox users are the very same Xbox users who have made that platform so successful, if a significant percentage of those are currently not planning to buy the new machine then who is?
XBox One to launch at £430. Your move, Sony
The PS4 then? It's square, it's black, it's shiny, it looks like the PS2. I'm not a fan.
Hahaha
"We believe in the current gaming model and won't be blocking sales. The PS4 also won't require logging in"
* Massive cheer goes up from the audience *
£350 launch price
Sony just destroyed Microsoft
Hahaha
"We believe in the current gaming model and won't be blocking sales. The PS4 also won't require logging in"
* Massive cheer goes up from the audience *
£350 launch price
Sony just destroyed Microsoft
Nin wrote:
The PS4 then? It's square, it's black, it's shiny, it looks like the PS2. I'm not a fan.
Hahaha
"We believe in the current gaming model and won't be blocking sales. The PS4 also won't require logging in"
* Massive cheer goes up from the audience *
£350 launch price
Sony just destroyed Microsoft
How have the mighty Microsoft apparently got it so very wrong? The PS4 looks like it's just a more powerful version of what's already available, which I suspect is all that most customers want. No forced use of motion controller, no restriction on used games (so I assume rentals will still be allowed?) and no forced daily internet connection. Don't know if online play will still be free on it? The £80 price difference is neither here nor there IMO but the combination of factors mentioned above are surely going to tempt many long standing Xbox users to jump ship.
The PS4 then? It's square, it's black, it's shiny, it looks like the PS2. I'm not a fan.
Hahaha
"We believe in the current gaming model and won't be blocking sales. The PS4 also won't require logging in"
* Massive cheer goes up from the audience *
£350 launch price
Sony just destroyed Microsoft
How have the mighty Microsoft apparently got it so very wrong? The PS4 looks like it's just a more powerful version of what's already available, which I suspect is all that most customers want. No forced use of motion controller, no restriction on used games (so I assume rentals will still be allowed?) and no forced daily internet connection. Don't know if online play will still be free on it? The £80 price difference is neither here nor there IMO but the combination of factors mentioned above are surely going to tempt many long standing Xbox users to jump ship.
Online play will be through the Playstation Plus subscription (they have to pay for the far improved servers somehow).
But then you'd be a fool to own a PS3 or PS4 and not have Playstation Plus these days. The Instant Game Collection will continue with PS4 giving you Drive Club, a brand new PS4 game, as the first title in the subscription on that console and will continue for PS3 and Vita for the same price.
You also get to stream PS4 games to Vita and PS3 games through Gaikai to Vita and PS4.
Looks like I'm forgoing the purchase of an Xbox One until the price goes down and just getting PS4 at launch to compliment my Wii U and PC.
But then you'd be a fool to own a PS3 or PS4 and not have Playstation Plus these days. The Instant Game Collection will continue with PS4 giving you Drive Club, a brand new PS4 game, as the first title in the subscription on that console and will continue for PS3 and Vita for the same price.
You also get to stream PS4 games to Vita and PS3 games through Gaikai to Vita and PS4.
Looks like I'm forgoing the purchase of an Xbox One until the price goes down and just getting PS4 at launch to compliment my Wii U and PC.
I honestly don't mind paying a subscription for online play, prefer to pay a bit and have something that works TBH. I was under the impression that online play was free on the Playstation or was that a while back?
Page: