This is more than early adopters coming to the PS4. There are well over 100 million potential customers who will be replacing PS3 and Xbox 360's with PS4's over the next few years.

No, that's precisely what early adopters are; like I said, things have just become more and more front-loaded in gaming, especially as of late. Furthermore, there's no sign of more people wanting  to replace their systems just because the PS4 is out .If anyone has an uphill battle it's Sony and MS because there really isn't any difference between the PS4, XB1 and their predecessors besides slightly pretty graphical effects. The 360 was slow as hell to sell until 2007. The PS3 took THREE YEARS to hit its stride. And this is only going to become the norm from now on. Gaming is a luxury and people can deal with not upgrading their systems, especially when the cheapest of the HD twins comes in at $400 without a game, online subscription, or more than one controller. I don't ANY of the new systems doing well their first year, and that's going to be a wakeup call for all parties involved.

You can say preorders mean nothing. .. but when the Wii U sells 400, 000 I'm the first week and the PS4 has 1 million pre-order already and 1.5 million waiting it is pretty obvious it is going to crush any console launch to date.

Because early adopters are nothing new. Furthermore, releases and sales have just been becoming more and more frontloaded, so again, just because it has 1 million preorders doesn't really mean much when you're hit with that context. It's why a movie breaking box office records doesn't really mean much anymore or why a game hitting huge numbers first week doesn't mean much. Sure, the launch week might be big, but then you have to think of the subsequent weeks and, let's face it, followup sales being far lower is very common now.

PlayStation 4 is sold out.
I judge it by the fact there are 1.5 million people on the waiting list for gamestop alone. This number does not include orders already placed.

So did the Wii U. And the 3DS. Selling out pre-orders means nothing, it's par for the course and anyone who has studied gaming history can tell you that much. This idea that it will surpass the Wii U is wishful thinking. We still don't really know how the majority of people will really react towards the XB1 or the PS4 as the PS3 and 360 are good enough for most. It's like how PCs having been selling a lot due to current computers being more than enough for people.

While those are worthy ideas there is still one problem. .. it costs $349 and the PS4 is $399 and looks a much better value. You now get 4 "free to play" games on day one also.

The 3ds had no competition when it was floundering and they still had to cut the price to move the system.

Now Nintendo has two great systems coming out for the holiday to compete with.

They will be lucky to have 20% of the market in the next few years. It is that bleak.

Except that the PS4 has a few hidden costs such as:

No BC, thus eliminating the possibility of trading in your PS3 if you want to play your PS3 games. Heck, even your PSN games don't transfer

You have to buy all new controllers, each costing $60

Online multiplayer is an extra $60

The Wii U has ONE that's easy to remedy: storage. And considering that hard drives CONSTANTLY go down in price it's not a huge issue, especially if you don't get a lot of digital games. It amazes me that people keep forgetting this.

Aiddon:

First of BC means nothing to me. One I never go back to old games. 2 nothing says I have to chuck my old system.
Adorable, still doesn't change the fact that it's an issue for a LOT of people.

Online multi does not cost anything.

Yes it does. You wanna play multiplayer online you're gonna have to use PS+

My Wii U did not come with any Wii+ controllers. .. yours did? So I would have to buy those and nunchucks.

No, but I still had everything left over from my Wii.

That nullifies hidden costs.
The above examples say otherwise

Not exactly as big of a competitor as it first appeared, is it? Face it, the PS4 is going to have a typical launch year and the Wii U is NOT going to be in trouble over it. To suggest otherwise is trying to judge things in a vacuum.

I'm buying solely for its unique flair. I can't really put a true comparison to it without bringing up about fifty different games. Furthermore, there is a lot more depth than I first expected what with the ability to use multiple Morphs at once with each having their own strengths and weaknesses.

Waiting to see how much people overhype this only to throw a hissy fit when their unrealistic expectations don't come to pass. Happens EVERY freaking time

and this is why whining about Nintendo is akin to trying conquer Russia. Yeah, you'll get a few licks in but then winter hits and you end up looking like a fool.

Was this Direct that good?

 

I mean, we still have like no release dates. Not one for Mario Kart 8, and not even a time frame for SSB4.

They give you plenty of things to talk about and yet you move the goal posts AGAIN, this time saying "well, we don't release dates though!" Again, like trying to conquer Russia. It's not their fault you're freezing your toes off

Quite true.  The beauty of the RAM limitations for the PS3 and 360 (it was limited even for 2006) was that it forced them to work harder to actually improve the visuals over time, and they have done a wonderful job with it over the years.  Of course devs are always going to want more RAM.  That will never change.  Whether they are willing to learn to develop for a particular platform in the end comes down to whether they believe that they can make money on that platform.  Wii U can do anything the other consoles can do for the most part, its just a matter of how much effort developers are going to put into extracting that performance.    The good thing is that its actually the PS4 that is the odd man out.  That's the platform where I think developers will get a little lazy with their memory management.  XB1 is architecturally more similar to Wii U, just with a larger main RAM pool, which in the end isn't going to be the limiting factor for any of the consoles.  Dev talk is swirling that XB1 performs more like Wii U as well.

 

Using anecdotal evidence from developers who have released games on the platforms, we have a system that is really easy to develop for, but a little more difficult to completely optimize.

Which is what devs HATE nowadays; they hate having to actually put EFFORT into making something work. They want to able to just push a button and have everything be perfect. This is what happens when you let game development become prohibitively expensive. If it has gotten to the point where doing a simple port is too much work, then that is a problem with YOU, not the system. This is why indie devs have had absolutely no trouble with the system while big names whine and moan CONSTANTLY.

Right, and even though honestly disc streaming along with the main ram bandwidth is enough for most applications (textures aren't as bandwidth hungry as some would think) prioritizing commonly used textures to be housed in EDRAM would be effective, but it depends on the game being developed.

They aren't using the EDRAM 'yet'.  Many of them simply hadn't figured out what they were doing with the system, and Nintendo's tools weren't very good (you could argue even Nintendo didn't really know what they were doing with the system yet) when the current crop of games was released.  Obviously there are a couple that use it lightly, like Shin'en's game and Trine 2.  Just goes to show you that the indie guys were able to get more acquainted with the system in a shorter period of time than big house publishers.  A testament to their engineering prowess.

Considering that most developers have let themselves become factory production lines I get the feeling they don't really WANT to learn architecture more complex than "let's just keep throwing a bunch of RAM at it!" AAA production has just become such a mess that even the SLIGHTEST deviation throws wrenches in their beloved plans. It's kind of sad

Agreed.  I think dev teams as well as marketing budgets are becoming extremely over inflated.  Obviously to the point where they aren't able to even recoup costs on games most of the time.  

One of the problems regarding dev teams is that they're just throwing HUNDREDS at development, thinking it's an easy way to get things out faster. It's like trying to make a cake and thinking you can cut down on the baking time by just doubling the temperature. Doesn't work like that. For SOME games, large dev teams are inevitable (like Grand Theft Auto, The Elder Scrolls, and ANY MMO), but I don't see why we need 600+ man dev teams for everything. Pubs have become one-trick ponies by just doing blockbuster after blockbuster instead of doing blockbusters, but also SMALLER projects throughout the years.

It isn't which is the point I was making.  It's actually very easy to code for, but a little harder to completely optimize (considering its the platform with the most divergent architecture and the most custom logic, and actually incorporates bold new hardware direction) whereas you'll see more out of the other platforms earlier on but it will more than likely stagnate, because more RAM can only take you to a point where you have a beautifully detailed slideshow presentation, it doesn't actually help performance at all.  The GPU performance difference for what we know of the Wii U GPU logic and the PS4's advertised specification aren't spread enough to make a big difference performance wise, especially considering they can both technically do all of the same things, however Nintendo has added custom logic to make certain things more efficient (we can speculate about what it is, but I think this makes sense as is).

i.e., too many devs are obsessed with doing only brute force methods, which there's a limit to how much you can do with that. Like with the Wii architects realizing that consoles were going to start seeing diminishing returns in graphical quality boosts, they realized that simply through ever increasing amounts of RAM at the thing is not going to help performance further down the line. Best gt used to it NOW rather than later.

a lot of it seems like lazy devs, though because developers have let production become so complex it's turned counter-intuitive. Furthermore, it seems like ALL devs just want every system to be the same, thinking you can just press a button and get the exact same result every time. It doesn't work that way.

Neither of those are exclusives. And oblivion? on consoles? Ugh. elder scrolls does not belong on consoles.

Though I give credit to gow as at least a year timed exclusive before heading to pc. But lets face facts. "let's not pretend that we're wallowing in the future of entertainment. What we have here is an extremely competent action game that's as polished and refined as it could be, and is therefore very enjoyable. . But if Epic had applied the same widescreen scope and ambition to the gameplay as it did to the engine we'd be much more excited than we are."

Now compare it to what the ps2 had by then.

Dark cloud, dark cloud 2(chronicle), Silent hill 2, ico, jak and daxter, red faction, time splitters, grand theft auto 3 (the first gta that was actually, well, whats known as gta, mind blowing revolutionary change in gameplay enabled by the new engine)

This list can go on for a looooonnngggg time, it literally hasnt even gotten started.

The multiplat homeginization has severely devalued the console gaming experience. Different consoles should ALL have mostly different libraries, not just nintendo.

Though let's face it, devs have pretty much shot themselves in the feet by letting budgets spiral out of control, thus why making exclusives terrifies them and thus why they've become so risk averse. And again, the reason I can't sympathize with these guys is because they could rectify these mistakes in a second by scaling budgets back, stop making stuff that's ONLY M-Rated, cater to other niches that have been starved, make more stuff for handhelds, and generally just stop making such bad business decisions. And YET, they keep making these mistakes and blaming everyone else, whether it be console makers or consumers.

I hate this. Why on earth do people want console gaming to be completely homogenous. What is the point in having multiple consoles if the games are all the same?

Who the hell cares about buying more games if they are all middling multiplat crap instead of awesome generation defining exclusives? This is the crap that turned this gen to the crappiest in gaming history, and people are so used to being shoveled feces they just lewve their mouths gaping waiting for more terds to be shoveled in.

Because 3rd parties have been trying to convince consumers of a one-console future for years. Furthermore, companies have always tried to perpetuate that there is only ONE line of evolution for consoles and that is the "just add more power to it!", blissfully unaware of Diminishing Returns, which are now happening as seen with the PS4 and the XB1. The entire reason Nintendo went in a different direction than everyone is because they realized first that just doing the same thing as everyone else wasn't going to work forever.

And companies HATED that. They hated being proven wrong by somebody they wrote off as a has-been, only for Nintendo to come back from the dead and basically humiliate them. They showed that motion controls weren't just a gimmick and that the huge leaps in tech philosophy 3rd parties had been perpetuating for years wasn't the end-all, be-all. It's akin to a fundamentalist finding out that the Bible had huge errors that needed to be corrected. But still 3rd parties have been just making thesame crap for years, terrified of actually putting forth effort or scaling back budgets a bit to focus on what's important.

when 3rd parties are this lazy, half-assed, and cowardly, I can't say it should surprise people why most games bought on Nintendo systems are made by Nintendo.

its not that they are cowardly its that the WiiU has an install base of like 3.5 million and for games that have a niche audience, unless Nintendo pays them, what sense does it make to bring a game to the WiiU if there is not going to be any profit. Also, it's on Nintendo for making a significantly weaker console making it hard for the 3rd parties to make games for the console.

And whose fault is it for sitting on their ass and not releasing product which could have helped raise the install base? Oh, right, 3rd parties. If you want sales, if you want something to grow, YOU HAVE TO MAKE AN EFFORT. It is NEVER delivered to you on a silver platter.

And another thing, when the HELL did companies start caring so much about power? The PS1 was dead last in the the power department, same thing with the PS2 (the original XBox for instance was several times more powerful than the PS2), and the 360 wasn't on the same level as the PS3 and yet 3rd parties happily gave that preferential treatment for the initial 7th gen years. And I don't even need to explain the royal asskickings that Nintendo's handheld division gave each of its competitors. It used to be that developers just worked with something regardless of processing power, so where the HELL did this sudden hunger for power come from?

Nothing about the actions of 3rd parties makes any sense to me. The only conclusion I can come to for their sudden stupidity and change in priorities is that they've all been huffing paint for the past few years.

The last system I can remember that did that at launch was xbox and ps2 with ico and halo. Those days are gone. Long gone.

Ive been through 8 generation changes, of course im irritated that there is nothing to play on my new wii u. But I knew this would be the case, its something you have to accept when you buy around launch. Though its probably multiplied that ive gone 7 years owning 3 mostly worthless consoles, 2 of which have 99% the same exact library, and I have played less games for combined than 2 or 3 years of either/or ps2/xbox. My 360/ps3 collection is a JOKE compared to my xbox/ps2 collection. I am tired of the redundant crap. It was starting to get old at the end of that generation, and is now 7 years past the point of being sick of it.
Plus I spent 7 years waiting for the last guardian, and its all but vapor ware now. That made me grumpy.

But ANYWAYS, I dont expect an end of generation size library within the first couple months, this aint my first time on this map.

That's the thing that baffles me with people bashing Nintendo over and over again: are they forgetting just how many first years for a system were completely dry? It's been the norm for YEARS and yet people stamp their feet and act like Nintendo wasn't allowed to NOT be an exception to that. It's amazing. For the love of god, the PS2 had NOTHING it's first year except its ability as a DVD player. Same thing with the PS3, which had SEVERAL years of being considered a joke among gamers. Why are people ignoring history like this? This is ridiculous

Halo 3 came out TWO YEARS after the 360 launched. Uncharted 2 wasn't until THREE years after the PS3 and The Last of Us was a few months ago. You can't compare that to the Wii U's first year, because in the PS3 and 360's first years, they had jack. Freaking. Squat.

That's absolute and utter rubbish. There were plenty of great games through out the life span of the 360 and PS3 including the early years and launch window. The Wii U's first doesn't compare in the least with those two consoles. You obviously have no clue what was released on the PS3 and Xbox 360.

Power of wikipedia, I DO know what was released on the PS3 and the 360 for their first years AAAAND...not exactly anything to write home about. The 360 had, MAYBE, three truly big titles in its first year: Oblivion, Dead Rising, and Gears of War. Everything else was....basic. The PS3 was the same. In its first year it had Virtua Fighter 5 and Uncharted. Aside from that, its library was pretty much a copy-paste of the 360's and it didn't really have any truly big reasons to get it until MGS IV which STILL didn't help it fully recover.

Everyone. Simply not all at once or all at launch. My school house rock parody covered this.

But you are asking the wrong question, this is the message the publishers want to brainwash into you.

What you should be asking is, is there any possible way enough unique value can be provided for each console to make that 900 dollar (even though it wont be anywhere near that since we wont buy all 3 at launch) investment for the next decade worth it for each individual system?

There used to be. There can be again.

That and they could stop making systems COST $400+ in the first place. Seriously, they need to start keeping costs down by making things more efficient, especially with diminishing returns hitting and budgets becoming so inflated.

the DX11 thing in particular really smacks naysayers right in the face. One of the worst perpetrators of that was Nomura with FFXV and KH3, saying that since the Wii U didn't support DX11 (which the PS4 doesn't EITHER). However, we know a lot of pubs (particularly the Western ones) will still make lazy excuses because, let's face it, their grievances with Nintendo are mostly political, not technological.

Unless there is an XP or Leveling system implemented, then enemies would level up as you do

Except those never work. In Skyrim for instance you'll just plow through enemies like a hot knife through butter despite the fact that they're the same level as you. And why does this dilemma exist? Because the player earns more than just more Health or Mana, they also learn new abilities, something that the enemies never get. So the difficulty durve in Skyrim not only never goes up, it actually DECREASES.

Another reason an open world Zelda wouldn't work is this: level design. Zelda's dungeons and just maps in general are an intricate clockwork of architecture and structure. Thing is, in an open world game the level design actually has to be very similar otherwise the difficulty curve makes no sense. And that is why it could never happen. Levels in Zelda get more and more complex little by little as the game progresses in a very precise manner in order to balance player resources, specifically tools, in order to be challenging but never irritating. If you take away the pacing then the game just becomes a bunch of samey dungeons which is a serious blow to the design.

Yet another wishlist pandering to the more shallow expectations of Zelda players. The Skyrim part especially makes me call BS as if you made a Zelda open-world then the pacing and difficulty curve would be DESTROYED.

They can't go there showing Yoshi's Epic Yarn or Kirby Triple Deluxe, it would have to be something that goes with that audience (the people tuning in for Uncharted and Metal Gear). They would have to show something like Zelda, Super Smash Bros, or Monolith Soft's X, Zelda would be the big one. 

 

Aonuma wanted to show Zelda at E3, didn't get to show, wanted to show it at Comic Con, again didn't get to show it. I believe this will be the time. 

 

 

 

 

 

We will probably get something similar to this then the full gameplay reveal at E3. 

 

Oh please, the audience would whine about Zelda too. They're never gonna be pleased with a Nintendo title, so ya might as well just piss them off for a few giggles.