Yoshida: Making PS4 always-online was never considered

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Over the past few months, there has been a lot of talk about always-online. Much of the discussion stemmed from rumors about the next Xbox, which was initially said to require a form of always-online connection in order to function. However, the latest conjectureindicates that users will be able to experience single-player titles, run Blu-rays, and watch live television without the Internet.

With such strong speculation about always-online and how it relates to the next Xbox, one has to wonder if Sony ever considered this type of functionality for the PlayStation 4. That would be a no, according to Sony Worldwide Studios president Shuhei Yoshida. The company?s main reasoning is that ?many countries don?t have robust Internet connections.?

Yoshida explained to Game Informer:

?Did we consider it? No, we didn?t consider it. The main reason being that many countries don?t have robust Internet connections. It makes sense for people to have Internet connections to play online games, but for offline games there are many countries that we saw do not really have robust Internet.?

Source: http://gamingeverything.com/47204/yoshida-making-ps4-always-online-was-never-considered/

[giantpotato]

Always online was never considered...except for backwards compatibility.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

Always online was never considered...except for backwards compatibility.

I wonder if I am in the minority whereas BC is not important to me whatsoever.

I actually was fortunate enough to have it this generation as I have a 1st gen Phat PS3, and I used it one time. That one time was for about 1 hour as the game quite honestly looked like ass upscaled.

Also had it on the 360 obviously, and I never used it there either.

I still have the original XBox, but I did sell my PS2 years ago.

But my thinking is if I really want to play those games for whatever reason, I would just hook up said console.

I guess I just do not care all that much about revisiting games from the past. I admit a lot of that does come down to hardly having enough time to play current games, so yeah, I do wonder if I am the minority or if a decent amount of people feel the same way. Think I may finally have my idea for my return Editorial.

[soniqstylz]

Always online was never considered...except for backwards compatibility.

unrelated. That's like saying "always online was never considered... except for Netflix".

[giantpotato]

Well, they kind of made a big deal about their integration with Gaikai during their reveal, so online might not be required, but a whole bunch of features will require it. Hell, there's going to be a dedicated button on the controller that is completely useless without an internet connection.

.

[compl3x]

Well, they kind of made a big deal about their integration with Gaikai during their reveal, so online might not be required, but a whole bunch of features will require it. Hell, there's going to be a dedicated button on the controller that is completely useless without an internet connection.

.

I think there is a significant difference between offering plenty of content which depends on online and forcing a console to be constantly connected.

[dead.cell]

Well, they kind of made a big deal about their integration with Gaikai during their reveal, so online might not be required, but a whole bunch of features will require it. Hell, there's going to be a dedicated button on the controller that is completely useless without an internet connection.

.

*facepalm* I can't even take you seriously.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Well it's either you get a console that's not $599, or you get the PS3 all over again, maybe even more expensive if you want internal BC. Emulating the Cell? Probably never going to happen.

The move to x86 is 1 million times better than Sony sticking with Cell and therefore allowing easy PS3 BC. As much as it sucks for many who want native BC, it simply isn't in anyway for the greater good vs the hardware shift away from Cell.

@giantpotato, the share button will most likely capture pictures/video offline as well and simply save on the hard drive. Much like the current PS3 screenshot feature.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Well, they kind of made a big deal about their integration with Gaikai during their reveal, so online might not be required, but a whole bunch of features will require it. Hell, there's going to be a dedicated button on the controller that is completely useless without an internet connection.

.

No way, online services requiring online, who'd have thought............

[Emn1ty]

@giantpotato, the share button will most likely capture pictures/video offline as well and simply save on the hard drive. Much like the current PS3 screenshot feature.

I wouldn't really count on that. Unless the service will include upload to things like YouTube I doubt it will have any need to save large video files to the console. Video is immense (especially at higher than 480p) and will decimate your storage space. If you'd like an example, 3m of 1080p video can come in at over 10GB. They may compress it in some fashion, but I'd say the simplest thing is to just stream it without worrying about saving.

[jerzdawg]

I wonder if I am in the minority whereas BC is not important to me whatsoever.

I actually was fortunate enough to have it this generation as I have a 1st gen Phat PS3, and I used it one time. That one time was for about 1 hour as the game quite honestly looked like ass upscaled.

Also had it on the 360 obviously, and I never used it there either.

I still have the original XBox, but I did sell my PS2 years ago.

But my thinking is if I really want to play those games for whatever reason, I would just hook up said console.

I guess I just do not care all that much about revisiting games from the past. I admit a lot of that does come down to hardly having enough time to play current games, so yeah, I do wonder if I am the minority or if a decent amount of people feel the same way. Think I may finally have my idea for my return Editorial.

Im with you on this.. never have I used or had the desire for BC. For some reason I think it was more widely used for PS1 games on the PS2. Ill admit I never had a PS1 so when I picked up the PS2 I never even considered playing a PS1. I do think its a nice feature for those with extensive libraries but I will never make BC a criteria to buy the next gen console.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I wouldn't really count on that. Unless the service will include upload to things like YouTube I doubt it will have any need to save large video files to the console. Video is immense (especially at higher than 480p) and will decimate your storage space. If you'd like an example, 3m of 1080p video can come in at over 10GB. They may compress it in some fashion, but I'd say the simplest thing is to just stream it without worrying about saving.

Uhh compression? x264 compression is fine for 1080p, hence hours of video only a few GB.

PlayTV, the PS3 TV Tuner records to the hard drive in a compressed video format.

[giantpotato]

I didn't get any consoles this generation, so to me backwards compatibility is not about replaying old games, its about playing console-exclusives for the first time. Is it too much to ask to be able to play all the entire Uncharted, Infamous, Halo etc. series' without needing 4 consoles. I have data caps so I don't exactly want to be wasting bandwidth streaming a video of a game when it's something that could have been done locally. They could have had a separate SKU with a bc chip like they did with the PS3, but they chose to go completely online.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I didn't get any consoles this generation, so to me backwards compatibility is not about replaying old games, its about playing console-exclusives for the first time. Is it too much to ask to be able to play all the entire Uncharted, Infamous, Halo etc. series' without needing 4 consoles. I have data caps so I don't exactly want to be wasting bandwidth streaming a video of a game when it's something that could have been done locally. They could have had a separate SKU with a bc chip like they did with the PS3, but they chose to go completely online.

I think Sony wants to try and be profitable early next gen and not bleed money like the PS3. It was in the regions of $800+ to make a unit, sold at $599. That's simply too much of a loss. Not saying a BC PS4 SKU would be that much, but it would still be a high loss per unit if we're going to accept rumours of around $400 for the PS4.

A 'bc chip' isn't going to do it with cell, they'd need a fair few components of the current PS3 motherboard. They simply cannot emulate cell, so you need all the hardware that's required to run the PS3. That would mean encasing the PS4 in a case that could not only hold the basic PS4 SKU, but the larger PS4 SKU that has the PS3 components in it. It gets costly, it gets complicated and ultimately they settle on the easiest and most cost efficient method for BC.... none at all, streaming or simply a PS3 price cut...

[giantpotato]

I think Sony wants to try and be profitable early next gen and not bleed money like the PS3. It was in the regions of $800+ to make a unit, sold at $599. That's simply too much of a loss. Not saying a BC PS4 SKU would be that much, but it would still be a high loss per unit if we're going to accept rumours of around $400 for the PS4.

A 'bc chip' isn't going to do it with cell, they'd need a fair few components of the current PS3 motherboard. They simply cannot emulate cell, so you need all the hardware that's required to run the PS3. That would mean encasing the PS4 in a case that could not only hold the basic PS4 SKU, but the larger PS4 SKU that has the PS3 components in it. It gets costly, it gets complicated and ultimately they settle on the easiest and most cost efficient method for BC.... none at all, streaming or simply a PS3 price cut...

A Cell processor cost ~$38 to manufacture in 2009, by now I can't imagine it costing more than $20, and even that is a generous estimate. They could have sold a premium SKU for $100 more and still turned a profit, but they chose not to.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

A Cell processor cost ~$38 to manufacture in 2009, by now I can't imagine it costing more than $20, and even that is a generous estimate. They could have sold a premium SKU for $100 more and still turned a profit, but they chose not to.

I think you're being a little naive if you think

a) That definitely ensures a profit (we won't know the PS4 parts estimate alone till launch/after launch). The non-BC PS4 may have to ride with a small loss to start with, especially if a new move camera/headset is being included.

b) $100 more on top of whatever the PS4 is will be a reasonable price for a large enough audience to warrant it.

If a PS3 launches at $400, you really think people will be wanting to spend $500?

Then you have to consider how long do they continue to maintain factory lines producing the BC SKU and the non-BC SKU (something which adds to costs as well)? Indefinitely?

This generation has shown a mish-mash of SKUs has been anything but successful (Xbox 360 launching without a hard drive, PS3 being too costly and hugely hurting Sony).

You have to streamline, you have to allow consumers to use their own hard drives and then the rest is history. No confusion, no cost-cutting measures to save your company involving taking features away, and no money grabbing tactics like no hard drive/built in WiFi to annoy developers and consumers.

[giantpotato]

My point is that if the $400 sku is making a profit, a $500 sku with the extra hardware would also make a profit. Adding last-gen hardware is not something that's going to turn the tide between the PS4 selling at a profit, or selling at a loss.

By your logic, nobody would have bought the more expensive SKU's of the PS3 or 360, because a cheaper version was available. Why would you want to take choice away from consumers, let them buy whatever sku fits their budget.

[FiB3R]

Is it too much to ask to be able to play all the entire Uncharted, Infamous, Halo etc. series' without needing 4 consoles.

Yes, it really is. (exaggeration notwithstanding)

[Emn1ty]

I think you're being a little naive if you think

a) That definitely ensures a profit (we won't know the PS4 parts estimate alone till launch/after launch). The non-BC PS4 may have to ride with a small loss to start with, especially if a new move camera/headset is being included.

b) $100 more on top of whatever the PS4 is will be a reasonable price for a large enough audience to warrant it.

A) most consoles sell at a loss and make it back in software sales. The only exception to this was the Wii. I'm 100% sure this will be true for the PS4 and the Xbox Infinity.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

A) most consoles sell at a loss and make it back in software sales. The only exception to this was the Wii. I'm 100% sure this will be true for the PS4 and the Xbox Infinity.

I know that, but were you not here at the start of this generation with Sony posting billions of yen in losses, Ken Kutaragi stepping down and sales much lower than expected due to $599. In recent times Sony have sold off their main HQ in Japan, and even more recently all of the top staff/CEO etc are not getting their bonuses to save money.

Its not as simple as we will sell at a loss now and sometime in the future our hardware will make profit. That's a risk. A huge risk. So if you are going to do it, things better be planned well, and go to plan.

It took till 2010 for the PS3 to become profitable. Sony cannot and will not be able to afford that sort of timescale with a PS4.

[Boxster17]

Microsoft and Sony aren't stupid, I'm sure they did the math the amount of people that use backwards compatibility on the X360 and PS3 is likely a couple percent. I have a near launch 60GB one and have a couple dozen PS2 games that I tried a couple times and it looked awful so never bothered again. I'm buying the new consoles for the new games, not to play games that came out several years ago.

That said I'll still be keeping my PS3 for a while like I did with my PS2 as Sony tends to still launch some great games after/near their new console launches. Same goes for if/when I pick up the next Xbox, I've played all the exclusives this gen so I have no interest in backwards compatibility there either as I'm looking for what's new.

Speaking to the majority of my friends who own own either or even both (speaking of the X360/PS3), they tend to share the same feelings. It seems to be a small vocal minority that makes out backwards compatibility to be a bigger deal than it really is. Not to mention people seem to underestimate the amount of re-engineering that would likely be needed for these consoles to add these chips and to accommodate the extra power draw/heat.

[Blackhearted]

Microsoft and Sony aren't stupid, I'm sure they did the math the amount of people that use backwards compatibility on the X360 and PS3 is likely a couple percent. I have a near launch 60GB one and have a couple dozen PS2 games that I tried a couple times and it looked awful so never bothered again. I'm buying the new consoles for the new games, not to play games that came out several years ago.

Speaking to the majority of my friends who own own either or even both (speaking of the X360/PS3), they tend to share the same feelings. It seems to be a small vocal minority that makes out backwards compatibility to be a bigger deal than it really is. Not to mention people seem to underestimate the amount of re-engineering that would likely be needed for these consoles to add these chips and to accommodate the extra power draw/heat.

Sony didn't really give people very long to actually try to use the PS2 BC, as they started cutting it out at like the first hardware revision. So if they did have any numbers on that they wouldn't really mean much.

Also, You seem to think that what you and your circle of friends think accounts for everyone. I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't. Just because you and your friends appear to be the type who beat a game and then never revisit it again, doesn't mean all (or the majority) of the rest of the people are.