Topic: PlayStation 5 --OT--

@Rudy_Manchego Brand loyalty comes from continuing to provide the service, the games and the quality you expect from Sony. If you want to play the games that Sony continues to make, whether its sequels to games like Spider-Man, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Bloodborne etc entirely new IPs or the range of Japanese games that only Sony offer, then you will buy a PS5 regardless of whether your OLD games can be played or not - its not as if you can't play them on a PS4 anyway!!! Its totally irrelevant because the majority of people will buy a PS5 because of the NEW games it offers and the quality of those compared to its competitor. People will buy a PS5 because their friends have one, because they prefer the controller or just because it says Sony on the box.

It is EXACTLY the same as last gen as PS3 also had a lot of Digital games - maybe not quite so many AAA games bought this way but there is still a library of PS3 games and PS+ digital games that people still have to keep a PS3 to play - how is that any different? It doesn't matter whether you bought more digital or physical games, there is still NO obligation to offer BC - you can KEEP YOUR PS4 TO PLAY THEM!!!!

People won't buy a PS5 for BC if the PS5 is poor/weak and not offering 'great' new games, they will keep their PS4 and maybe buy an Xbox or PC. Its much more important to get the console right for the future, the 'next' 5yrs, Have both feet in the future, not have one foot in the past and one foot in the future. BC doesn't sell consoles - NEW games and performance do.

You chose to buy digital and you bought them for PS4 - not for PS5, PS6, PS7 etc but for PS4 - exactly the same as I did with my physical purchases. I still have a PS4 to play my PS4 games on and will keep a PS4 to play my PS4 games on regardless - whether that's my physical games or the few digital games I own.

Brand loyalty comes from providing the quality you expect consistently. If you liked Nintendo's games, you would buy the next console to play the new Nintendo games and keep your old Nintendo to continue playing the old Nintendo games. Whether they were downloaded, on cartridge or on disc, it makes NO difference as you bought the games to play on a certain console. When new consoles came out, it was the line-up, the specs, the games etc and IF Sony do their job right with the PS5, they won't have to rely on cheap tactics to get you to buy, you will want to buy because its the 'best' console on the market with the best new games, if not people will keep their PS4's and buy MS anyway. If Sony don't add BC in any capacity, you are NOT losing the ability to play any of your games at all because you can play them on the console you have been playing them on for years! Sony hasn't relied on BC and has amassed a lot of Brand Loyalty for the PS4 because of the NEW games and the quality of the PS4 over the XB1 and its games. BC hasn't helped close the gap as all those that deserted last gen rush out to buy an Xbox One to play their old 360 library - the few that the XB1 offers anyway.

At best BC may sell a few more consoles at launch because that gives a bigger library when their is so few new games available but has no proof that it sells consoles at all. You may decide to go to MS because MS has some BC but maybe more may buy PS5 because its offering the best line-up of games and best hardware too. They also offer Subscription services like PS+/PSNow that people may want to keep so will buy a PS5 because they don't have to buy Gold as well and can keep playing all their PS+ games on their PS4 - don't need BC to force people to stick with Sony regardless....

If the PS5 has the new Ueda game or Bloodborne 2 exclusively, I will buy it regardless of backwards compatibility, controllers, terraflops or whatever.

Last gen launched without BC on.l both consoles and ms launched BC on Xbox one only after two or three years and at that point it was already too late, many new games were released etc. Still, when some games launched on BC they were very popular, just look at red dead redemption and black ops 2..they even charted Amazon! Also, last gen it was 70% physical 30% digital, now it's reversed. Therefore, these two situations are not comparable.

Sony knows they'll win the next gen if they have backwards compatibility at launch. I have trouble thinking up any situation in which PS5 doesnt have it actually.

@Kidfried PS5 can be a Tamagotchi spin-off, as long as it has the next Ueda game, I'll get it.

I could see them having backwards compatibility just to keep all the momentum. Anything that Xbox can't boast over them will help. I don't MS will make a laughing stock of themselves again, so Sony might go a little extra to have bragging rights and look better.

The only real thing I want is to have the normal PlayStation experience I don't want to feel like vr is the main selling point on the ps5 it has to be a beast of a console without it also. Personally I don't see anything wrong with vr but the vast majority of gamers don't buy into it it's still and expensive prospect.

@Tirus666 Yeah if they force you to buy it as part of the console, like MS did with Kinect, I will have serious reservations about which console to go for.

With the new Zen 2 leaks (prices and clocks), I'm 100% sure that the PS5 will easily run 4K/60. Probably using a custom version of the Ryzen 5 3600GX or Ryzen 5 1600.

@BAMozzy of course I can't speak for everyone, but backwards compatibility is a big reason I got an Xbox One and it's one of the main reasons I use it now. I find it brilliant that I can still play older games such as Fight Night Champion, GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, Conker: Live and Reloaded among many others.

It's highly likely I'm gonna get a PS5 regardless (unless it's revealed that Bethesda are making it or something..) so I guess I'm not really the target audience, but BC is something that would make me buy a PS5 at launch or closer to launch than I otherwise might have.

@Vegetto
It's interesting but I think Sony was reported to be working on the first generation Zen even though that may have just been temporary. We ll see but I'm guessing they need a compromise performace/price and what's available at the time.
There s an interesting interview of P Spencer maybe giving a hint of the difference there maybe between PS5 and the next Xbox. Considering AMD already hinted the two companies have their own special sauce and possibly different approach. Here s part of the interview credit to GNelva from twinfinite. :

'The thing that’s interesting for us as we roll forward, is we’re actually designing our next-gen silicon in such a way that it works great for playing games in the cloud, and also works very well for machine learning and other non-entertainment workloads. As a company like Microsoft, we can dual-purpose the silicon that we’re putting in.

We have a consumer use for that silicon, and we have enterprise use for those blades as well. It all in our space around driving down the cost to serve. Your cost to serve is made up by two things, how much was the hardware, and how much time does that hardware monetize.

So if we can monetize that hardware over more cycles in the 24 hours through game streaming and other things that need CPU and GPU in the cloud, we will drive down the cost to serve in our services. So the design as we move forward is done hand-in-hand with the Azure silicon team, and I think that creates a real competitive advantage.”

Spencer concluded by talking about the issue of latency while streaming games. He mentioned that he’s already streaming games while he’s on the road around the world, and the test servers for Project xCloud are still in Washington, but Azure has a global scale.'

https://twinfinite.net/2018/12/phil-spencer-buy-ea-next-gen/

@roe Backwards compatibility is important for me as far as when I'm going to buy the console. If PS5 has backwards compatibility I might buy it in its first year, but if it doesn't there's no way, and I'll rather wait until a few killer apps are out.

When PS4/Xbox One released I still had a lot of unfinished games. For instance The Witcher 2. Never finished due to a lack of BC. I won't make that mistake again this gen.

The inclusion of Xbox One BC was too late to make a big difference I think. Most avid console gamers had already chosen a main platform to play on by then. Had they introduced Backwards Compatibility at Lau, that could have been a deal maker for Microsoft.

Oh well!

Yeah, interesting to think in retrospect the flubs that Microsoft made. Probably the things that got them so behind early this gen were the “always online console” and the DRM not being able to share or trade a game controversy, which Sony just pounced on — they read the public opinion and then used MS’s missteps against them (with the promo showing the trading a game disc). But if you think about it, MS was being pretty forward thinking, and sure enough ... here we are now and consoles pretty much have to be always online because of cloud saving, constant updates and patches, and increasing use of multiplayer and other online functions. And the days of selling, trading, or lending games is radpidly coming to an end due to everyone moving to digital over physical. So as much as I hate to admit it, Microsoft was ahead of the curve actually. But the public crucified them for it.
As it relates to BC, I think there is the potential for a similar issue to occur — if one of the two come out next gen as saying their new console doesn’t have BC, then the lay gaming public might backlash if the competitor plays his cards right and capitalized on it. All this, despite the fact that by the middle and end of the generation, BC will be hardly ever used by the average player.
Anyway, I’m rambling a little, but you’re right — the first impressions of the console goes a long way to set up the entire generation. So I’m voting for BC if possible, even if it’s limited in some way, because despite the function being superfluous, the reality is that it will probably sell consoles just by virtue of the goodwill and selling people what they think they want, even if they won’t use it for very long.
I for one wish I had the ability to play PS3 in my PS4, despite that I have a PS3 that is hooked up in my bedroom. It basically functions as a fancy Blu-ray player for movies. I can’t be bothered to do all the updates required and get used to the UI and clean up all the notifications, all that garbage every time I turn it on. My PS4 gets used, updated, defragged, UI organized, etc, etc on a constant basis.

@Th3solution Patches are similar to last-gen honestly, it’s a bit worse, but if you think about it still happened a fair bit games needing them. I mean just extra stuff being added rather than fixed is more what’s really new.
Cloud saving is the same as it was on PS3. Not sure what’s changed there.
Digital has become much more popular yes, but physical stil has a huge market, and telling people they have no choice wouldn’t make them happy even if someone mostly bought digital I think.
Multiplayer has grown and not grown in some ways. Fortnite has come yes, but god of war also doesn’t get MP shoved in it now either.
I don’t think it’s chsnged as much as you (a general you) might think, and that MS would still get crucified for it.
I think half a generation is significant enough to be notable too. That’s a long time.
Also, the PS3 can auto-update, notifications be ignored (I’m not sure what notifications you talk about actually), and I’m not sure how scrolling over to “start game” takes much getting used to.

@Jaz007 I do agree in principal with a lot of this. Patches certainly were common on last gen and last gen was where digital purchases and Online MP really took off on consoles. I know Xbox may well of offered Gold on the original Xbox and games like Halo and Halo 2 were at the 'birth' of online gaming but this was still quite limited in number and appeal with people still clinging to couch co-op/MP rather than bothering to look online for their fix.

With the 360 and then latterly the PS3 (especially with its 'free' online), MP gaming grew massively - helped of course by games like CoD. A lot of new IPs at the start of this Gen were still focussed on Single Player only - games like Assassins Creed, Uncharted, BioShock etc were completely SP but because of the rising popularity of online gaming, these games added MP into their sequels - some perhaps more memorable than others but it was this generation that took online from a bonus extra to being a major component - not just in games but in the console and as part of gaming life. I know there are still some that don't or won't participate in online for what ever reason but being connected - even if its periodically and not paying for subscriptions - became essential.

Digital content also became part of the culture - whether it was DLC - CoD4 had a 4map DLC pack for example and games like Fallout3 also got DLC too, to Arcade/indie games to full AAA releases. Patches were part and parcel of gaming too - regardless of what people think about patches. Believe it or not, games still released with game breaking bugs, glitches etc before patches came along although you 'could; argue that Devs/publishers are perhaps not as 'careful' as they were knowing that games can be patched OR you could see it that games are far more complex today and much more difficult to eliminate 'every' issue prior to launch. Both PS+ and Gold were centred around digital content too - especially PS+ where as Gold 'expanded' from the online gaming to Digital content. PS+ though was entirely centred on Digital content - giving subscribers Digital Games and discounts in the Digital store. With PS4 adopting MS's approach to online in that it was now 'subscription based'. I can understand why a lot may not have had much to do with digital games and, if they bought ANY digital content, it was DLC but those on Xbox, certainly in the last few years before the XB1 came out, could well of had quite a collection of Digital games via GwG. The fact that this gen now with the almost compulsory PS+ (if you want to play all your games and access the complete suite of features) has meant that many more people now have a Digital library if for no other reason than the free games and discounts, its perhaps become more common place and why perhaps more PS owners are more interested in BC now than they were at the launch of PS4.

I do think that it is essential to be always connected to the internet - no different from last gen. Whether that means you are connected but not paying for or do have a PSGold Subscription. Its essential to keep your game library updated and your System software updated at the very least - even if you play just SP games. Whether you do that 'once' a day/week or whatever you consider 'enough' for your needs as a gamer and the amount of time you play, its still 'essential'. I know a lot of people will use consoles too for streaming TV/movies too. MS perhaps making it 'compulsory' and mentioning that dreaded DRM acronym was perhaps a mistake and too much for gamers but I bet most here keep their PS4 connected to the internet all the time regardless. I also kept both last gen consoles permanently connected too. I think the 'biggest' issues were 'choice' and 'fear' - not having the 'choice' to disconnect if you wanted - even though you probably never do and fear of the ramifications of not connecting up.

As for a media disk drive, whether you use it for games or not, it still adds versatility and features too. I know streaming media is perhaps a lot more common than digital gaming is right now but its still there for you to watch DVD's/Blurays on if you want to as well. Just like the Bluray movie is much higher quality than a streamed HD movie is, the same is true for 4k HDR movies too and better than HLG broadcasts - as Blue Planet 2 proves as well. Having that choice though is better than no choice or having to buy a separate 4k HDR Bluray player because your console now is essentially just a PS/XB steam box. There are 'Pro's and Con's' of course - not having a physical media player could mean that 'money' spent on building it in could be utilise to maybe add specs, maybe cut the cost down a bit, make it smaller etc but it also removes features we have come to expect and rely on, forces you to buy Digital and be held to ransom by MS/Sony to buy ONLY from their store at whatever prices they deem fit (Physical and retailer competition keeps the prices competitive) and, if it continues the way it is now, devalues your collection. I know you may not sell but a Console with 20 physical games is worth more than a console with 20 digital games no-one but the account holder can play so the account holder (you) would have to sell your account (which includes all your accumulated trophies etc) along with the Console too to get 'any' money back on your purchases. In 20yrs or so time, you won't have a 'limited edition' collectable that could be worth 'more' than you paid for it. I can't see Physical disappearing anyway as its worth too much to the industry - despite what EA or other publishers would have you believe - if not they wouldn't be releasing special editions with lots of 'physical' items like Artbooks, statues, etc that sell out often before a game even launches. I know some are offering 'collectable' editions without the game included too but its still big business and relies on retailers to sell physical items - inc hardware.

Reducing what the console can offer in terms of features etc isn't what I consider 'progress' either. I could see a 'mini' console without those features - kind of like we saw an 'arcade' Xbox without any real internal storage - without a media player but I do expect that we will see a full console with media player too. BC to me would be meaningless as well if you can't use your discs to play games and would still need to keep at least my Xbox One X to play 4k HDR Blurays.

@BAMozzy Yeah, I'm always online, but some "freedoms" shouldn't be messed with. If my internet is gone for a few days or something, I shouldn't lose access to my PS4. It's something that has no practical need. There's no need for an always online requirement so it shouldn't be there. While some games might die without a patch, plenty don't either. It also means if the network goes down one day, then the console won't become useless. You'll still have it, and possibly all of the updates as well if you have big enough hard drive.
It's just a "big brother" thing that doesn't need to happen. I'm glad we have the use of the internet with our consoles for sure, but there's a point where it stops benefiting us and just becomes extra control for the manufacturer. That's the problem with always online.

@Jaz007 I certainly don't disagree - hence my comment about choice and fear. Being compulsory and having any consequence for not being online - such as rendering your console useless is definitely not what consumers want or should have to tolerate.

With Cloud gaming and MS's dedication to Azure, I also don't want a 'streaming' or 'cloud based' future. I would be more than OK if the Cloud is used to enhance games or even be 'necessary' for some games from a game-play perspective - Destiny uses Online for its game--play - whether you appreciate being in community spaces or not but its still a necessity for that game. If Cloud computing is used to enhance a game - like perpetual evolving where trees and plants can grow in real time and be permanently cut down for example to enhance a game - whether its SP, co-op and/or MP - but requires you to be 'online' like Destiny, I have no issue with that - as long as its integral to the game - not a pointless feature to lock you in and certainly not 'every' game. I also have no issue if the Cloud is used to boost visual and or performance too - enable higher resolutions and/or frame rates, better destruction/particle physics etc because its working in conjunction with your hardware but if you aren't connected, you can still play games - a bit like having an XB1S and X in one box where if you aren't connected, you get S visuals but X visuals if connected. Instead of objects breaking up in 'big' chunks with minimal particles, you get much better visual destruction with many many more particles and much higher resolution too, maybe even have ray traced lighting compared to more traditional methods when not connected - these are possibilities rather than being completely cloud based. I wouldn't want a game like Gears, Uncharted etc to be reliant on an internet connection because its 'necessary' for the lighting/shadows which could easily be don locally - even if not as 'accurately' rendered. If it benefited from Cloud - either as an option (better MP/Co-op modes and experiences, improved visuals/performance) OR from a game-play perspective (some 'story' element that could not be achieved locally such as perpetually evolving environment, open-world co-op game like Destiny/Division/Anthem which requires online anyway even if you do prefer to spend time in these solo), then I look forward to that but I don't want EVERY game reliant on being permanently online and really have to justify why online is required. Its easy to justify why CoD, Gears and Uncharted may require online for its MP modes but I refer to SP campaigns - the implementation of online into these must be justifiable from a game-play perspective and not just 'required' for a 'token' aspect to force people into Gold/PS+ and/or being connected. Being forced to connect to online just because you have 'ray traced' lighting which is too complex for the game to run locally is not justifiable as they could offer traditional lighting methods and make it playable offline - that kind of thing. Even perpetually evolving world is not a justifiable reason if it doesn't bring anything of value to the game, the story etc itself - its a pointless addition unless it ties into the game-play and/or story. It could be fun though if a game evolves naturally over time, with weather playing a greater impact on the environment - water erosion, more plant growth after rain/sun, drying up and withering etc with fire or destruction scarring the landscape permanently and then nature naturally growing over these scars - if it fits into the game-play and or story of course...

Anyway, that's a bit off topic but I do agree that inline should be a choice with no negative impact - well no more so than we see today in that certain games/modes etc will not be available if you don't but your console and other games/modes will still continue to be totally functioning. I can see more functionality from Online in the future - more so than we see today as I mentioned above as well as one that could appeal to you. After the discussion about Unity, the Cloud could really push AI and NPC numbers.Having the Cloud handle thousands of separate and more complex AI in a massive crowd - even add more 'Randomness' to it rather than being 'static' and pre-programmed could transform games. Crowds are quite static - even if there is 'some' movement from some characters. They still have pre-programmed paths with simple equations on what to do if that path is blocked - stop and wait until path is clear is the usual instruction but you could see AI move to the left or right, deviate from the path and decide more like a human which way to move based on the same decisions we would make - which option is the best because we can see whether the left or right is clearer. Instead of us blocking character paths, AI could too because more AI could be moving so you get more accurate crowds with more accurate movements - maybe even some that stop and chat with 'recognised' friends but completely random rather than scripted. Not saying AC should therefore be an Online only game because a crowd and AI relies on the cloud to work properly but if it fits in with the narrative, the game-play etc then I would be fine with it. Obviously there could be benefits to aspects that we are already accepting of - the online co-op and MP experience. BF could have 100vs100 massive maps with full scale destruction all running at native 4k and at least 60fps because the cloud is handling all that computation, tracking every bullet fired, tracking every particle, explosion bit of damage etc - maybe with real time weather and day/night cycles that change handling of vehicles, bullet trajectory etc - maybe even things I haven't thought about....

@BAMozzy I wonder what will happen to the “free” PlayStation plus games when PlayStation plus ends?

@Ryall Hopefully Sony will just permanently give them to you for that console. It would be easier than the backlash they'd get for doing otherwise.

@Ryall Something Sony will have to decide. PS3 will be losing free games via PS+ anyway in a few months - March 2019 so we may get some idea then. Of course that won't mean that PS3 owners won't be able to access their existing games but we may get some information from Sony. The big test will be what Sony do when they turn off the online for PS3 as PS+ games require online access to determine whether you have a valid PS+ subscription and therefore a valid licence to play those games. You don't own PS+ games anyway and the licence to play them is conditional - conditional on you having a valid PS+ subscription. Without the internet or a valid PS+ subscription, you cannot play the games.

As I said, Sony have to decide what they do. They could very easily decide that you lose your PS+ games when they turn off the console - opt to refund people any existing PS+ months left. The effect is the same as if you yourself opted to cancel your PS+ and get a refund on any months you had left too - if you do that, any free games are 'lost' - lost in the sense you cannot access them any more. You are not paying PS+ to get 'free games' as such, but enabling you access to those games for a set duration - that duration being the time you are subscribed to PS+ which can run out and/or be renewed - not necessarily straight away either which will then grant you access to those games you had received before and again for the duration of the subscription. I know some may lose a LOT of games but those games were never really their games. You don't get access to Netflix series you may have watched or bookmarked to watch when your subscription runs out and Sony could opt to be the same with PS+.

In a gesture of goodwill, they could just upgrade the licences to full prior to switching off the PS3 so any games you have downloaded from PS+ remain playable - at least if they are offline playable. You obviously couldn't play some aspects that rely on online connections if the PS3 is not online any more. They don't have to though because those games were never yours anyway and relied on criteria to be met - such as be online and have a valid PS+ membership. Even if you have a valid PS+ membership, you don't have the online aspect so you can cancel PS+ (unless its required for PS4) and get any money refunded - which again would stop access anyway.

As I said, I know some people could be very angry by that, but you didn't buy the games and paid a subscription to access those games. You obviously still have access to any game you bought with PS+ discounts applied but the PS+ 'free' games were (and still are) never permanently free and yours anyway. If you only buy a years worth, the last month of 'free games are only accessible for a month (at most - depending on when PS+ runs out) where as others could well be accessible for 12months. If you continuously subscribe, those games may seem as good as permanently yours but the reality is, you are just extending the expiry date every time you renew or add to your PS+ subscription but the fact is, those games have an expiry date and that date could be determined by you - as in not resubscribing or cancelling PS+ - or by Sony by turning off Online connectivity to PS3. If you want to keep them 'permanently', you could buy them outright, buy a permanent licence and as most games are 'old' now, the price is likely to be a lot lower than the price it would have been to get these at the time they were offered.

That may sound harsh but I do think that is fair. As I said though, Sony could also go above and beyond and gift PS+ subscribers the full licence of these games - although you would still have to download any you may have deleted before the PS3 does get turned off because you can't download them after - and that includes any you may have actually bought digitally....

It could still be years before Sony do turn it off completely and they may wait until there is so few people playing that its 'dead' anyway.