Persona 4 Golden offers plenty of replay value. UC and AC have plenty of collectibles you can occupy yourself with post-game and harder difficulty settings. At E3 there were around 30 games to play on the show floor. Obviously more AAA support would be appreciated but the system isn't going through this massive games drought like some people are making out.
@14Feb-R: As I said, most of those reasons are just nuisances. Sure, it would be great if I could use my other PSN ...
Well then go right ahead, the ones I can think of are more nuisances rather than core problems with the exception of memory card prices which was a downright stupid decision by Sony (though even that is partly made up for by PS+ savings)
I love the PS3 as much as the next guy but why would you compare a console which has been out for quite some time, is considerably cheaper and has amassed a massive games library to a just released one?
Why would Sony put money into advertising games which will inevitably sell relatively little? Go do some research, Sony shouldn't have to put billboards up of every Vita game in development for you to realise that they exist.
What? Uncharted Golden Abyss, Gravity Rush, Persona 4 Golden and AC:Liberation are all awesome games and reason enough to get the system on their own. Then you've got the games that Sony has given away on PS+ and the upcoming Tearaway, Killzone, plus whatever games Sony is planning to announce at Gamescon. I'm already amassing a backlog on the system.
I find most of the reasons in the article pretty stupid. Who cares about the camera? I'm not buying a handheld co...
@ma1asiah: The content on a DVD/Blu-ray movie doesn't degrade through wear and tear. The content on music CDs doesn't degrade through wear and tear. Why aren't the production companies lining up to claim back money on second-hand sales of these discs? Since the downloadable content itself is priced so competitively, relatively few people buy second-hand copies of the physical discs compared to games, I don't see why publishers think they're entitled to profiting over a sin...
Who said anything about trying to make money from one customer over and over? There's nothing wrong with my logic, it's your reading comprehension which needs work. They are making money from a single product which has been already been paid for by the initial buyer over and over. Name me one other industry where this is expected or at least tell me what makes the gaming industry so special?
"So the consumer saved five dollars, Gamestop made a $55 profit, and the developer got absolutely none of that.
So who’s being selfish here? Microsoft or the consumer? I can’t tell you what to think, but you obviously know what I think."
The ones being selfish are the developers/publishers/MS who for some reason think it is their God-given right to profit from a single sale multiple times when it is unheard of in pretty much any other industry.
I'm getting real tired of your **** Cliff
If Sony can stream a catalogue of PS3 titles to millions of its customers then I'm sure MS with its endless pockets can do it too. As for the second point, only way around that would be to allow for the owner to play whilst a family member is playing, but not extending this to those who don't own the game (aside from if its the owner playing offline obv). If it was a giant lie to begin with then that could be the actual reason for removing it - pretend that this was the fault of the g...
How about making family sharing into an online only feature? As in the game isn't installed to the system's hard drive but is streamed over the cloud, similar to Gakai. Allows for the necessary verification without imposing a universal 1/24 hour online check which can lock the system's offline component.
Besides, I don't see how family sharing was realistic in its original form. Surely if we're talking about single player games, one person can buy the gam...
It's verified at the point of download. How exactly can it NOT work?
Legend.
Even now I don't see how these benefits could have come anywhere close to making up for the downsides. If they were truly doing this for gamers then they wouldn't have implemented a system which limits their freedom in the first place. Besides, as he mentions, it's not like the family sharing feature is no longer going to happen because of this U-turn, it can easily be implemented on downloaded titles.
The console war just turned from a massacre into a simple beating.
Rather have them backtrack than to continue to be arrogant and set down this stupid path. They'll have to remove a fair amount of the X1's features though, like being able to download physical discs to the hard drive
@hdshatter: With the PS+ subscription I got for £20, I've managed to get 82 games over the span of a year, all of which had a minimum of a 70 rating on metacritic.
"How about my problem is the amount of misinformation and lies being spread by fanboys?"
That's rich coming from the guy who is trying to get other people to buy into MS' cloud computing nonsense
A nervous mistake from a guy working for a company who can really do without adding more confusion and negative PR right now. Seems the MS rep patrol is out in full swing.
@bothebo: The point was about Vita not having games in general, so the time of release was irrelevant. But if we're talking about games coming out this year then it seems you do need a lecture. 30 games playable at E3. 85 new Vita games by the end of 2013 and that's not taking into account possible reveals at Gamescon/TGS. If you've only got 10 vita games then I'd question whether you have played all of the compelling games on the system.