PS4 Announced!

[Helios]

I'm not really looking forward to any of these games, but chances are sequels to games I actually want to play (like Uncharted) are going to be on this console, so I'll probably end up getting it for that if anything. That feature Tangerine mentioned is pretty cool IMO as well. It seems like video gaming in general is trying to take a more "social" approach to try and appeal to more money people, which I'm not sure how much I like. We'll have to wait and see to hear more about this PS4 thing.

[Raven]

I'm not sure that what Tangerine's talking about is true. Watching IGN's highlights it only mentions "spectating friends' gameplay sessions in real time as well as integrated chat," and I'm sure a feature such as jumping into and playing your friends' games with them would have been mentioned. http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/02/20/playstation-4-revealed

I for one am definitely eventually getting a Wii U (because SSB4 and the FE crossover game, just to name a few things that appeal to me), but I'll have to see the capabilities and available games of both the PS4 and the next XBox before making a decision on which to get.

If Namco Bandai decide to make the next Ace Combat an XBox exclusive as they did with Ace Combat 6 on the 360, then it will be a no-brainer.

Edit: Lol, found it mentioned on the Machinima preview

. It looks like you can play your friends' games for them, and use it to take turns, as Tangy mentioned. But obviously they'd have to be playing the game and you'd have to be spectating them. Edited February 21, 2013 by Raven

[Knight]

Thankfully I already got the Wii U, which means now I gotta make the choice between PS4 and Xbox. I am at a loss for what next gen console I'm going to get next, the PS4 hasn't interested me yet so far, the only thing it says to me is "hey, we can be Nintendo too."

[NinSinDuo]

You mean like the Ps3 and god forbid I mention the PC from a year ago? So powerful.

This sounds oh so familiar.

No backwards compatability (besides lol stream everything what bandwidth limit?) and (the typical Sony) overhyped trailers and promises? No thanks.

Oh you're quite the catch I'm sorry since when we're we able to make a pc inside of a tiny console really? and the ps3 can play Diablo III so. What's the point if Blizzard sees the consoles strong enough to run these and is now involved with Sony

Why hate and of course PC's are going to be stronger they have more components and a tower to fit them people like a console not oversized.

Oh no so innovative.

^What he said.

Really I think what your lacking to think of here the fact is that when the touch screen is just aiding and not the entire point of the game it is innovative people that have touch screen pads or controllers generally make it the focus this will be to aide.

So honestly I believe it is innovative because it is.

Thankfully I already got the Wii U, which means now I gotta make the choice between PS4 and Xbox. I am at a loss for what next gen console I'm going to get next, the PS4 hasn't interested me yet so far, the only thing it says to me is "hey, we can be Nintendo too."

I just have to say it because honestly Nintendo wasn't the first to get motion controllers. I believe that was Sony with the reveal of the Eye Toy. In the days of the PS2 so if anything when the Wii came out it was like hey we can be a upgrade of Sony.

Also look at it now Sony is taking advantage again of motion controllers with the best tracking on the market with this release so it'll be. "Hey look Nintendo We 1+ you again like Mario you've redone over a 100 times"

Edited February 21, 2013 by Narga_Rocks
don't double or triple post, dude

[Nanami Touko]

You sound like a fanboy.

The reason a controller with a touch screen isn't innovative is because whoops Wii U came out first and heck, touchscreens themselves haven't been innovative since the DS. It's like, yeah, we can touch the screen, woo, we get it.

The eye toy isn't the kind of motion control we're talking about. You don't point the eye toy at the screen and control things with your controller. The eye toy takes pictures of you and registers them on the screen. The wii was the first to introduce conventional motion control.

You're allowed to like the ps4, that's fine. But back up your points before you try to argue them, because

So honestly I believe it is innovative because it is.

doesn't work.

AS FOR THE PS4 we don't have a huge list of games, what the console looks like, or the price. Not impressed, Sony.

Edited February 21, 2013 by seph1212

[PKLucas531]

By the middle of the conference I was hoping Chad Warden would come on-stage while "We Fly High" played, it would've been pretty revolutionary compared to what they showed

[Raven]

All in all the reveal was quite underwhelming.

[Nanami Touko]

By the middle of the conference I was hoping Chad Warden would come on-stage while "We Fly High" played, it would've been pretty revolutionary compared to what they showed

Would be so much better if

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4CjRArym74

and it would've been the best conference in the world.

[NinSinDuo]

You sound like a fanboy.

The reason a controller with a touch screen isn't innovative is because whoops Wii U came out first and heck, touchscreens themselves haven't been innovative since the DS. It's like, yeah, we can touch the screen, woo, we get it.

The eye toy isn't the kind of motion control we're talking about. You don't point the eye toy at the screen and control things with your controller. The eye toy takes pictures of you and registers them on the screen. The wii was the first to introduce conventional motion control.

You're allowed to like the ps4, that's fine. But back up your points before you try to argue them, because

doesn't work.

AS FOR THE PS4 we don't have a huge list of games, what the console looks like, or the price. Not impressed, Sony.

But still technically it was a type of motion controller wii just took a grander scale on that so if anything they saw that were impressed and decide to go off it for a new system or they could've just thought a whole system to motion control.

But under a technicality Sony was the first to offer it. Also the main basis isn't off movement so yet again not trying to copy Nintendo. I do enjoy Sony not sure if I'm a fanboy could say the same about all you defending nintendo to the core sounds kind of fan boyish.

Honestly I'm just saying under technicality they did have motion first. So that's all I'm saying they could've expanded on their own motion less then take the Wii's version of it. xD all the nintendo fan boys in here is quite overwhelming

Also I didn't say the Wii U didn't have it first I'm just saying when they use it it's the main focus of the game or it's to display statistics on it if not. That's my only point about the touch screen..

I'm saying making the main focus not the touch screen is smart.

Edited February 21, 2013 by MRLTTMCLAN

[Klokinator]

It wasn't a controller though. It was a camera. It was a camera. Also the functionality was extremely limited, not fun, and boring in every way. Sony demonstrated how stupid they thought it was when they didn't include anything similar with the PS3 (Until they realized the Wii's motion controls were getting hot sales) and then years later they made the PS3 Move, a blatant ripoff of the Wii.

The correlation between the Eyetoy and the Wii controller is so slight as to be almost nonexistant.

[Nanami Touko]

Why is anyone bothering to try and talk about "INNOVATION" anyway? Just because something is new and creative doesn't mean it's automatically better. Was there anything wrong with the simple design of the original Playstation controller? Nowadays companies have to slap everything they can onto something to make it seem more interesting whether or not it actually improves gameplay or how the controller works.

I miss having just 8 buttons on the SNES :<

oh and before anyone jumps on the SNES thing, I realize that analog sticks and shoulder buttons were a step in the right direction. Touchscreens on the other hand aren't exactly necessary.

Edited February 21, 2013 by seph1212

[NinSinDuo]

Why is anyone bothering to try and talk about "INNOVATION" anyway? Just because something is new and creative doesn't mean it's automatically better. Was there anything wrong with the simple design of the original Playstation controller? Nowadays companies have to slap everything they can onto something to make it seem more interesting whether or not it actually improves gameplay or how the controller works.

I miss having just 8 buttons on the SNES :<

I agree I'd be fine with just the ps2/ps3 controller. Nice new video btw.

[Narga_Rocks]

I miss having just 8 buttons on the SNES :<

I suppose those were good days. But I can't imagine Dark Souls with only 8 buttons. And there are times I wish it had an extra button on top of the 11 buttons, two analog sticks and one dpad that it uses. Jumping on its own button would be awesome because I would jump when I wanted to and wouldn't jump when I didn't want to. I feel limited in Last Story at times with having so many things mapped to one button and I have to be careful not to do the wrong thing.

But a touchscreen doesn't seem useful for the wiiu or the ps4 for the games I tend to play. Too much stuff happening too quickly that you can't switch between the touchscreen and the other controls so the touchscreen probably won't see much use in action rpgs. Now, games like ffx or ff1/2/3 or fire emblem games which give you days to think of your next move could use the touchscreen maybe pretty well, but I don't play those as often.

[Nanami Touko]

Yeah I knew someone would remark on that, so I edited what I said because I do agree that analogs and shoulder buttons were a step in the right direction, simply because they conform well to the hand and are easy to press without having to stretch fingers.

Edited February 21, 2013 by seph1212

[Narga_Rocks]

Yeah I knew someone would remark on that, so I edited what I said because I do agree that analogs and shoulder buttons were a step in the right direction, simply because they conform well to the hand and are easy to press without having to stretch fingers.

Actually, shoulder buttons were on the snes. Not sure if they started it or if there is some obscure system with shoulder buttons that I don't know about. What other controllers did was start the trigger buttons or dual shoulder buttons thing.

[Nanami Touko]

Probably should've also mentioned I meant the L2 and R2 thing, my bad.

[Esau of Isaac]

Oh you're quite the catch I'm sorry since when we're we able to make a pc inside of a tiny console really? and the ps3 can play Diablo III so. What's the point if Blizzard sees the consoles strong enough to run these and is now involved with Sony

Why hate and of course PC's are going to be stronger they have more components and a tower to fit them people like a console not oversized.

So your argument to use technology from 2008 is just...because it's small? And you call this innovative?

Really I think what your lacking to think of here the fact is that when the touch screen is just aiding and not the entire point of the game it is innovative people that have touch screen pads or controllers generally make it the focus this will be to aide.

So honestly I believe it is innovative because it is.

No it isn't. It's a gimmick and has been since it was introduced widely in 2004. It's barely progressed at all in terms of technological innovation and it's been almost nine years.

I just have to say it because honestly Nintendo wasn't the first to get motion controllers. I believe that was Sony with the reveal of the Eye Toy. In the days of the PS2 so if anything when the Wii came out it was like hey we can be a upgrade of Sony.

Also look at it now Sony is taking advantage again of motion controllers with the best tracking on the market with this release so it'll be. "Hey look Nintendo We 1+ you again like Mario you've redone over a 100 times"

Yeah, and the Eye Toy sucked ass and was a quick cash-in on the waggle market that was emerging. And all hail Sony, who "innovates" half a decade after everyone else!

Edited February 21, 2013 by Esau of Isaac

[NinSinDuo]

PAHAHA where are you coming from??? Haha Microsoft was one of the last oh wait they still are they don't have motion controllers.. Get some more facts.

[PKLucas531]

If Chad Warden really makes a comeback it'll be bigger than the presentation.

Edited February 21, 2013 by PKLucas531

[Tangerine]

It wasn't a controller though. It was a camera. It was a camera. Also the functionality was extremely limited, not fun, and boring in every way. Sony demonstrated how stupid they thought it was when they didn't include anything similar with the PS3 (Until they realized the Wii's motion controls were getting hot sales) and then years later they made the PS3 Move, a blatant ripoff of the Wii.

The correlation between the Eyetoy and the Wii controller is so slight as to be almost nonexistant.

The PS3's motion controller is better than the Wii's. Who cares who did it first? If it was a good idea - and I believe it was - then why shouldn't competitors try to offer the same feature for their users? The PSMove is a significant improvement over the Wii's from its design to its functionality.

You can say it is similar, but you can't say they copied it. They improved it, and that's what the electronics business is built upon.

Thankfully I already got the Wii U, which means now I gotta make the choice between PS4 and Xbox. I am at a loss for what next gen console I'm going to get next, the PS4 hasn't interested me yet so far, the only thing it says to me is "hey, we can be Nintendo too."

The PS4 is not trying to copy the Wii U. The Wii U wishes it had half of the features the new PS/Xbox will. But I guess it's fun to ignore every feature but the one that supports the console you're biased towards, lol.

So your argument to use technology from 2008 is just...because it's small? And you call this innovative?

Home consoles are designed with a price range and mass production in mind. With the PS4's rumored launch price of $400-$450, you can't honestly expect them to build and mass produce a platform capable of competing with a high tier gaming PC. The 360 and PS3 also used outdated technology, except Sony tried to be "innovative" with the PS3 and it ended up costing them because people weren't willing to pay that much for new technology on a home console. To be honest the gaming industry has not been truly "innovative" since the Xbox with Live; it has been gimmicks competing with other gimmicks since then.

What can be said from the specs is that it blows the Wii U completely out of the water. It's not even worth discussing, and that is the worst we could've asked for, because if they try to do multiplat games the Wii U is either going to get none of them or hold the PS4 and new Xbox back.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Tangerine

[Constable Reggie]

No it isn't. It's a gimmick and has been since it was introduced widely in 2004. It's barely progressed at all in terms of technological innovation and it's been almost nine years.

Must.. Resist..

The PS4 is not trying to copy the Wii U. The Wii U wishes it had half of the features the new PS/Xbox will. But I guess it's fun to ignore every feature but the one that supports your bias, lol.

With the direction the PS4 and maybe the new Xbox is going, I sure as fucking hell thank god the Wii U doesn't have the others' features. Not only are some of their most touted features likely to be unusable by a good number of people, but they're continuing the digital *licensing* push without realizing (or just hoping to get the best of both worlds) what makes it work on pc. It's pretty apparent that Sony wants to suck up as much money as they possibly can from the whole digital thing.

PAHAHA where are you coming from??? Haha Microsoft was one of the last oh wait they still are they don't have motion controllers.. Get some more facts.

Have you seriously never heard of the Kinect? Who needs motion controllers when the Kinect blows that shit out of the water in terms of future potential?

Oh you're quite the catch I'm sorry since when we're we able to make a pc inside of a tiny console really? and the ps3 can play Diablo III so. What's the point if Blizzard sees the consoles strong enough to run these and is now involved with Sony

Why hate and of course PC's are going to be stronger they have more components and a tower to fit them people like a console not oversized.

You can buy gaming laptops smaller than the original PS3. And a gaming laptop has infinitely more uses than a PS3.

I seriously don't get your logic. PS4 has so much power because it can run Diablo 3, but the PS3 being able to do the exact same thing is irrelevant?

Really all this is showing is that Sony is just trying to capitalize on previous innovative successes. The Wii's motion controller was incredibly popular? Let's copy (literally) the exact same setup and call it PSmove! DS/3DS had a touch screen? Let's put two touch screens on the Psvita! Wii U put a touch screen onto their controller? Slap that shit on a dualshock asap!

It's quite humorous.

[Tangerine]

With the direction the PS4 and maybe the new Xbox is going, I sure as fucking hell thank god the Wii U doesn't have the others' features. Not only are some of their most touted features likely to be unusable by a good number of people, but they're continuing the digital *licensing* push without realizing (or just hoping to get the best of both worlds) what makes it work on pc. It's pretty apparent that Sony wants to suck up as much money as they possibly can from the whole digital thing.

Enjoy having a terrible online service then I guess? Those are the most touted features on the Xbox and PS systems now.

PS+ gives you free games and demos for a subscription, otherwise PSN and its core components are free and you pay for the extras. With Live you just pay a subscription and get everything. That much is very unlikely to change, it's up to you whether you want more or not.

Nintendo are not "good guys"; look into their history and you'll see they're just as greedy and moneygrubbing as any other company. The only difference is in their strategy.

Not gonna bother replying to the rest.

[shadowofchaos]

Have you seriously never heard of the Kinect? Who needs motion controllers when the Kinect blows that shit out of the water in terms of future potential?

Star Wars Kinect. They were SO CLOSE. SOOOOO CLOSE to every Star Wars fanboy's dream. SO CLOSE. But they fell short.

[domflo]

I think the PS4 has potential, but, in all honesty, I'm not quite sure if games will look all that better on it than on the PS3. Sure, it's more powerful, but so have been PC's since years, and the graphical jump between them and PS3 has never been really noticable to me. Overall, graphical improvements have been decreasing over the years, as there is a certain limit that can be reached in terms of graphical power. I mean, the jump in graphics between the NES and the SNES sure was a bigger one than between the PS3 and recent PC games. At least seemingly.

Then there's the "new" features. A controller with a power button for the console? Well, guess what, that exists since 2006.

A controller with touchscreen and motion controls as the primary one? Just came out, and is called Wii U.

I mean, I get that that's the way the market rolls, always has, but it's just so blantantly noticable with this one that it kinda turns me off of Sony, to be honest.

Not that I am a huge fan of Sony's exclusive titles. I own a PS3, but the thing that made me buy it was the Blu Ray player included, not its capability to play games. And though I own it and use it as a console (because, heck, why not?), there really aren't any games I want to buy. I own 10 games for the system, one of which is some Move game, two others are racing games, one is "Buzz!". The games that I really only play on it are all Sonic games (all came out for the xBox 360 as well (as most games between these consoles tend to do), Final Fantasy XIII and XIII-2 (only bought them because I wanted to use the thing as a console again after some time) and Rocksmith, which I could get on PC, as I could do with most games that I am potentially interested in that are on PS3. Only thing I may be buying in the future ist the Uncharted series, but even then I'm not really like "oh ma gahd i haz to get them gamez nao".

I think I will have this problem with the PS4 as well. My current laptop is as powerful as the console, and I don't really care for Sony's current exclusives. They would really have to offer something to win me over on that one.

This is why I bought Wii U right when it came out, as most games I'm really interested in (in the slightly fanboy-y way) are Nintendo games. All other games will either come out for Wii U itself or will have to be played on my laptop.

That's just my reasoning for going with Nintendo. It's not like I'm buying the Wii U because "OMG IT'S NINTENDO", but in a way it is. It's merely a coincidence that Nintendo is the publisher that publishes most games that I like. The list of games that I will buy that are released this year and that are Nintendo games alone equals 850€ worth of them.

Even then, I will keep an eye on the new Playstation. I DO think they are copying Nintendo, and I DO find that funny, but I won't be rubbing that into a Sony-kinda-guy's face. Everybody has preferences, and, who knows, maybe Sony pulls some crazy stuff and actually convinces me of their console (something that may only happen by the means of exclusive titles).

Edited February 21, 2013 by domflo

[Constable Reggie]

Enjoy having a terrible online service then I guess? Those are the most touted features on the Xbox and PS systems now.

PS+ gives you free games and demos for a subscription, otherwise PSN and its core components are free and you pay for the extras. With Live you just pay a subscription and get everything. That much is very unlikely to change, it's up to you whether you want more or not.

Nintendo are not "good guys"; look into their history and you'll see they're just as greedy and moneygrubbing as any other company. The only difference is in their strategy.

Not gonna bother replying to the rest.

Don't strawman my argument. You specifically said features that are new to the PS4/Nextbox. Shit like streaming video games is only actually good if you're a millionaire who can afford infinite bandwidth. Greatly pushing into more digital features while neglecting physical media (removing backwards compatibility is the big one) is absolutely baffling.

I'm sure they'll announce more crap that PS4 can do. What they've shown so far does not impress me.

Star Wars Kinect. They were SO CLOSE. SOOOOO CLOSE to every Star Wars fanboy's dream. SO CLOSE. But they fell short.

If the rumors of Microsoft greatly expanding on the whole Kinect idea turn out to be true, you can probably expect a true star wars experience to be possible.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Constable Reggie