4 Features The Playstation 4 Absolutely Must Have

JP Mangalindan: ''This week, Sony will likely take the wraps off its new game console. Here's what it must be able to do in order to have a chance of succeeding.''

[mandf]

Crap article! To the author

1 Streaming is not possible for most of the world

2 Motion controls suck for hardcore games and is a cash grab

3 If we wanted to play vita we would but we play a console to play on tv

3 It's not even out and you ask for a price drop. Do you still live with your mom? Grow up

The PS4 could survive with none of the things you mention.

[B1663r]

1. Of the parts of the world that play video games, streaming is absolutely a possibility. There are a few smaller markets where it may not be pervasive, but for most of North America, Europe, East Asia, and Australia, streaming is absolutely a possibility.

2. The evidence all suggests that the Kinect 2.0 will be integrated right into the xbox 720 controller, giving xbox players a Leapmotion esque touch screen control of their living room TV. I predict that Halo Wars 2.0 to be a launch day title for the XBox 720. It is high time that Sony start pushing Microsoft in the motion control department.

3. If no the Vita, then they should copy Microsoft, and let people use their phone or tablet. IE10 on the Xbox 360 using a phone as the mouse and keyboard input is simply the best internet browsing experience on a console right now. That is closely followed by the WiiU. Sony has to do something here.

4. If Sony were willing to abandon the slow blu-ray and hard disk technology, and switch to distributing games on USB 3.0 flash drives, and a 64gig SSD cache inside, they could lop almost $200 off the price of the console. I expect the PS4 to double down on the obsolete (if not now, then for certain 5 years from now) rotational media. Then we would be looking at a $400 dollar console, instead of whatever it is we are looking at...

[mandf]

Good points but none of those will break a console from being successful. It's all about the games which Sony has in spades.

As to you comment 4 I would rather pay for all that stuff in the beginning than pay for it in the cost of a game later. Gamers are getting bigger not smaller. Flash drives are to expensive right now compared to a few cents it costs for a disc.

[Canary]

I hadn't even considered SSDs in the next generation.

Now that you mention it, it seems like SSDs would be a must-have. Especially now that we're all about digital content.

EDIT: But I'm pretty sure an SSD would dramatically -increase- the price, not decrease it. Even a small 64GB SSD is considerably more expensive than the 160GB HDDs the current PS3 models use.

[jmc8888]

So one feature it must have is the ability to explode and kill its customers?

Sorry, Gaikai is not 'must have'. Digital distribution is not streaming. Learn the difference between the two. One is the future, the other destroys your experience.

Who wants to pay more for bandwidth?
Who wants the lag?
Who wants to pay money to Sony instead of the developers?

Now for old games it isn't SO bad, but it is still wholly stupid.

Why stream the same game over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, when you can let people download it? Sorry you're charging customers more for it than the $20 to put a cell chip in. Also you could eat that cost. Or charge more. Either way it's far superior and cheaper than streaming.

If they go for a service for new games (now or PS5), then how do devs get paid? Hint THEY DON"T. Not like they should, or what they really deserve.

No matter how you break it down, if you own the game, streaming makes no sense (again streaming isn't the Steam model)...if you DON'T own the game and have a monthly service, then you don't own the games, and the dev gets an arbitrary amount of money.

Who decides which games get on? Who decides when they go off? Who decides how much each game gets? Does Aliens Colonial Marines bring in the same as Final Fantasy? Is that fair? (or not just who, but WHAT incorrect wall street formula)

Oh I see so you'll make up some bs metric that is supposedly more fair....like time played. Well in that case games that were great but you only played once because it was single player...those devs get $10-15 instead of $60, but games like Call of Duty gets $200.

So expect devs to go under and those that stay alive change their focus of making games. So fewer game choices. If the only way to make money is make an online FPS, well then, guess what will be made. (hey I love FPS, I just like a wide variety of games and believe it's good for it, even genres I don't like, others do)

So certain genres will do better then others.

So devs will do anything to make sure their game is 'played' longer. In your future I see mountains of text that can't be skipped.

Imagine the bandwidth costs. Instead of downloading the game once, every time you throw something into ram, it has to first be downloaded. Bandwidth AND lag. With games that will approach 50 GB or more during the generation. PC already gets 30+ GB's. So get ready to go from 40-60 to 100-150 a month to play.

Just wait until you're about to finish a game and Sony pulls the game from the market.

Or the gave saves aren't there.

Think about it, as time goes on how can a service that costs 20 a month pay royalties to 1000+ games. Also who determines how fast it goes down. Some games don't sell well after the first month, some games continue to sell for years. The thing is, you really don't know unless it happens. So you may give some devs breaks you don't give others. Or you short others when really it would have sold better.

You have to keep paying or else you're screwed. Streaming games means, no service, no play. You never own anything.

Sony/MS can choose to alter the cut. Every price raise in the service could be solely into their pockets. Devs become subservient to Sony/MS (wholly), and the customers screwed again.

[jmc8888]

Either way there is no market determining who gets paid and who shouldn't. You the gamer lose your voice. If you don't want to support Activision or EA, well tough. Or some other company in the future, or like maybe Ubisoft and PC gamers, many started supporting them again. Showing the devs that doing the right thing is supported and the wrong thing avoided. Well you lose that power. Congrats.

You give it to Sony/Gaikai and MS, and they take an ever larger cut of money away from the devs and set it up so they are the ultimate overlord.

So Gaikai and game streaming is a must have. Gotta have it like GhonaHerpeSyphilAids.

Sorry you can hand more money over and lose much of what you take for granted in gaming, but I can still tell when I'm being led down the primrose path to my own gaming doom.

Oh and there's plenty more problems too. The above two posts are just the tip of the iceberg.

Plus no one asks the real questions. Why is this necessary? What does the customer gain? The answers are.... It's not. Nothing.

[supraking951]

lol author complaining that PS4 shouldnt be over $200. Stick to what ever console your playing buddy and wait for PS4/720 to hit the retirement home, then you have your next gen system.

[lovegames718]

Things that are just additions and not necessary are not hindering anyone's game play. So what the majority of the world wont be able to stream games? that's why more options are better. I want a video game streaming service thats why i pay for verizon fios 120 mbps and my dl speeds are great. Millions in New york and elsewhere have the option of having high speed fiber optic and millions actually do. Dont make me pay because others cant get those features. As long as their is also physical copies of games all should be fine.