Playstation 4

I have only ever had one console per generation cycle. It's tough to say, at this stage, whether I'll put money down on the PS4, the 720, the Wii U or a potential Steam Console.

I do prefer Sony to Microsoft in this generation, due to the better exclusives and the subscription free online service. I was seriously considering the 360 before I purchased the PS3. The 360 was the more affordable console off the shelf, but a moments thought on an Xbox LIVE Gold subscription for five to six years saw Sony secure my purchase. I may have paid more up front for Sony's PS3, but in the long run it was the better deal considering an Xbox LIVE Gold subscription would have saw Microsoft bleed me of a further £200 to £250! That is estimating £40 to £50 a year, over five years. The 60GB 360 was £179.99. Which is £379.99 with a 5 year (at £40 per year) LIVE Gold subscription. The 120GB 360 was £229.99. Which is £429.99 with a 5 year (at £40 a year) LIVE Gold subscription. The 80GB PS3 was £299.99. The latter was Sony's price, all in. It was a huge difference for me at the time, and even now.

The next generation as a whole may well require a subscription as standard. So it may well be a more even playing field come decision time.

Chaotic Clown wrote:

The 80GB PS3 was £299.99. The latter was Sony's price, all in.

I think getting PS+ is a must now for PS3/Vita owners, just because of the free games. XBL does seem a bit of a rip off in comparison because we get nothing free - unless its an apology for Live going down for a stretch of time (think its happened once or twice).

I own an Xbox 360 and a PS Vita, I have been an XBL subscriber since March 2005 (back in the good old days of Halo 2) and other than being able to play all my games online and have access to chat and party chat features, I can't say I've gained anything over users of the free PSN.
I have been a PS+ subscriber for about a week and have downloaded 5 games for free (Mortal Kombat, Uncharted GA, Big Sky Infinity, Gravity Rush and Knytt Underground) . I think that speaks volumes myself and writing this post has made me realise just how different in value they are.

Xbox gives away a game here and there, but nothing near the value of PS Plus. I have not had a reason to sign-up, but it is a better deal than XBL Gold. What I really like about it is that I get online Multiplayer for free.

heavyfeul wrote:

Xbox gives away a game here and there, but nothing near the value of PS Plus. I have not had a reason to sign-up, but it is a better deal than XBL Gold. What I really like about it is that I get online Multiplayer for free.

TBH multiplayer should be free. Most games on Xbox do not have dedicated servers, ones that do like Battlefield 3, you can rent a server yourself anyway and pay to change settings etc. And the rest are hosted by players. I know we're paying for XBL services like parties and easy game invites/setup and we're paying for their quality control, but it's the same for Sony, and they don't charge. I hope MS start bringing something new to the table because I'm considering not renewing XBL Gold this year and I'm not set on which next gen console I'll be getting.

Our family use our PS3 to death for everything. Music, TV, Netflix, games, amazon prime, streaming things from our little server. So yeah, will more than likely look at a PS4 before a XBox. Even plunked down money for the Plus membership for a year last week which is something I've never done before.

I don't see how I can make up my mind on the next gen until they're actually shipping hardware, and we have an idea of the relative power and price levels. I'm also strongly suspicious that they're going to tighten down the screws even more, and make gaming even more expensive, through various crappy machinations, so I'm definitely reserving judgement. There's a good chance that I won't touch any of them until late in the lifecycle, when the prices will be low enough that the relatively lousy deals won't bother me anymore.

CPUs in last-gen consoles are pretty strange. They're clocked very fast, and have a crapload of muscle for doing matrix operations (which is heavily used for graphic effects), but are quite slow in most other areas. In this new generation, they should be able to put more general-purpose chips in there, making them much more like a PC. But the top end has barely moved in six years; we were at about 3Ghz then, and six years later, we're at about 3.5Ghz. So the implication is that the graphics processing on the CPUs will barely change, but the chips will be better at running general-purpose, branchy code. This should make more interesting games. And GPUs are a lot more powerful, so I suspect both consoles will do true 1080p with little to no slowdown. They could even do stereo 1080p, for true 3D games, if they're willing to bulk up enough on their video cards, but that will make the units a lot more expensive.

But I don't think the PC is going to really have much trouble keeping up, and indie stuff is getting so good that I'm not sure I'll even miss having a console, if I opt out.

I think a lot of the reason that PC gaming was declared dead was because of World of Warcraft; that sucked away so, so many eyeballs, and ate so much time, that it all but crashed the remaining market for PC games. I suspect that won't happen this time, and we'll still see good solid sales; maybe not as high as consoles, but good enough to develop for.

The thought also occurs that unless the new consoles sell like crazy, it may be smarter to develop for the PC first, and then do ports, at least for the first year or so.

I skipped Xbox on this generation, and have been very happy with my PS3 so by default ill be looking at the PS4 as my next console. But tbh, whichever console has the biggest audience, free multiplayer/online, best/most downloadable titles and media services that function in Australia will be what drives my purchase.

I'm curious how they will manage PSN and PS+ at the start of the next console. Will the system be backwards compatible? If not, what kinds of free games will they be able to offer at the start of its lifespan? PS+ has proven to be a fantastic value (so long as you don't mind not knowing exactly what you'll be getting from it) and I hope they can keep it up going forward.

Sony's first party games are very much my cup of tea, so between than and PS+ the PS3 was my main console this past generation. I've been doing a lot more PC gaming recently but I'll certainly be keeping an eye on the PS4.

Ever since Portal 2 showed off Steam integration on the PS3, my dream is that one day Sony will announce Steam as the backing platform for PSN. I know it will never happen but it would be so sweet to have your PSN and Steam friends list be the same and use Steam for PS3 purchases.

Dreaded Gazebo wrote:

Ever since Portal 2 showed off Steam integration on the PS3, my dream is that one day Sony will announce Steam as the backing platform for PSN. I know it will never happen but it would be so sweet to have your PSN and Steam friends list be the same and use Steam for PS3 purchases.

I feel like I must have missed some key quote from an interview with gaben in the past couple of years. There's a glut of wishful thinking (and many bold predictions) surrounding Valve + PS4 and I don't understand it at all. Besides the Steam integration built into the PS3 version of Portal 2 what evidence do we have of further cooperation between Sony and Valve? What would Sony have contributed to that Steam integration besides not being staunchly against it, as Microsoft probably was?

I think the main thing about the steam/Portal2/PS3 integration was that Sony was more open to developers doing their own thing than MS were, not that 'playstation is getting steam in it's full glory'.

As a latecomer to the PS3 I'm very interested in how they will support that once the PS4 launches.

They were still making PS2's till this year in Japan, so hopefully they won't just ditch the PS3 straight away, and they'll be a few game still coming out for the PS3 even after the PS4 launch.

dissposablehero wrote:

They were still making PS2's till this year in Japan, so hopefully they won't just ditch the PS3 straight away, and they'll be a few game still coming out for the PS3 even after the PS4 launch.

+1

I was a later adopter of the PS3 (couple years in) because I want the games. New and shiny hardware is fine but without games, I'll continue playing the PS3 and working on the pile. Too much good stuff on PSN lately.

The games will be draw for me too. Halo, Call of Duty, and Gears of War drew me to the Xbox, but those franchises no longer interest me, so I have no allegiances to the platform anymore.

I love my PS3...my Wii has gathered dust since I got it. I never got an Xbox because their exclusives aren't what I'm looking for (I like RPGs more than FPS).

My position on the PS4 is like the WiiU... I will get one if the library necessitates it. However, unlike the WiiU, I think Sony will have games I will want day one. I didn't get a Vita at the start because I thought I could wait for a price drop, but after a month I couldn't help it and gave in. I'm glad I did b/c it is such a great handheld system. I just hope the PS4 will have enough upgrades/improvements over the PS3 to make it worth the purchase.

My PS3 was a blu-ray player all this generation and I've had one since the first month or so of it being released. I'm just now getting to replacing the busted hard drive that went bad this last summer.

Playstation plus is something that gets me really interested in what they have next, and the main reason I'm fixing the ps3. I really hope they change the controller as I've never been a fan of it.

Jamull99 wrote:

I just hope the PS4 will have enough upgrades/improvements over the PS3 to make it worth the purchase.

I think that besides "having the latest thing" that's going to be an issue for some people, as being "HD consoles" is less of a thing as "Well, we're doing HD properly now". In other words as heavyfeul said, the games (and services) are going to be damn important. What can you do on the new consoles that you couldn't on the old - have they got more than shinier graphics?

I have a 360 and had a PS3. I used the PS3 for watching a blue ray disk or two but then sold it. I consider it one of the worst purchases I've made in recent years. I am not sure I could give up my XBL Gold membership....

Yea, I'm in the camp of "Whatever, New Consoles are fine...but show me the Games!"

I'm thinking of just holding off on New Consoles unless some super awesome games come out and I have to play it on that system. Otherwise, I'm thinking of trying to just update my PC and stay with Steam.

But, I say this now...until New Gadget Lust kicks in when they announce specs and maybe a cool new feature or two.

Scratched wrote:
Jamull99 wrote:

I just hope the PS4 will have enough upgrades/improvements over the PS3 to make it worth the purchase.

I think that besides "having the latest thing" that's going to be an issue for some people, as being "HD consoles" is less of a thing as "Well, we're doing HD properly now". In other words as heavyfeul said, the games (and services) are going to be damn important. What can you do on the new consoles that you couldn't on the old - have they got more than shinier graphics?

One of the things that is really annoying to hear from some IGN employees is "graphics now are about as good as they can get." I'm not sure they really understand dynamic lighting, shadows, or textures. When looking at, say, Dragon Age 2 on ps3/xbox compared to my PC version with the improved textures mod, these current consoles have a LONG way to go in terms of graphics. Anti-aliasing is something current consoles lack in, but when you are sitting so far away from the TV you don't notice it as much compared to when you are in front of your PC monitor. Still, consoles could have more AA and it would help.

Another thing that a more powerful system could improve on is AI. More processing power will allow for more complex AI, which can make games better.

What I'm hoping for is that besides these there will be new features that we the consumer haven't thought of yet.

Well, my launch PS3 just crapped out. I could really do with a PS4 announcement, like today..

Jamull99 wrote:
Scratched wrote:
Jamull99 wrote:

I just hope the PS4 will have enough upgrades/improvements over the PS3 to make it worth the purchase.

I think that besides "having the latest thing" that's going to be an issue for some people, as being "HD consoles" is less of a thing as "Well, we're doing HD properly now". In other words as heavyfeul said, the games (and services) are going to be damn important. What can you do on the new consoles that you couldn't on the old - have they got more than shinier graphics?

One of the things that is really annoying to hear from some IGN employees is "graphics now are about as good as they can get." I'm not sure they really understand dynamic lighting, shadows, or textures. When looking at, say, Dragon Age 2 on ps3/xbox compared to my PC version with the improved textures mod, these current consoles have a LONG way to go in terms of graphics. Anti-aliasing is something current consoles lack in, but when you are sitting so far away from the TV you don't notice it as much compared to when you are in front of your PC monitor. Still, consoles could have more AA and it would help.

Another thing that a more powerful system could improve on is AI. More processing power will allow for more complex AI, which can make games better.

What I'm hoping for is that besides these there will be new features that we the consumer haven't thought of yet.

Technically, sure, there's always more you can do, and there will always be pixel counters to remind you of that.

I think the "better X in games" problem is two-fold though, one side is producing it by either handling hard problems (AI) or throwing resources and good artists at the problem to make use of the graphical capabilities, the other is whether that added investment pays off in most players actually noticing it and if the business end notices a pay-off from doing it (does the game sell better).

Something else I just thought of that could be an interesting angle for PS4 -You know how this generation MAG touted 128 player battles but it was (so I've heard) a bunch of carefully arranged small skirmishes in a larger map that sum to 128, or battlefield games that struggled to get close to the playercount that BF42 had on PC a decade ago?

What if PS4 had Planetside2? Isn't that 6k people per continent, and free to play to boot. That would be a hard act to follow, and I believe Everquest Next is following a similar path.

Having only owned a Gamecube the generation before I knew two things going in last time around;

1. I wanted to move over to the Sony/MS side of things and get 'equal' conversions.
2. I really couldn't go back to using a PS controller.

The choice was easy then but now it's getting to the point where the grass on Sony's side of the fence is now a lot greener except for the controller and I'm going to have to reevaluate when they're released. Can they stick with the Dualshock again?

Am I the only person who prefers the Dualshock to the Xbox controller?

I read on IGN (I would link to it, but it's disappeared off the main page and the search on that site is terrible) that Sony and Microsoft may be planning to announce the consoles at their own events before E3, if they do that'll make E3 the most exciting one in years - 'cause that's where all the games will be announced.

I hope they just get it out there, just like many people have pointed out in this thread, and all over the internet for the past 7 years, "it's all about the games". And if they announce it early and get the specs out so that it's not the main talking point of E3 then the games will be all that's left to talk about.

troubleshot wrote:

Am I the only person who prefers the Dualshock to the Xbox controller?

I actually did own a PS3 at one point too but got rid of it a few months later. I was done with Wipeout and Uncharted 2 (the reasons I bought the thing) and found myself getting every multiplatform title for the 360 instead because of the controller so it was just sitting there because iirc it was a dry patch for exclusives after that.

I don't think the Dualshock is a bad controller per se, it's just that I've been using great controllers since the PS1 days. I loved using my GC controller for 5 years, and I've loved using my 360 controller for (7?) years. At this point going back to a controller that's a little bit uncomfortable and unintuitive and that I don't love seems a step backwards, even if it is passable.

dissposablehero wrote:

I read on IGN (I would link to it, but it's disappeared off the main page and the search on that site is terrible) that Sony and Microsoft may be planning to announce the consoles at their own events before E3, if they do that'll make E3 the most exciting one in years - 'cause that's where all the games will be announced.

Yeah, I think there's a game of one-up-manship going on. Initially MS put up a countdown clock to E3, then Sony teased they might announce something in May (month before E3) and the latest one a few days ago is GDC in March for both of them.

Crhis wrote:
troubleshot wrote:

Am I the only person who prefers the Dualshock to the Xbox controller?

I actually did own a PS3 at one point too but got rid of it a few months later. I was done with Wipeout and Uncharted 2 (the reasons I bought the thing) and found myself getting every multiplatform title for the 360 instead because of the controller so it was just sitting there because iirc it was a dry patch for exclusives after that.

I don't think the Dualshock is a bad controller per se, it's just that I've been using great controllers since the PS1 days. I loved using my GC controller for 5 years, and I've loved using my 360 controller for (7?) years. At this point going back to a controller that's a little bit uncomfortable and unintuitive and that I don't love seems a step backwards, even if it is passable.

I've owned both consoles, and I think the Xbox one is better, more comfortable. Granted it did take a little getting used to but after a few hours it just felt good, and picking up a dual shock after that felt weird. I find it a little uncomfortable and it feels like a fisher price toy, really flimsy in comparison. Also I think the analogue sticks are better on the Xbox pad, more sensitive.

However, like I've said before, it is what your used to.

I'll might get the one that doesn't sound like a jet engine and has some quality construction behind it.

Funny how people forget how sh*ttastic the Xbox 360 was when it launched. I guess I'll only buy MS hardware like I buy MS operating systems. I wait for the first "SP".

Seriously, I don't know if I'll even get a console. It depends on what "a console" will be. Streaming/downloadable content will play an even bigger deal in the coming generation, I find, so the one that covers that bit more robustly, wins?

And PC's are becoming ever more usable, reliable, and serving a much broader gaming palette, save for a few notable exceptions (sport games, some fighting games). I don't know. Long term, a properly built PC keeps sounding like the better investment (if you can only afford one thing).