Visiblemode

Tbh the most intriguing aspects of it are the flat and practical ones, such as being able to recognize where in the room controllers
are for same screen multiplayer or something of that nature.

Not saying it doesn't have current uses or will not have significant future uses but...

No, not really. I have the Playstation Eye and Kinect and both are amazing...at gathering dust.

Seems to me these technologies were designed altogether to attract "non-gamers" with gimmicks. The core gaming experience has evolved for more than 30 years into the home console we have before us today. That's what I'm im it for, keep the gimmicks

I agree about 60 fps being ideal, but compromises are acceptable in some cases. That said, Carmack has a bit of a spotty record with his support of platforms. He's made a lot of grand pronouncements about ios gaming replacing traditional handhelds. I love IOS, but for so many genres, the Vita demolishes my iphone/ipad. So yeah being a genius coder and industry pioneer doesn't mean you know it all. LOL

Ok so after barely paying attention to this one for ages, this is finally going on the pre-order list. Yikes...with PS4 coming this is starting to get out of hand.

The answer to this headline is: NOPE!

I hate forced multiplayer. Singleplayer games are amazing and the industry is plaguing itself with added development costs and wasted time to satisfy executive's desire to make the games take advantage of "social media strategies" and other painful buzzwords.

When it works multiplayer can be great, where it doesn't work, stop wasting resources.

@Sanquine you said it all dude. Sony, do what he said.

Yes, I think platinum consistency would be nice. Especially since 100% of trophies on non-platinum games not only feels less satisfying, but also lacks permanence. For example, after getting 100% in the excellent Scott Pilgrim, not only did I not get a trophy, but the "feat" of 100% was erased by subsequent DLC knocking me back to a lower percentage. Sure I might find the time to add it to my backlog, but in the meantime it's annoying to have that "work" just disappear with no record. Platinums fix this completely. A platinum is for the initial trophy set and the percentage can be a sort of long-term game. "Try to stay at 100%." As it stands it's hardly worth it to get the tougher trophies in platinum-less games. I see this as a flaw.

@Wesker You'd be surprised. It's one of the few games that's hard not to platinum. The only extra effort is in collecting all the bottles and getting all the items, but it comes very easily and is good light fun imo.

@Wesker played through all the Sly games earlier this year, they really were worth the time. Something cool about that nostalgic platform action. Also, if
you care about it, some of the easiest platinum trophies you'll ever get, especially the early games. In fact, part 1 is almost hard not to platinum of you have completionist tendencies.

Playing DMC Devil May Cry...and baffled frankly. It is possibly one of the most underrated games of all time. It is amazing in just about every single way. Amazing combat, remarkable environments and setpieces, truly fun boss battles, a mad story that keeps your attention through the cut scenes and possibly the most style of any game I've ever played. This game sold horribly and that is insane and sad, because a next gen sequel would have made the top of my must buy list along side Uncharted 4 and GTA 6. I really think it has that much value. It's superb. This will hit the bargain bin way too soon and people picking it up for $13.50 at eb/gamestop will experience their jaw dropping over and over at the value they got. Too bad the devs didn't get their due respect. This game is pre-order/first day buy caliber.

@Slapshot Can't really agree. While Cell is less Ram dependent, that doesn't mean that a more ram dependent architecture requires beyond 10 times more Ram. That is to say that running modern games at 1080p shouldn't require more than 4 gigs of dedicated Ram. Proof of this is found in the very likely true rumours that as little as 6 months ago both companies were planning on using 4 gigs. The reason? Because 4 gigs wasn't an insane choice. Also consider the more Ram dependent architecture of the 360, sure PS3 trounces it in Cell optimized software, but they sit firmly in the same generation as peers.

@Savino Yeah, if only a fraction of the commenters talking about this stuff had even a fraction of your knowledge. People hear numbers and just react to them. Big sounds good, smaller sounds bad. Yet the funny thing is if they weren't cautious about allocation of ram to the OS people would be screaming their heads off about a lack of features or a herky jerky experience when switching in and out of games. To those in doubt: Think of it...the PS3 has incredible games with 462 mb of ram, the OS is decent, if slow, with only 50 megs allocated. Just imagine how amazing optimized games and OS will be in a few years with games having 10-12 times more high bandwidth ram and the operating system having 50-70 times current resources...that is insane. Plus as the OS gets defined expect devs to be allowed more ram as games get increasingly more complex. Just look at a 2006 PS3 game and compare it to a 2013...that's with basically identical hardware (not counting the 70 meg OS slimming in 2010) Basically, it takes time for the art itself to progress, current techniques are honed to a very low hardware standard. The sheer amount of work and r&d it will take to need what the PS4 has even at launch, even before factoring the 1 gig "flex ram" is kind of mindblowing, especially with a max resolution of 1080p.

@get2sammyb high fives!

It's not even disingenuous in the least. Is it misleading that if you buy a gaming laptop like the Alienware 14 (which also has 8 gigs of GDDR5 btw)that they don't specify that the pre-installed Windows 7 operating system uses up 216 mbs? It's not how it works. Ram is a technical spec not a usage spec. For those griping about how ps4 was supposed to have 4 gigs A: says who? B: even if it's true it just meant that some of that was going to o/s so less than 4 for games, of course, and no doubt all the sharing features would have been toned down. Read: less
o/s.

Conclusion, play games, don't design consoles.

Correction: The Last of Us is running on what's left of 512mb after O/S usage. Apparently Sony worked the O/S down to 50 mb, down from 120mb it used for the first 4 years of it's existence. So it runs on 462 mbs of ram, or nearly 1/10
What it's equivalent would have access to before using the emergency flex-gig and before Sony inevitably optimizes the system and opens up more ram for in-game use.

This begs the question, do people even understand
the role of ram? For those who don't, do you recall buying your desktop/laptop? Do you remember being asked if you do a lot of multitasking? That is the very nature of ram. Of course it's useful in-game, but find me a p
PC gamer running at resolutions higher than 1080p that actually admits
a functional difference beyond 4 gigs.

It's kind of like the flow of water. If you have 20 glasses to fill and the water pressure is very high so it takes only half a second to fill each glass, there is no advantage to a greater output of water. It would just spill. This is what memory output is like. If you think that devs who make incredible games today using 1/10th to 1/12th of the ram they're about to have access to, would know what to do with 16x the ram, then you're insane.

Pre-ordered since it was announced. KZ franchise is way underrated imo.

Also, I just wanna quickly point out that while the active PushSquare community isn't enormous, I really do love the quality of it's members. The discussions are insightful and respectful and it reminds me a bit of an internet from the old days, in the best possible way. So thanks to the site and to you other users for keeping it sane and fun.

I dunno. Will get it. Just to round out my launch playlist. I think judging the game based on the, admittedly, light demos is a mistake. Consider that a demo of any classic Sony platformer would tend to underwhelm. These kinds of games are a slower burn. It's sort of like how after a few hours with a big action game, you sorta need to pull back, but a cartoon platformer has that never-wanna-put-it-down quality.

@8vpiper I do, Naturally. Heavy Rain made any future games a guaranteed buy.

Incredible game.

Wow, Katy...Of all my backlog, I too am finally playing Uncharted Drake's fortune and am about 60% through it. The main difference is I've played all the other amazing Uncharted games and have put this one off for fear it would pale too much in comparison. Actually, as you now know too, it's awesome. It is primative compared to part 2 but it still rocks. Naturally, aside from righting a wrong, I'm also gearing up for The Last of Us with a Naughty Dog classic.

This is a Gamestop smothering direction. Also a console industry death rattle. Kill used games, then Gamestop/Eb games becomes basically useless. A used game fee basically takes the profit out of selling used because to have a competitive advantage you'll need to sell too low. We see this already with online passes to some extent. They have to sell battlefield 3 for $25 because
of the cost of the online pass that must be tacked on and factored in.

Developers can hoot and holler all they want, but for now, protect retail at all costs.

So complex to summarize in a comment, but there are countless reasons.

It's going to be basically the same experience on every format as it always is. This debut thing is of little consequence and if MS doesn't smarten up no outside of the core gaming community will even know this conference took place.

Finishing up Bioshock 2 in order to move on to infinite. I know it's not a direct sequel but I even like to play spiritual successors in order. Bioshock 2 was massively underrated btw, imo. Even I was a bit hard on it at first because it's hard to compete with the story of the first game. However if you hang in there the gameplay definitely shines and is really fun.

Unfortunately, Though I own the othet two contenders I've only had time to play Tomb Raider, which was awesome btw. Playing through Bioshock 1 at the moment as it had slipped through the cracks for me first time around. Man is it ever living up to the years of hype.

My guess is somewhere around 30 million. I realize his comments make my guess sound a bit high, but expense comparisons are relative. "Not expensive compared to" often easily translates to "not expensive considering how elaborate it is in comparison to." Also this figure, and his, don't reflect marketing costs.

They should stick with their plans. A great way to alienate a loyal fanbase is to reward that loyalty by robbing them of what's been promised. That's not a good way to start off a new console cycle.

From my experience games are about 20% longer than stated length. That might have something to do with my exploratory play style. However, not the point. 16 hours for $60 is expensive? Interesting...

$3.75 per hour, assuming only one play through, is cheaper than a movie in theatre. Cheaper than buying a new dvd or bluray. It makes arcade coin dropping of the old days look incredibly expensive (it was.)

What about comparing it to older games whose length was inflated by repetition, artificial difficulty or bad design?

Now what about the replay value? What about the resale value? If you can be done with new title in a week or two you can usually recoup like 85% the value on sites like craigslist without blinking.

Finally, what about the value of the product. Games like this often cost 10's of millions or more to make. It's safe to estimate that for $60 you can take home something that is literally worth more than 50 million dollars. Think about that. It's kind of amazing.