GBAtemp ponders E3 2013 -- Sony.

[Obveron]

That's not a gaming division or decision which was what I expected we were talking about. It doesn't have much relation to gaming DRM choices where if anything Sony have been pretty good in the way they've handled things like PSN game sharing and region locking.

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to ignore their track record in the music/movie industry?

but ok,
have you heard of Securom?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecuROM


My point was that Sony haven't shown themselves to be morally above restrictive DRM as to expect they won't allow a game publisher to implement restrictive DRM.
Do you have anything to prove to me their "gaming division" is morally above allowing restrictive DRM?

 

[xist]

My point was that they haven't shown themselves to be morally above restrictive DRM as to expect they won't allow a game publisher to implement restrictive DRM.
Do you have anything to prove to me their "gaming division" is morally above allowing restrictive DRM?

Sony Computer Entertainment isn't linked to the points you're using to debunk them as DRM tyrants. Based solely on the decisions made in terms of PS, PS2, PS3, PSP and Vita output the worst things I can think of are proprietary memory cards. Certainly their account management for PSN purchases allowing the sharing of games between people is much much better than their competitors. Heck Nintendo is nowhere near this (no idea how MS deals with it). They've said it'll be the same as the PS3 as far as I've read and the examples of publisher DRM restrictions are few and far between. It seems perfectly reasonable for Sony to allow publishers to decide how they want to handle it.

Blaming SCE for the points you raise is like damning Nintendo for a movie starring Bob Hoskins about a certain well known plumber.

 

[KingVamp]

Close up.

 

[Obveron]

Sony Computer Entertainment isn't linked to the points you're using to debunk them as DRM tyrants. Based solely on the decisions made in terms of PS, PS2, PS3, PSP and Vita output the worst things I can think of are proprietary memory cards. Certainly their account management for PSN purchases allowing the sharing of games between people is much much better than their competitors. Heck Nintendo is nowhere near this (no idea how MS deals with it). They've said it'll be the same as the PS3 as far as I've read and the examples of publisher DRM restrictions are few and far between. It seems perfectly reasonable for Sony to allow publishers to decide how they want to handle it.

Blaming SCE for the points you raise is like damning Nintendo for a movie starring Bob Hoskins about a certain well known plumber.

I'm not blaming SCE, I don't recall mentioning SCE, I've observed the track record of Sony - full stop.

You appear to be forbidding me from having reservations about Playstation's DRM future based on what I've observed from Sony's (the conglomorate and it's many subsidiaries) DRM track record.
I'm apparently wrong for allowing anything but the record of SCE to influence my concern for the Playstation... That the history of any other part of Sony should not be admissable in my personal perception.

Is it also wrong for me to allow the negative track record of Microsoft, as a whole, concern me about the Xbox's future? because it does.

I must be doin it wrong. Silly me for allowing the merits of a conglomerate company as whole speak for it's subsidiaries.

 

[xist]

Is it also wrong for me to allow the negative track record of Microsoft, as a whole, concern me about the Xbox's future? because it does.

I must be doin it wrong. Silly me for allowing the merits of a conglomerate company as whole speak for it's subsidiaries.

It's wrong because it's inaccurate. It's like judging the purely medical aspect of a hospital as incompetent because the managerial suits are terrible and only out to ensure they stay in work shuffling papers.

In a large corporation where subsets function more or less independently it makes little sense to worry about decisions made by other divisions when there's no cross over. You're perfectly entitled to have those views but whether they're founded on real evidence is something else entirely.

 

[Obveron]

The horrendous DRM record of other Sony divisions make me weary to be confident that the SCE and Playstation won't use or allow restrictive DRM.
If it's inaccurate, I'm not sure (you haven't convinced me but you make good points). but I am sure that public and my perception (inaccurate or not) will continue to be influenced by the past behaviour of the any division under a conglomerate that is also a brand, such as the Sony Playstation. If that's undesirable, SCE should avoid the Sony brand. If not, than the public can perceive SCE as bound by the same principles of all Sony.

 

[xist]

also a brand, such as the Sony Playstation. If that's undesirable, SCE should avoid the Sony brand. If not, than the public can perceive SCE as bound by the same principles of all Sony.

Playstation is a brand.

Consider that most of the consumers who are thinking about owning a PS4 will have probably had experiences with the PS1, PS2, PS3 or PSP and will be gauging their worry level about Byzantine DRM measures from those rather than historic cock-ups from other sections of the company.

It's still far too early to tell how the publishers will decide to implement DRM in their games (packaged code activations seem probable) but for many the fact that Sony as a publisher of games themselves seem devoid of implementing horrible lockdowns on their software is enough. They'll probably still cock-up somewhere along the line but at this point i think the problem isn't the structures they have in place but ensuring that there's enough must have software available to differentiate them from MS.

In fact I'm almost certain there'll be reason to be horrified at some point but unlike the XBone which has reneged on it's promise of by gamers for gamers I think Sony has done it right. That said, if doing it right is not doing anything much differently from what you currently do then there's already something to despair about.

 

[mario5555]

I've got one and it's inferior to my 1000 and 2000. Awful controls and control layout, flimsy and vulnerable design, poor battery life in comparison to my 2000 (coupled with next to no info regarding charge remaining) and proprietary USB input.

Praise the PSP by all means....just not the Go.

The thing is the design does suck, however, you can sync it with a DS3 and viola new awesome controller, TV out so giant big screen (if one is available) and I do own a 3000 (TV out, no contest) and wanted an alternative to play it my way (with a real controller) on the tv which I get to do, and with amount of digital titles I got for cheap, I think it was worth it, I still have 40+ UMD games, but it's awesome to play it the way I want to, so I agree the Go by itself could be much better, but if put together with other parts of the whole, it comes out like Voltron, kicking ass and taking names. I wished more handhelds gave that option to play how you want to play. That's why Vita and 3DS are interesting for me, but I'm not sold on them since I'm still waiting on better options to play them, the way I want too.

And the PSP Go it isn't horrible, I managed to play Ultimate Ghosts n Goblins for 30 mins with no issues yesterday, even though I wished I had it in the dock and was using my DS3 instead, but still I wished the 3DS had half of the features this thing has, if I'm lucky Nintendo might go that route and team it up with the Wii U (like the Gameboy Player or Super Gameboy) and as I said those with a decent library of digital titles and with a big screen tv and DS3 prefer it as the way to play PSP games and the PSP Go, that's my argument in a nutshell.

 

[xist]

those with a decent library of digital titles and with a big screen tv and DS3 prefer it as the way to play PSP games and the PSP Go, that's my argument in a nutshell.

Your argument in a nutshell seems to be that it's a gimped home console. In the situation you describe you'd be better off with a real home console, be it a PS3, 360 or Wii/U.

 

[mario5555]

Your argument in a nutshell seems to be that it's a gimped home console. In the situation you describe you'd be better off with a real home console, be it a PS3, 360 or Wii/U.

If that's your interpretation fine, let me reiterate, I like it as it let's me play the games on the system how I want to play them, no more or no less. If I consider it as a console, then so be it, that's how I prefer to play. But since I own the other systems, it's a mute point.

It doesn't lessen my point about being able to play how I want and the systems ability to let me do just that, and how I wished the other handhelds out now gave me those options as well. Clear enough for ya.

 

[xist]

If that's your interpretation fine, let me reiterate, I like it as it let's me play the games on the system how I want to play them, no more or no less. If I consider it as a console, then so be it, that's how I prefer to play. But since I own the other systems, it's a mute point.

It doesn't lessen my point about being able to play how I want and the systems ability to let me do just that, and how I wished the other handhelds out now gave me those options as well. Clear enough for ya.

Not really, because the reason you raised the point of the Go in the first place was that you claimed it was ahead of it's time. All the points raised for you liking it seem to indicate that it's doing a job that portable consoles generally don't need to do, as portable games are generally made to differ from home console experiences.

Besides, if everyone who ever owned a Go was singing its praises it'd be a cult success, rather than a blip on the PSP's radar. If the controls weren't gimped you wouldn't feel compelled to use a DS3 to remedy them, if the screen wasn't tiny you probably wouldn't feel compelled to use a large TV screen to make your games look even worse. The Go was a mistake and a direction that was a dead end...

 

[BornInBlack]

I would say this console war [as others before it] comes down to: Do my friends have it?
I have forewarned many around me of the coming xbone-big-brother, most listened.
The rest have the same argument for it that I suppose cannot be argued: "I only play online games anyway.." "I don't buy used games.."

there was a great post on IGN comments that I do believe- If we had all rushed to buy a 600$ PS3 when it came out, then can you guess what price this gen would have launched at? The same needs to be done with Micro$oft, speak with your wallets and the coming storm might be averted. If we say, "well who cares?" then the doors are open for Console companies/Publishers and Devs to really start enforcing DRM, unless we show them there's no money to be made in these actions.

for anyone somehow still considering the xbone in light of brilliant PR like this:

“"Fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity; it’s called Xbox 360,” said Mattrick

here's some help disabling big brother

 

[grossaffe]

your big-brother disabling device does not take the microphone into consideration.

 

[BornInBlack]

your big-brother disabling device does not take the microphone into consideration.

the mic is covered, but it wasn't a joke or anything

as the rest of my post goes, best bet is to avoid it altogether

 

[grossaffe]

yes it wasn't a joke or anything

as the rest of my post goes, best bet is to avoid it altogether

Indeed, xbone's got coming into my house to spy on my or tell me what I'm allowed to do with the games I own.

 

[tj_cool]

Pretty sure the camera is used to recognize the player.
So covering it may not work.

 

[TackyPie]

Since the PS4 is going to be region free will it be cheaper to get it for 349 pounds or $399?

 

[Gahars]

Since the PS4 is going to be region free will it be cheaper to get it for 349 pounds or $399?

349 pounds comes to about $548.07, so... yeah, the US price is by far the cheapest.

However, if you do import the console from the United States, you're going to have to pay quite a fair share of fees for shipping and whatnot. Don't forget that you'll likely have to do some waiting.

 

[JoostinOnline]

349 pounds comes to about $548.07, so... yeah, the US price is by far the cheapest.

However, if you do import the console from the United States, you're going to have to pay quite a fair share of fees for shipping and whatnot. Don't forget that you'll likely have to do some waiting.

And it's up to the devs to make games region free or not, so you might miss out on some titles.

Anyway, I asked on HacksDen and one of our scouse members said that it would cost around 70 pounds to ship a PS3 from the US to the UK. Somehow the PS4 looks heavier.

 

[emigre]

So guys, safe to say Sony won E3?