Kotaku Rumor: PS4 out in November, control with your phone/tablet, maybe $429/529

You kind of had me until this part. Sony really turned the PS3 around over the course of the gen. They can't afford another machine that sells 70+ million units? That's crazy talk. The market has changed. They're not likely to get another world-beating 150+ million-selling console that takes the lion's share of exclusive games. If they can sell as many PS4s as they did PS3s, they'll be doing fine. If they can sell more, they'll be doing great.


What have they turned over? They lose money like crazy. They just had to cut loose a bunch of devs, and the Vita is...well, it's the Vita. The market has changed, and Sony showed with the Vita that they're oblivious to those changes. Or simply think they're bigger than the market and they can dictate to it what it wants/needs. If they were making money now I'd have a little more faith in them. I have hope. I just hope it's not false hope.
 
Why?

No built in HW back compat, blu-ray tech is much cheaper now, and I imagine the R&D was also considerably cheaper than that of the PS3's, why should we expect the system to be so expensive?

If this is a penny over £349.99 then I'm out.
Because that was ten years ago. You're definitely out.

Baconsammy, Sony hasn't really had to cut loose a lot of developers. Some of their studios have been growing and some have been cut.
 
You kind of had me until this part. Sony really turned the PS3 around over the course of the gen. They can't afford another machine that sells 70+ million units? That's crazy talk. The market has changed. They're not likely to get another world-beating 150+ million-selling console that takes the lion's share of exclusive games. If they can sell as many PS4s as they did PS3s, they'll be doing fine. If they can sell more, they'll be doing great.

They can sell five trillion units if they don't profit on it, what does it matter? PS4 needs to profit, 'cause Vita is a disaster and PS3 did real damage. If PS4, for example, loses the same amount of money PS3 did, they'd be so far in the red that Sony wouldn't be able to maintain such a pillar for much longer. I mean PS3 is a system that wiped out all of Sony's strategic gains over multiple generations, people must understand that. Companies are about money.

If PS4 comes in at $399 and has these features, people might speak of an aggressive Sony again, maybe they'll start coming around and viewing them as a viable candidate for a revival of sorts. That's what I'm advocating for, and I think Sony has to know this at this point.
 
If you think about it, we're kind of like a entire community of Michael Patchers. Speculating and making claims and predictions based on nothing really. Kind of beautiful in a chaotic way.
Now I'm picturing 12 Pachters doing synchronised swimming. Thanks for that.
 
$429/529 for a system which includes:

-7850 Level GPU
-8 tablet level CPU cores

Sony haven't learned their lesson and if they choose to go anti-used, then for me Sony can FUCK off.
You have been one of the biggest trolls in previous threads. I think you need to stop.
 
I mean, w/r/t paid online play, look at what we have here.

One hand, PS3 and Vita have free online.

Other hand, a twitter account and Kotaku says "most online features will be paid services".

I see pretty much no reason to think they need to resort to holding multi hostage. They will roll their existing PS+ members into PS World or whatever it's called, talk about all the cool shit they will get, and leave more-or-less PS3-level multi functionality (hopefully with better invites) to the free people.

That seems the most likely scenario near as I can tell.
 
So let's say tomorrow that all of this proves true within the margin of error. Say $400 for the base and $500 for the premium, and online play is now behind a pay wall. Where does this leave Sony?

Also, what about Nintendo? There was a lot of "I'm passing on the Wii U because of true next gen!" Would it change your mind if these rumours turned out to be true? (Although I imagine a lot of you would just go PC-only.)
 
How I feel about this subscription depends upon how the word 'most' is used in that sentence. There really isn't enough information to feel either way about that statement just yet.
 
I don't game online so they can charge $200.00 a month for all I care. Just hope the eye is optional as far as normal use is concerned.
 
Wait, we trusted Kevin Dent last week but not now? Come on.

I wish I could remember what he leaked last week that people approved of. Or he confirmed something. There's too many leaks to keep track of.

Vita at 34k, you'll notice a lot of people doubting him now didn't doubt him then, despite both being bad news. This isn't a case of "ignore it, it's bad news", it's more "is this guy legit, wait he runs an iOS/Android developers, are you sure this guy is legit".

He might be speaking to exactly the same "source" as Kotaku, which is probably not someone at SCE. If anything it is likely to be a development source, not an SCE one since that is his line of business.

If this was Nikkei or the FT, then yeah, fuck it I would be 100% sure that Sony were moving to a paid online model. It's not though, it's from someone who runs an iOS/Android development company, which probably has little to no direct contact with Sony. It is likely third hand knowledge from the same source as Kotaku's article.
 
It's not going to be $429, that's retarded. It'll be $399 or $449. That number is just converting the rumored Japanese price to dollars.
 
I know I was. PlayStation+ is the only subscription service I was actually glad to pay for in the end. I'm sure if they have a mandatory online subscription for online gaming, it'll include some of the benefits of PS+, but then it'd leave a bad taste in my mouth, as I'm sure it will for many others.

Yeah. I don't think they need to do that at all.

In fact, they really need to keep hammering the "free online gaming" thing again this gen. Show that they've caught up with the social features that people actually care about, and leave people wondering why they still pay for XBL.

Even though 360 has been my sole console right for a while (it was the only one I replaced after I lost everything in a fire) I'm pretty much done with XBL myself, (I got off automatic renewal) and I know many of my friends feel the same...all except the ones who are really caught up in the e-peen gamerscore stuff, which is a real minority now.
 
I mean, w/r/t paid online play, look at what we have here.

One hand, PS3 and Vita have free online.

Other hand, a twitter account and Kotaku says "most online features will be paid services".

I see pretty much no reason to think they need to resort to holding multi hostage. They will roll their existing PS+ members into PS World or whatever it's called, talk about all the cool shit they will get, and leave more-or-less PS3-level multi functionality (hopefully with better invites) to the free people.

That seems the most likely scenario near as I can tell.

What features do you think they could possibly come up with that they could get away charging for it? Why not get everyone to pay?

If they start charging, their customers aren't going to magically go elsewhere, besides Nintendo what other system can they flock to to escape subscription fees?
 
What have they turned over? They lose money like crazy. They just had to cut loose a bunch of devs, and the Vita is...well, it's the Vita. The market has changed, and Sony showed with the Vita that they're oblivious to those changes. Or simply think they're bigger than the market and they can dictate to it what it wants/needs. If they were making money now I'd have a little more faith in them. I have hope. I just hope it's not false hope.


The handheld market changed, they struck out with the Vita ........ has no relevance to the home console market what so ever.
 
If they're going to charge, there going to charge for everything and not leave out feature they' know everyone will need. Otherwise why charge for all that superfluous s*** when they know not that many people will pay for it.

They can't be seeing that added revenue Microsoft is getting an NOT want something for themselves.

They charge for PS+ stuff but not the online play right now.
 
I feel like we're just going to get another 360/ps3 situation where 90% of the games are the same, both consoles exist and can survive on their own marketshare, etc., etc. Let go and let god.
 
Don't want trouble like that, just redirection into addressing points is all.



Personally, the way the rumor is worded, I have to imagine it means either someone intentionally leaked that price to see what the reaction would be, or it's something that is no longer being considered (after all, didn't we hear in the UK of a price that, minus VAT, would be $400? And didn't we hear there would be only one SKU? Times seems like a much more reliable source to boot)

This is very plausible.

Just (hopefully) like those Duragno no used games rumors.
 
The handheld market changed, they struck out with the Vita ........ has no relevance to the home console market what so ever.

you do realize the only reason they extended this generation by two years is because they were losing money on the PS3 right? because they weren't ready to move forward. That has a lot of relevance on their home console, and if their pricing is the same as before but less tech in the box then obviously the PS3's money losing had a DIRECT effect on this upcoming console generation.
 
How I feel about this subscription depends upon how the word 'most' is used in that sentence. There really isn't enough information to feel either way about that statement just yet.

"Most" gives me hope that MP is still free, but if you want extras, like Cross Chat, or other Social features, like seeing which one of your friends are online and playing which game right from your smartphone, etc. etc. Basically new, fancy features that will come with a premium, which is totally understandable if you ask me.
 
He is referring to the subscription based model in which cable companies like Comcast will give the new Xbox instead of a cable box.

Make the price low enough a la cellphones and you dominate. Bring it down to free up front with 10-15 per month on a 2-3 year contract and you can sell a lot.
 
That is not an argument, and just serves to illustrate my point - you don't like hearing the truth, so you try to denigrate an individual with sweeping generalizations. Either form an intelligent argument, or don't bother.

Sure, let's talk about sweeping generalizations for a moment!

FYOVXYogh.jpg


And then we go on to this:

Why :P?

Completely accurate in pretty much every way - PS3 destroyed Sony's profits from all gens of Sony PlayStation products, Sony as a company is now on very shaky ground and it's problematic how much longer the company can survive without extremely successful pillars, and the PlayStation brand seems to hold no weight at all - Vita is one of the biggest bombs of all time, PS3 flopped versus past PS systems, PSP died in the USA and never recovered.

At this point we're beyond trying to act like this is hyperbole - either people can start accepting the harsh reality that we're in, or they can create some sort of intelligent argument as to why I was wrong.

None of this is actually related. You go from talking about how no one would have any reason to own a PS3 over a 360 (as if FFXIII would have shifted the install base more than a million or two anyway), to talking about how the PS3 under-performed versus the PS2 and the Vita bombed. You're shifting the goal posts. No one is saying that Sony isn't in a tougher position than they were during the PS1 and PS2 era, but that's neither here nor there to why your original post is so outlandish. Predicting MGS4 would hit the 360 is just icing on the cake.

For instance, if we ignore the idea that FFXIII would really trigger the kind of scenario you laid out, even ignoring that, you're projecting a timeline that simply doesn't exist. You say it's going to be this gens gamecube, and that there's no reason at all for anyone to get it over a 360. The fact is that the math just doesn't add up.

This isn't hyperbole, the isn't fanboy drivel, it's math. Where's the beyond normal degradation in sales in the PS3 to cause the $99 firesale? You can't make the charts and have them line up even remotely. beyond that, for FFXIII going multiplatform to have been the end of the PS brand, you'd have to see the 360 moving into a position of true dominance.

When in fact that never happened! We've seen both consoles remain extremely competitive with one another, with the PS3 still outselling the 360 when launch aligned and on a worldwide basis.

The core issue is that, if we're to take your post literally, that there is literally no hyperbole, well at best you're the living example of compounding logical fallacy's to desperately try to save face, and at worst it's an example of cognitive dissonance.

If you read that post and honestly can't understand why it;s outlandish or why people laugh at it? But honestly it's just a bit of both.

Your post is laden with things that were absurd as of the time of writing, never-mind the prognostication into the future that ended up beign entirely incorrect. Let's be honest for a minute here, that shit is what you read on gamefaqs, and you don't need to be a fanboy of any stripes to see it.
 
^ Zen, most of your points were addressed by me in this topic so I'll not waste another post. Yours is just a tragic misreading.

Yeah. I don't think they need to do that at all.

In fact, they really need to keep hammering the "free online gaming" thing again this gen. Show that they've caught up with the social features that people actually care about, and leave people wondering why they still pay for XBL.

Even though 360 has been my sole console right for a while (it was the only one I replaced after I lost everything in a fire) I'm pretty much done with XBL myself, (I got off automatic renewal) and I know many of my friends feel the same...all except the ones who are really caught up in the e-peen gamerscore stuff, which is a real minority now.

Yeah. PS4 has a lot going for it - that SHARE button seems amazing - but Sony needs every strategic advantage it can get. It might be worth putting those millions on the table if it means substantive gains in userbase or something like that. After all, it wasn't long ago Sony put everything on the table for something that yielded comparatively modest gains when stacked against the losses it incurred - that of including a Blu-Ray, which critically raised the price of the PS3 and set them on a path for which they have still not fully recovered. I think the PS+ model, versus the pay for most online services model, is something that might be more beneficial in the end.
 
I'm not sure that you quite understand the definition of trolling.

What you've been doing isn't trolling. It's odder than that. New leaks come out, you freak out. You make claims like "Xbox is going to just be a DVR with bloatware!". People tell you to calm down. You apologize. Then you repeat it when the next leak comes out. Doing it again today. Stop freaking out about stuff that may or may not be true. There's an official conference tomorrow. Save your freakouts for official news.
 
I can totally see Sony charging for their online. It's money left on the table, money they could use.
Ugh, terrible way to look at it. It's only "money left on the table" because console marketers have somehow managed to convince some portion of the customer population that they should pay again for something they already paid for.
 
$429 is too much. Yes it's only $30 more than $399, but there is a perception involved here between the "3” and the "4." It's a ridiculous argument but that's the way consumers think. This console must be $399 or Sony will have the same problem when it priced the PS3.
 
Sony's in a rough position and could make a case for charging online play.. but it could be more damaging if they abandon free MP at this stage of the game..
Continuing FREE online gaming would be a great incentive for consumers to pick up the PS4 over the Nextbox. Why lose that incentive? At the very least Sony shouldn't throw Netflix and Youtube behind a paywall.
Don't more people use Netflix on PS3 than on 360 due to not needing LIVE?
 
Top Bottom