Topic: The PS4, games and Sony speculation thread

A place to put our worries and hopes about unreleased games and Sony innovations this generation.

The Last Guardian will release this year, but will not be as good as people are expecting. That's my speculation.

I have my doubts over Morpheus (and virtual reality) and think at most it will be a 'fad'. People had issue with wearing glasses for 3D TV but having something that blocks your peripheral vision, I don't think is particularly safe in a home environment. I also wonder what the long term effects could be as I doubt many gamers will use it for up to an hour but much longer. I can see more use from something like Hololens with its Augmented Reality - probably less in gaming than Morpheus but in business, social etc uses too. It also doesn't obstruct peripheral vision and therefore could prove to be safer. I wonder how many injuries will result in using Morpheus and being unaware of what's physically around you. If you sit down you are not going to get the full 360° view. I don't think it will negatively impact on Sony or PS4 but like all these peripherals, they need good support from Software. It can still work as a 3D viewer for a lot of games even if it doesn't allow for the 'movement' related view. That way you could play a game whilst your partner/family watches TV but I still see this being more of a 'fad'.

When would it be safe, in a public environment? Home environment is safe, Hololens is going to be extremely limited, but I can already see where this discussion is going.

I predict once Sony drop support for ps3 with psplus we will see AAA games again.

AAA has never really come to PS Plus. AA on rare occasion but it's mainly A games that are the 'big title'. Nothing wrong with that. There's B or C games that are great games. But people don't half confuse AAA games with big name games. Two vastly different things. COD is a huge name and if, say, Advanced Warfare came out for free next month (I know, Activision would rather shut down) people would say it's a "AAA title" when it's not, it's a big name.

As for Morpheus it won't even be as successful as a fad. It's going to appeal to no-one after the initial intrigue stage. Virtual reality rears it's head every generation and quickly goes away. This will be no different. Have to say I'm amazed Sony are willingly throwing money away on it after their recent troubles. Soon as they're finally getting back to stability this will send them back. Very strange decision.

To add another strand for discussion, I'm also really worried Arkham Knight is going to suck. Every time I see more of it it always looks great but there's just something in the back of my head saying this isn't going to work a third time (not including the dreadful Origins). Maybe it's the Batmobile sections which just look bland and were poor back in games in the late 90s, never mind 2015.

Makes sense. If Sony stopped paying for games for PS3 there would be more funds to buy games for the PS4. This absolutely should happen, but could take a long while.

They have to have a dog in the race, just in case it takes off. They already missed a big slice of the motion gaming pie, they can't afford to miss out on whatever the next gaming craze might be.

Sony - jack of all trades, masters of none. Seems appropriate. Before PlayStation Sony used to be the mark of sheer quality and pinnacle of whatever they made. How times have changed. Not blaming PlayStation, obviously, just mean around that time of the '90s other companies caught up in other areas Sony operate in.

I think the powers there at an almost affordable price for VR. As a gaming device its not going to set the world alight as just like plugging in a set of turtle beaches or setting up a gaming chair. You will do it a few times and then wont be bothered. In the retail or architecture worlds I can see it taking off.

The Wii and it's motion controls worked beautifully as it let people of all ages, gamers or not, join in. Everyone knows how to swing a tennis racket, throw a frisbee or bowl a bowling ball so it clicked straight away and let people in with ease. Being (relatively) cheap helped too. VR is a different kettle of fish as it'll have to be expensive, you look a right tit with the helmet on, it's isolating unless you've the money for more than one headset, it's always made some people feel sick and - this is the most important bit - there is no genuine demand for it. Nintendo convinced people they were on to a good idea when they unveiled Wii. Sony and the other VR makes haven't convinced anyone other than tech heads and die hard fanboys that this is a good idea.

I think the Last Guardian is dead (also I don't care for it) and EverQuest Next release on PC will be pushed to 2016, PS4 version coming 2017 at the earliest!

Virtual Reality would be safe if sat in a chair with clear space around you from a physical point of view as anything in your 'space' could become a hazard. However from a psychological or mental point of view, who knows? Especially with prolonged use. Some people already feel nauseous from using it for short periods of time. Its because the eyes see movement but the rest of the senses don't feel it. At least with Augmented reality you still have a sense and view of the world around you. Augmented reality has many applications - not just gaming. you could have instructions on fixing you plumbing with a video conference too for example. It doesn't have to be plumbing but could be car maintenance, DIY or computer building - real world applications. As I said, I don't feel it has as many gaming applications but in terms of everyday use it has far more potential. Virtual Reality is also a much more anti-social device as it shuts you off from everyone around you.

I think we are all pretty much saying the same thing. What Sony does need to do is launch a machine with 2 hdmi cables which run to 2 tvs so you can play multiplayer on 2 screens without the need for 2 consoles. Hope that makes sense. Reason being; most people buy 1 console but most households have more Tha 1 TV, I think its a great idea. That is a proper use of a second screen

Sounds really good, but to have a more realistic scenario without the need for a hardware-revision that would be pretty substantial (because the console would have to render everything twice) they should start a special incentive called something like "Playstation Family Program" where if you buy a second PS4 within 3 months of your first purchase, you get half the price OFF in the form of store-vouchers and PS+ subscription (to prevent cheap ass people getting a second console 50% off only to sell it for 75% of original price on eBay). Basicly lower the hurdle to get a second console for exactly the reasons you and others have stated: In-home-multiplayer!

Oh something else that came to my mind. Remember Forza and Gran Turismo, if you wanted a triple-screen setup you had to get 3 consoles and 3 games to have a proper racing setup. I was thinking, 5 years down the line when the PS4 is "old and worn" compared to recent PC hardware (don't get me the argument it already is, I know about the generation gap between console and PC hardware, still the games look pretty much on-par if you don't have a 1800,- + rig) if it would be a possibility to prolong it's lifetime by offering games that run on two consoles instead of one for the benefit of better graphics. I mean hardware would probably be down to 250 already and compared to the PC world where a graphics card alone EASILY sets you back that amount, do you guys think this would be a viable option? Both PS4 would connect to an HDMI dongle basicly fusing together the combined power and outputting it to one HDMI cable that you could connect to your setup. Feasable from a business standpoint? Ideas?

Exactly you could run the one ps4 set up to play fps games of ps3 games on 2 screens, I have thought this as playing timesplitters 2 could achieve this easily. I was also thinking of a small screen - you could probably use a 10 inch tablet and attach it to the top of your tv for map information, scores etc. Rather Tha holding it in your lap.

Well that's not how I meant it, but still a nice idea. I think that second screen gaming could be easily implemented with the Vita, just streaming some generic map information or character stats on the Vita would be not hard to do. But honestly, personally I'm no fan of this "second screen gaming" thing. Even hate it to date with DS/3DS.

What I meant is essentially using TWO PS4's to play more graphically demanding and even bigger games in the future, to enhance the lifetime of the console.

So effectively linking them together to combine their abilities into one - effectively doubling the RAM, GPU etc. What I have never understood though is that when you see the PC specs required for games to run at higher resolution, FPS etc they. on paper at least, seem a lot lower than the consoles. 4K gaming often requires a minimum of 4GB and a similar speed chip. I know the OS occupies some of the RAM but then it does on PC too. Considering the size, scale and scope of some older games and the specs of the consoles they were on, I struggle to see why some modern games struggle. How many more times powerful is the PS4 over the PS3 or even the PS2 yet 1080p is only twice what 720p is in terms of pixel count. I know there are more complex lighting and particle effects but lets be honest the PS4 is more than 10 times as powerful (according to Sony). Looking at the GPU, the PS4's is equivalent in essence to a Radeon HD 7870 - more than required for minimum PC specs. So is the PS4 like putting 10+ PS3's together?

I guess it then comes down to the developers, time and money. No doubt overheads (wages, bills etc) have increased and these games take time to build. We know that CoD has recently changed to a 3yr cycle but some games are in production for longer. These studios have hundreds of employees too. If they had 100 people averaging £25,000 a year - that's a wage bill of £2.5m a year alone. Making a game bigger takes time and therefore incurs a lot more costs. It could incur many more external costs too like writers, voice actors, mo-capping etc too. I don't know exact figures but I expect that making Battlefront in 2015 is likely to cost a lot more than it did making the last Battlefront did - even if on paper at least it has a lot less content. Maybe with inflation it may be similar. Its this reason that I don't see games increasing in scale or scope. I don't have exact numbers but I doubt many actually play a game to 'platinum' level - particularly those with potentially hundreds of hours. I looked on TrueTrophies the other day at one of the Batman Arkham games (city I think) and only 5% had the gold. 5% of all those on TrueTrophies - a site for those trophy hunters so across all of gamers this could be lower. For some having a 'big' game is more daunting. I do think there is a balance between too much and too little and this can vary between genre too. Some of this is down to what's come before. RPG's like Skyrim would be disappointing if you could complete and see everything in 20hours but some campaigns would seem too drawn out if they lasted this long let alone 100+ hours.

@BAMozzy interesting thoughts there and I think you're right on. Still I do believe that this generation it's slightly better than the last one, because the platforms, the internal structure, the engines, the source codes etc... are very similar this time around on PC/PS4 and XBONE. So probably a game that took 3 years to develop on PS3 alone will now be done in 2 and a half for PS4, XBONE and PC alltogether. You know when it comes to gaming for me there are 2 prime values a game must have: good engaging story so I want to see it to the end (for example The Last of Us, Bloodborne, ...) and/or great replay-value even though actual content might not be that big. Lets say Helldivers as a recent example. It's all random missions but the objectives and situations all repeat themselves, still... this game has a very good ratio of "investment/effort to create" VS "time spent having fun for the players". Games should go more into this direction.

That example you gave me, Skyrim. The next Elderscrolls, why is it not - or why is no one else thinking about it - a COOP adventure? It would be so easy to implement. In singleplayer you run around with a sidekick that just has his lines in cutscenes and assists you in combat, you can send him to town fetch some potions, what have you. Once your coop friend is joining you it's actually his character form HIS single player game. No cutscenes no story would have to be altered, nothing, it's just a model-swap and the story around 2 characters remains the same. Instantly more replay value just by having a friend join you experiencing awesome moments. If you now add some "randomness" to the world, quests and events (no 2 playthroughs are exactly the same) this would be huge incentive to keep people playing together just to see how the other guys world is like, what decisions he took and how he shaped the world. It would still take the same amount of time and money to develop than it takes to do some serious AAA game, still it would be around much longer and even pose the option of real-after-sale-DLC since the community would still be there, interested in new content to gobble up.

But that's just me.

And yeah since games DO take longer to develop it only makes sense, from a business point of view, to have the consoles around MUCH longer, and therefore an option to "plug" 2 PS4's together for essentially double the power would prolong the console's life tremendously, thus more or less "nullifying" or at least "easing" the long development cycles of games. You wouldn't even segment your user-base, make it so those "new big games" can be played on only ONE PS4, but with details set to minimum - just like on PC - and have access to all their bells and whistles when being played on TWO PS4s. Easy.

I wonder if ever anyone picks this idea up. Maybe Nintendo goes into a similar direction with their new projects. Just make little "console cubes" (no pun intended) that you can plug together like legos, the more of them you buy, the more powerful the system is, its almost fool-proof for the future...

Just thinking...