PlayStation 4

[Lex]

For the record Sony announced at their VR conference yesterday that it'll support a cinematic screen mode for all games playable on the PS4 (which won't require the camera) which gives a good reason to use it outside of motion control VR experiences, because I think we can expect those to be slightly thin on the ground at launch. It makes it the cheapest way to get a cinema-sized OLED experience anyway

 

[X-SOLDIER]

C'mon Sony. We all want cross-platform play to be a thing. Du eet!!




X

 

[Lex]

Well it's an interesting change in stance tbh (from Microsoft's end). People seem to be forgetting that Playstation tried to support cross platform play with XBox before, but Microsoft said no u resulting in FFXIV not being released at all on XBox platforms.

Meaning I'd be surprised if Sony said "no u" to this.

 

[Lex]

PSVR sold out in minutes in UK and Germany (pre-orders).

 

[Lex]

Informative video:

 

[Geostigma]

Well it's an interesting change in stance tbh (from Microsoft's end). People seem to be forgetting that Playstation tried to support cross platform play with XBox before, but Microsoft said no u resulting in FFXIV not being released at all on XBox platforms.

Meaning I'd be surprised if Sony said "no u" to this.

Also worth noting Rocket League and SF5 is both PC/PS4 as well, and Sony was attempting to get cross platform play off the ground since the PS3 with Portal 2 (it's why you needed to log into steam on PS3 to play.)


Additionally kind of tinfoil hat time but hear me out.


Sony has a lot of leverage here in this department. It's why Microsoft framed their response in that way to make it seem as if if Sony declined they would be the bad guys even though they had been trying for years to make this a thing. So why does Sony have lots of leverage here?



They have significantly more confirmed console sales than MS does. Nothing sucks more to load up a game and then find out not that many people are playing it online. In the case of Xbone this will eventually be the case with some older games on the platform.

So how do you fix that problem? Artificially increase the player base via implementing access from other platforms.
Seemingly it will be harder for PS4 to run into this problem just because of the sheer magnitude of people who own the console.

You wont ever hear "Don't buy that game on PS4 theres gonna be a ton more players on Xbox" in regards to the PS4 (unless its exclusive lol). Where as eventually this could be a real problem for Xbone and adding in Cross platform play is actually a really elegant way to remedy this.



Over all I think it's a little bit on the "too little too late" side of things I guess? Especially with the way they worded it "We invite other platforms to join it"

Like what? Sony has been inviting you over since the PS3 guy the only reason your getting in on it is because you almost missed out another huge game (Rocket League) and definitely missed out on others (SF5 , FF14).

 

[Lex]

Those were exactly my thoughts but I was worried someone might get on my case for being anti-MS. Sony has pretty much been trying to support this for years, so the only reason MS are doing a 180 now has to be the (comparatively) bad sales of the XB1. I'm please anyway, it'll be nice not to be limited in online play.

 

[Flintlock]

the only reason MS are doing a 180 now has to be the (comparatively) bad sales of the XB1

It still might not happen. After all, Microsoft have been known to make Xbox 360s before.

 

[Geostigma]

Those were exactly my thoughts but I was worried someone might get on my case for being anti-MS. Sony has pretty much been trying to support this for years, so the only reason MS are doing a 180 now has to be the (comparatively) bad sales of the XB1. I'm please anyway, it'll be nice not to be limited in online play.

It should be noted as well Xbox did attempt Cross platform play with PC before but it was notoriously awful.

It only allowed GFWL first party titles and required that both the Xbox and PC players joining in had an active subscription to XboxLive Gold (which is absurd from a PC standpoint).

Their flagship game for this? Shadowrun. A fucking First Person game where they pitted Keyboard and Mouse pc users versus controllers. It's infamously used as proof as to why FPS cross platform play shouldn't be a thing because even the worst PC users were dumpstering almost every console player who joined in.

I don't know if any other GFWL supported cross platform play after Shadowrun crashed and burned.

Another game Xbox tried with which wasn't on GFWL was Final Fantasy 11 , and this one actually did to my knowledge have full cross platform play between all platforms involved. Though IIRC the xbox servers didn't last long and it was only picked up at an attempt to appeal to the Japanese market at the time.


Ever since then Sony has allowed developers to set up cross platform play where MS has not allowed it on Xbox.

List of PS games that allowed cross platform play off the top of my head is

FF11 (PS fucking 2!)
CS:GO (PS3)
Dust514 (PS3)
Portal 2 (PS3)
Unreal Tournament 3 (PS3 This one also allowed you to add mods via usb!)
FF14 (PS3, PS4)
SF5 (PS4)
Rocket League (PS4)
DC Universe Online (PS4)
Warthunder (PS4)


List of games Xbox allowed to have cross platform.

Shadowrun (360)
FF11 (360)

Also worth noting while its up to the console creator to allow cross platform play that's about all they contribute to the titles that feature it as a feature.
It's not like Sony came down on SE and forced them to have open platforms for FF14...


So I do definitely feel its really sneaky and backhanded the way MS worded that. The only thing Sony and MS can do is give their blessing and then its up to the developer to build their game around an open infrastructure.

And it's super BS to essentially invite the person who's been throwing a party for like 15 years now to their own party. Sony has over a decade worth of precedent here and imo actions speak louder than words.

 

[Lex]

IIRC the way it went with XIV was SE approached all platforms and specifically noted that MS wouldn't allow cross-platform so they wouldn't be releasing it on their consoles. It was kinda big news at the time.

I'm sure there are a few more PC/PS cross platform titles too. It's bizarre to me that comparatively there are very few for XBox considering when we talk about PC gaming we're talking about 99% technically already on a Microsoft platform? Makes no sensicles.

 

[Strangelove]

Informative video:

okay so i'm slightly more tempted here

but because i'm a dumbass, can someone offer an explanation of the cinematic screen mode that's mentioned as point 19? of the video? the thing about the 2.5 metre virtual viewing distance and 200+ inch virtual screen size? is that like, you're looking at a massive screen? what is tech idk

 

[Geostigma]

Informative video:

okay so i'm slightly more tempted here

but because i'm a dumbass, can someone offer an explanation of the cinematic screen mode that's mentioned as point 19? of the video? the thing about the 2.5 metre virtual viewing distance and 200+ inch virtual screen size? is that like, you're looking at a massive screen? what is tech idk

Have you ever looked into Google Cardboard? It's basically that.

https://www.google.com/get/cardboard/

It's a way to turn non-VR things into a psuedo VR experience. It's a tool to make things much more immersive essentially.

Though I could be wrong (and I hope I am) with the PS4 specs I don't think the resolution or clarity will be as great as they claim in the feature list =/ .

 

[Lex]

It's been described as like being at the cinema. It just makes the screen look absolutely massive. I imagine it'd be good for watching movies too

 

[Strangelove]

i was just expecting it to be like a screen in front of your eyes, but the psuedo vr thing sounds cool

i met someone who has an occulus and does video projects with it, i should try to see if i can have a go with it next time he's doing something

 

[Hisako]

Those were exactly my thoughts but I was worried someone might get on my case for being anti-MS. Sony has pretty much been trying to support this for years, so the only reason MS are doing a 180 now has to be the (comparatively) bad sales of the XB1. I'm please anyway, it'll be nice not to be limited in online play.

Or it follows on from the narrative that Microsoft have been pushing for the last couple weeks in that they're trying to unify their platforms by pushing the Xbox into the PC space. I mean, sure the message itself was some passive-aggressive bullshit, but it fits neatly into their company policy which they've been trying to shoehorn in since Windows 8.
Whatever reasons for their suspicious absence of cross-platform play, it probably had to do with weird internal politics or some shit, idk. Or maybe they're too afraid of having their shit pushed in like it did during the GFWL/Vista era

Knowing Sony, I'm sure they'll be the gracious winners as they usually are and just run with it.

ed: close enough I guess

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Somewhat related, I think I might go in for PlayStation Vue, because Comcast needs to die in a fire.




X

 

[Lex]

Those were exactly my thoughts but I was worried someone might get on my case for being anti-MS. Sony has pretty much been trying to support this for years, so the only reason MS are doing a 180 now has to be the (comparatively) bad sales of the XB1. I'm please anyway, it'll be nice not to be limited in online play.

Or it follows on from the narrative that Microsoft have been pushing for the last couple weeks in that they're trying to unify their platforms by pushing the Xbox into the PC space. I mean, sure the message itself was some passive-aggressive bullshit, but it fits neatly into their company policy which they've been trying to shoehorn in since Windows 8.
Whatever reasons for their suspicious absence of cross-platform play, it probably had to do with weird internal politics or some shit, idk. Or maybe they're too afraid of having their shit pushed in like it did during the GFWL/Vista era

Of course it's related to that. But you can't pretend this decision to "unify platforms" isn't code for "our consoles haven't sold enough so we're releasing everything on PC now too". The knock-on effect being "hey Playstation, after years of telling you to go fuck yourself let's allow players to play together since older online titles will be unplayable if we don't piggyback on your userbase too".

Also there's talk of them selling these games on PC exclusively through the Windows store and using the UWP API to block certain applications. They've tried to go in that direction before and nobody will be surprised if they do so again. Epic are going nuts about it. Here's a Jimsplanation:

Somewhat related, I think I might go in for PlayStation Vue, because Comcast needs to die in a fire.

If Vue releases in the UK with the right channels, I might consider it too. Sky is pretty much king here (like a thousand channels, mostly nonsense) but there are a specific few I wouldn't mind having access to.

 

[Geostigma]

Man didnt know Jim did a video on UWP can't wait to load it up.

You know all in all more I think about it the more i definitely think UWP is such a shitshow for PC and I hope much like GFWL it crashes and burns. It is anti PC and anti Consumer.



When I bought Black Ops 3 for the first week or so it was actually not configured to run properly with my PC specs. Treyarch did not fix this for over a week and the game was playing at sub 40fps and would dip into the teens when things got intense. Now my PC isn't a beast anymore these days but it can handle Blops 3 pretty easily at high settings at the very least 60fps stable.


What was the problem? Going off the top of my head so the terms might be wrong several months down the road, but IIRC on launch it was taking up to much virtual memory or some shit. The fix was literally to go into one of the .ini files and scale that back by changing a value.

Instantly went from crap FPS to stable 60 and if i uncapped it it sat under 120 ( my current monitor is only 60 fps capable so no point in going over )


This would NOT be possible in UWP. I'd just have to grin and bear it and deal that I just tossed 60$ at a game that has shit performance because the developer did a trash job porting it.


And this isn't a unique case at all. Almost every Ubisoft game has a notoriously bad PC Port. Arkham Knight anyone? Dark Souls is INFAMOUS for being unplayable on PC on launch and actually required Durant a FAN to release a series of patches to fix From Softwares awful port.

The latest Tales Of game is literally unplayable with out unofficial patches as well.
PC games have a long and storied history of fans creating unofficial patches that either make the game playable , update it for current OS's long after developers abandon them or even simple things like forcing current day resolutions. All of these require actual access to the game.

There's so much just general necessities I guess that would not be possible in the current UWP environment that MS proposes that honestly could change PC gaming for the worse if it takes off. Over all considering their past in the PC gaming market with GFWL and a decades worth of broken promises to make PC gaming great again , it just shows that with the introduction of UWP they still do not understand or care about the PC market in a serious way.


edit:

Ahh I love Jim Sterling so much. Great video ty for sharing Lex.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

(Small update: PlayStation Vue is everything I've always wanted television to be).




X

 

[Geostigma]

That's their a la carte tv service right?

The main reason Cable/Sat never clicked with it is two fold.

A) A lot of them tried in the 90's and customers didn't like it due to reason b,


B) It was really fucking expensive for what you pay for.

This is sort of shifting now because TV providers have been very very greedy with their pricing in the last 10 years, with an average of 5% increase in pricing across the industry per year ( your bill generally increases 5$ every Feburary).

But back then when pricing was much lower and more in line with the economy of the time A La Carte actually wasn't feasible.


The problem simply is that TV providers like Dish or DTV etc. Don't have 100% control over the pricing of the packages they offer. Every few years (2-3) they enter negotiations with Channel Providers (Disney etc.) and essentially they strong arm each other until one folds to the new terms. It's why every few years you see channel messages saying "Hey call your provider and bitch at CSR's who can't do anything cause were pulling the plug in 2 weeks if they don't hand over the cash".


Companies like Disney essentially go to say Dish Network and say we want 1 million more for the next 3 years AND you have to toss in "x channel 10 people nation wide" watch. Also we want ESPN on your lowest tier possible so all subscribers get access to it thus you have to pay us more per customer who has access to it , so add another million to our bill.

It's generally estimated that the 5% increase per year is actually a direct result of Disney and Espn really pushing it. Last time I checked if we were to A la Carte out ESPN as it's own "package" it would cost about 15-20$ per month dependent on market.


Ever notice how higher up on channel packages you start getting shittier and shittier channels? Like that random "Horror" channel no one watches? That's because these companies have to leverage the amount of money they pay for that channel per contract versus the amount of people who actually watch it versus the amount of people who have access to it.

So they put it on the top 250 package so that if that 1 fan who REALLY wants it has to pay for the highest package for it even if its the only thing they want in there.
This is why the really popular channels are ALWAYS on atleast the basic package and scales up. USA , TBS , TNT , Cartoon Network etc. They will always be on the basic package in the scale so that so that every customer gets access to it , thus the TV provider pays more for those channels to the Channel provider.
The higher up on a package the channel is exclusive to the less the TV provider actually paid for and they have to leverage that cost to account for how many people are realistically expected to watch it. Higher packages are generally not very valuable and really only cater to niche crowds.


Now let's say they A la carte that horror channel. If it was in the top 250 package they could dilute the cost and earn it back just because everyone who has that package "pays" for that channel too.

If it becomes it's own package now only the people who really really wanted it are gonna pay for it. IF they kept the price cheap and only 10 people nation wide purchages it then realistically the provider would make a fraction of the money back. So they have to increase its a la carte price to match the amount of money it would "earn" back if it were in an over all package. So instead of being a dollar for the channel its 5$ instead to average out.


So your thinking. Cool 5$ that's not so bad for the channel I really want beats paying 50$ for 200 channels I don't want. Except what if you wanted another 10 channels? Now that's 50$ and you only have 10 channels. What if nothings on on any of those channels? lol It just kinda goes from there.


The packaging "meta" of the TV providers also created a sustainable environment for Niche channels too. If only a handful of people nationwide would buy an a la carte horror channel that channel wouldn't last 6 months. Toss it into a package where the TV provider has to pay the channel provider for their suite of channels and it has a fighting chance.


Over all with the way current TV providers and Channel Providers negotiate it would end up with A La Carte being so much more expensive for significantly less channels. The best example of this in effect in the modern day current infrastructure is actually Porn Channels on TV providers. Now the cost is inflated a little bit due to taxes they have for broadcasting porn on the waves but it doesn't inflate the cost that much. Porn channels generally cost anywhere from 15$ to 25$ a month. For 1 channel.

Right now it's good that a new competitor is trying to enter the market in a different way it gives them Leverage that the likes of DTV and Dish don't have when trying to create relevant and fair pricing.


It also helps that TV providers are extremely greedy as of like. 50% of all bills are essentially unnecessary fees.

Dish alone has a "Receiver fee" that costs per reciever you have in home ranging from 7$ to 18$ per box.

Theirs a DVR fee a flat fee of like 7$ if you have a DVR in home. Theirs the service plans, skewed tax rates , HD fees. The package comes out to like 50$ a month but with fees it easily passes 100$ a month if you have more then 1 tv in your home. It's utter bull shit lol.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Looks like the rumors about the PlayStation 4.5 (or more correctly, the PlayStation 4K) were right after all!!

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...-confirm-that-the-playstation-4-5-is-real.htm




X

 

[Flintlock]

Cool. This is why I always wait until there's a must-have game out on a console before buying one. My best friend always says "just get one, you know good games will come out for it later". They always do, but by that point, there's probably a newer, better hardware iteration available, often at a lower price.

Let's see some specs.

 

[Tetsujin]

Not interested since a) I already have a PS4 and b) not gonna buy a 4K tv anytime soon

 

[Cthulhu]

Plus 4K gaming is barely feasible on PC atm, so if they are building it, it'd cost at least €1000, probably even more. OTOH, maybe it is time for a high-end console like that, esp. if it's not from a new player without existing IPs and publishers and shit.

 

[Flintlock]

Yeah, if it supports 4K at all, I expect it will only be for movies and stuff, not games.