I know there are a few gamers on here and I'm surprised to see no mention of the two consoles. What are the thoughts of those on the board? My thoughts are that MS have screwed-up in just about every possible way; yes, they've upset independent developers and implemented DRM. But the product is so confused I'm not sure who its aimed at. It's a PVR but its not? The TV features won't even work in the UK at launch (or so I'm led to believe).

The one single thing that prevents me from moving from a 360 to Playstation is the controller. I simply can't use the Sony one - MS have that one advantage!

I'm not a gamer either, in fact I've never even owned a console... but I did follow the discussion about Xbox One vs. PS4.

In my opinion, MS have shot themselves in the foot bigtime. The Xbox One console is weaker hardware-wise, is not as flexible (the HD can't be replaced eg.), is region locked, uses a microphone which is connected to the internet but cannot be disabled (!), AND is 100 euro more expensive than the PS4 is.

Yeah, I can see where this one is going...

While my PS3 can still play Blu-Rays I won't be replacing it, not played a game on it since the 2nd week I got it.

Hasn't the market for big time consoles gone ??? Surprised to see 2 big releases like this.

Cheers

Cris

Where would the market move to? Steam etc? Some people still like the ease and lack of complexity of consoles.

Consoles are starting to get more complex than simply installing Steam on an existing computer...

Plus, Steam costs nothing to put on a computer you already have. A new console will cost $400-500.

But with the Steambox would I still have to upgrade it every couple of years and check game specs before buying a game?

I have been following the news of the two consoles closely over the last few weeks, and I've got the following opinions:

- The two consoles have essentially identical technical specifications, and they pretty much will be able to do the same things and have the same capabilities, in terms of gaming and online media. The differentiation will be in the subtleties of their software implementation for their various features, and which game publishers they can court to obtain platform-exclusive titles.

- The two consoles have the same price. The PS4 is touted as being 100 dollars cheaper, but that's without the motion control camera. The price for the PS4 with camera included is not yet known, but As Tycho said, "I'm smart... I can figure it out."

- The whole "download your games instead of buy on disc" model has, of course, been done already for years quite successfuly by Steam and others. But the thing I'm not seeing mentioned in the press is that the PS3 has also had that for years. Unlike the Xbox 360, which only offers downloads for older games, the PS3 currently has day-one triple-A downloadable titles right now. With the PS3, I can choose to download a brand new triple-A title on the release day. So basically, Microsoft is trying to tout a feature as revolutionary when actually it's old hat. No surprise there. Again, both of the new consoles will have this, so there is no differentiation there.

- Total aside here, but if I browse the web with the PS3, I can play Flash-based videos such as Zero Punctuation. The user experience isn't the most friendly when I do it that way, but I can do it. I flatly can't do that at all on the Xbox 360 because its web browser doesn't contain a flash plugin. I don't know if the new consoles will follow that tradition. I know that web browsing isn't necessarily the thing we want to do with our game consoles, but I will make the point that both companies are trying to tout their ability to play online video media, and unfortunately, some of that is only accessible via a web browser. It's a tiny miniscule little thing, but it's an example of the kind of thing I mean when I say that these companies will only be able to differentiate their products via the subtleties of their software implementations.

- So now that we've established that there's precious little difference in the two products, all that's left to talk about is how badly Microsoft botched their messaging at launch time. They backpedaled so hard on the used-game-tax thing that I could hear the screeching tires from across the lake. They made a distasteful rape joke during one of the game demos. They tried to tout "always-on, always connected" as a feature, without understanding that people do not appreciate being watched. Basically, Microsoft botched it so bad that Sony was able to win the marketing spin, hands down, using a single powerpoint slide. So much so, that it prompted Tycho to utter my favorite quote from this whole fiasco, referring to last week's E3 event: "I would avoid the punch at Microsoft's afterparty."

In the end, I don't care. I'm not interested in either of the consoles right now. Neither of them will play my current game libraries: Neither console is backward compatible, a fact which makes me just exasperated enough to make me deliberately avoid them both for right now. I'm out of inputs on my TV, and out of space on my mantle, so if they want me to buy their new console, they have to give me a damn good reason to displace my old one. As with all game consoles, I'll buy their console when there is a compelling game available for that console, that I want to play, and that I cannot play anywhere else. I haven't seen that in their launch day announcements.

I'm pretty much on the same page as Tony I'm waiting to see what games interest me before picking what console enters my home next.

Though, the PS4 does interest me a little more, mostly from the Gaikai perspective. Backwards compatibility, instant playing of new games, and progressive downloading will be interesting to see driven by my former cloud gaming company.

I'm also interested in seeing how they implement this. I've bought and played a few games for my PS3 which, if I ever bought a PS4, I might want to play again on the PS4.

It brings up a lot of questions I don't know the answer to, though... I wonder how exactly they will implement this in terms of DRM? Will I be able to stick in my disc, have it validate the game is mine, and that will unlock a Gaikai playback option? What about my old saved game files, will I be able to seamlessly use those automatically? Will I have to backup the save games to the cloud before I can access them through Gaikai? Will I be required to pay the PS3 "playstation plus" subscription to make that happen, since cloud backups are a playstation-plus-only feature? What about DLC: if I bought the game on disc and then downloaded additional for-pay content, will I be able to access that DLC through Gaikai? What if the game was purchased through the Playstation store on the PS3, will I be able to access that through Gaikai?

Although Microsoft may have botched their messaging on the Xbone, Sony has, as far as I know, not had any messaging at all on their Gaikai integration. Any links you know of which would show us details of how they expect to handle those issues?

I have to say, though, based on my experience with OnLive (similar service to Gaikai), I'm skeptical that streaming is going to be a replacement for proper backward compatibility. Streaming a game is simply a poor substitute for playing it directly. Although the technology is impressive and the games are quite playable that way, there are still problems which degrade the experience slightly: The video is fuzzier, the control inputs are delayed by a noticeable number of milliseconds, and no one else in the household can be using the internet for anything else while you're playing or else you'll get hitches and sputters in your game.

I concede that I have little experience with Gaikai, and it's possible that they may have significantly improved upon the technology, so I'll reserve my judgement until I try it. Hopefully Sony will have improved their network so that it doesn't go down all the time: I know that the state of the current Sony Playstation Network is such that it goes down about once per gaming session for me. I know this because even when I'm playing a single-player disc-based game, I see an onscreen popup telling me when the Playstation Network goes down. Boy, if these companies want us to move to the cloud, they'd sure better improve those clouds.

I suppose, though, that streaming a game through Gaikai might offer a better overall experience than a poorly-implemented emulation mode might offer, so I understand how this can be a positive thing. On the other hand, the Xbox 360's backward compatibility emulation of original Xbox games worked quite well, I'm quite happy with the way Xbox games run on my 360. I'm sure that the only reason Sony and Microsoft aren't doing that this time round, is because the implementation cost for Microsoft's project far exceeded any sales they might have gained from having the feature.

Microsoft announced today that they are not going to copy Valve, and implement a Steam like system as the only game method on the XBox One, like they previously announced.

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update

I still don't understand the initial uproar. The internet community adores Valve for Steam. Microsoft announces a console that could have been mistaken for a Steambox. Internet community grabs their torches and pitchforks. To me, the only misstep was the lack of an offline mode like Steam offers.

(Well, I'm ignoring the whole mandatory kinect aspect, but I don't think much of the uproar was tied to that. Nor the slightly less powerful GPU, less RAM available for games, or slower RAM compared to the PS4.)

I think the initial uproar was because of their stated intention to restrict discs in a way similar to how downloaded games are restricted: Tying a disc to an owner's account, and charging a fee to change it.

That business model was of zero benefit to the consumer, and would have caused legitimate inconveniences and burdens on the consumer, for the sake of helping Microsoft destroy the used-games industry (under the guise of piracy prevention).

The kinds of online/downloadable DRM that Steam pioneered (and that Microsoft was laughingly touting as a "new feature") is already something we all accept, and is nothing new. The thing is, as it stands right now, when we download a game through Steam, through Playstation Store, or through Xbox Store, we know what we're getting into and we accept it for that particular purchase. I don't know about you, but every time I do it, I cringe slightly, knowing that I'll be unable to use that downloaded content if the infrastructure behind it goes away or changes for the worse. (Which WILL happen, it's just a matter of when... Software companies and game publishers are not permanent entities, and are always subject to accidents, service outages, and sabotage.) But I make my purchase as an informed consumer, and I choose to be shackled with its associated DRM, as the tradeoff for the convenience.

But as a consumer, if I buy a physical object, I expect that object to be mine to do with as I please, even if it's a piece of software, regardless of what the EULA might say when I click past it. Microsoft's unwise attempt at a moneygrab there seemed just too invasive, too much, too obviously over-controlling of my purchases and what I do with them. It was just so quintessentially *Microsoft*, a clear example of why we love to hate them so much. In hindsight, the uproar about it was absolutely inevitable. As was their official backpedaling today.

The more I think about it, the more I think that Microsoft originally came up with the Disc-DRM idea because they thought that, since we already accept this kind of DRM in one area, we'd accept it in another. They failed to see the difference: Just because we like taking it in one orifice doesn't mean we'll take it in another. That's really what this all boils down to.

Which is exactly how game discs work for Steam too. If you bought an Orange Box (the real physical box) inside came a disc and key that simply unlocked a license to the game via Steam. Same was true for Darksiders on the PC, and many other non Valve Steam games that have a retail presence. Microsoft went a step further and was working to ensure those licenses from a disc had potential trade in value still.


I don't cringe, I just ensure that whatever system I may be locking myself into has a key. Thus far I have every Apple iTunes purchase unlocked and stored in non DRM form. Steam, I'm trusting Valve's word that they will unlock the DRM should they see the end of their time as a company. They've stated this policy multiple times, and will reiterate it to anyone who contacts their support.


The reason they came up with the disc DRM was the same reason the PC industry did it. To combat the black hole that is used games. Publishers are really frightened by how much money GameStop takes, with none of it circulating back to development costs. Combine that with rising costs to publish games, and the inability to absorb a big loss, and you start seeing these desperate measures. I don't fully agree with them myself, but nor am I surprised. I still see a potential major game industry implosion coming, and in some ways I welcome it. It is however going to be painful for many people in the industry, as I've already seen with my former THQ colleagues.

I had the sense that this was what equally enraged the public. They also backed off the online requirement, which was just stupid to begin with.

I think the reason people are fine with Steam is that Steam makes it so easy, and they don't tie it to a single device. I can install Steam on any of the computers I have, and as long as I only use one at a time I can play my games on any of them. It's as portable as a DRM solution like this has been. It doesn't sound like the XB One will be as friendly...

It seems that Microsoft already felt the heat of the upcoming PS4 and the comments made by users, so now they already altered their policy (a bit).

I think it'll be worse because of the decision to back off.

This guy sums up my thoughts pretty well: https://medium.com/adventures-in-consumer-technology/a849a9d4d530

Well written article, and I agree with most of it. It's a shame the messaging problem blew up to this proportion. I hope it was actual preorder numbers driving this choice, not purely the internet mob.

Perhaps some of these benefits will still remain viable, but on the digital side only. Even in the poking Sony did at Microsoft, there were disclaimers that pretty much show the PS4 will be similar for the digital side. The only big difference was Microsoft trying to make discs an install only medium to grant the digital license, ala Steam. Then adding a resale market to those discs that normally wouldn't exist.

Interesting comment on that story:Had that been more clear, I would have been more comfortable buying into the system, since it's the same thing Steam has in place.

And BP was sure that if there was some future unforseen problem with one of their underwater wells, they'd just cap it.

Statements like that one get my hackles up. It's a large corporate entity saying "trust us, we'll take care of you" when, in general, large corporate entities (and Microsoft in particular) have proven to be the farthest thing from trustworthy. Large corporate entities are a species of their own that feeds entirely on shareholder stake and profit margins, and evolves entirely in response to them. I don't believe for one second that shutting down the copy protection system on the console would be something they'd do even after its life cycle is over. It would still be in their corporate-entity-life-form's best interest to keep the copy protection turned on.

The only thing I really want in PS4 or XBOne is a new design for the controllers. Ergonomically, they are atrocious. XBox does have a better controller, but it still could double as a medieval torture device, just not nearly as effectively as the DualShock design could be.

I wonder if the PS4 controllers have 360-style guards on the triggers now, so that you don't inadvertently press the firing trigger when you set the controller down on the coffee table. (Or inadvertently skip ahead a chapter on the DVD you're watching, GAH.)

The XBox 360 controller, in its original design, fatigues my hands because of the excessively outstretched index finger position, especially when I'm gripping the controller tightly with the other three fingers because I'm tense from combat sections of the games. I solved this problem with some L-brackets and Sugru: I modified the shape of the controller so that now it gives me a resting place for both my index and middle finger on the triggers and shoulder buttons. That, combined with setting the controller on a small pillow on my lap while I use it, has reduced the strain on my hands. Maybe I'll post a pic of my mod.

Strangely, the PS3 controller doesn't do that to me. Possibly because it's smaller and I don't have to spread out my hands so much to grip the thing.

However, the thumb button layout on the controllers is just terrible, always has been since the PS2. And the Xbone and PS4 don't fix that problem. I hate quicktime buttonpress sequences in video games because I have to re-decipher the layout/symbolscheme/buttoncolor of the buttons each time one of those sequences comes up. Wait, is the red button on the left or the blue button on the left? Is it the circle or square or triangle? Oh fuck I'm dead already and I have to replay the fucking scene over again. I would like to find the people who invented that diamond button layout, and the people who invented quicktime buttonpress sequences, and force them to do Milgram style tests on each other where they get shocked increasingly worse each time they miss a button press because of their stupid layout.

What would be a better layout you ask? The Gamecube controller. That was the best video game controller ever invented. I want to just hug the guy who invented that button layout and controller design.

Short form...

While reading your post, I was thinking how much better the Gamecube controller was than anything that has come out since. I guess the WiiU remote controller isn't bad, at least for the control layout. It doesn't feel like I have to do finger yoga to hit some of the buttons.

Fun fact, icculus.org once lived on the same box as this board. Ryan had to change providers though once his traffic began saturating the dedicated T1.

Heh. I'm pretty sure I saw that tweet from your twitter feed, so that makes sense. :-)