Playstation 4 Announced!

[Specially Cork]

Sold. I doubt I'll early adopt this time - mainly because it seems like a lot of big-name games this year will be coming out on both generations and I'm not sure I want to slap down $300-$400 just for a graphics upgrade.

However my launch PS3 is still going strong after all these years and despite a slow start compared to the PS2, I still think it came away from this gen with the lion's share of the best exclusives so I'll end up upgrading eventually.

EDIT

In news that is sure to encourage grimacing and facepalming, Sony has confirmed purchases made on the PlayStation Network will not carry over from PS3 to PS4.

Fuck you Sony.

Thoughts?

[DaMadFiddler]

Meh.

The cooling fan in our PS3 broke a few months back, and we've been on the fence about whether to fix it or put that money toward the next-generation console instead. There are still a lot of details missing, but at least at this point, I think we'll be fixing the PS3.

Streaming is nice, and can lead to some interesting features (like the try-before-you-buy shop), but it's no substitute for backwards compatibility. There are several details we still don't have, but based on a combination of the architecture and industry trends, I doubt it's going to have full (if any) backwards compatibility. I don't care so much about the PSone, but the PS2 and PS3 both had great catalogs, and I have a big cabinet full of games for both systems that I would be rather upset not to be able to play. I MUCH prefer hard copies of my media; I hardly ever download, so improved shop features don't appeal that much to me. But that's a whole separate rant.

A much bigger concern is the fact that the entire focus seems to be on streaming features and social networking. I don't want every damn thing I do tied to a social network, and streaming is well and good if you have a good Internet connection with high stability and no data cap. But more and more ISPs are moving to a capped model (again, a whole separate rant there), and for me personally, we have a pretty unstable connection that makes large downloads rather impractical and online play almost laughable.

Besides that, I still think the PS3 has a lot of potential left. This console generation has been longer than usual, but there are reasons for that. The PS3 in particular was really beefy hardware when it launched, and to be honest, it reached a point technologically where it was "good enough" that it seems to allow developers to do everything they want with ease in 90% of game types. I can understand Nintendo's desire to launch the next generation because the Wii was severely underpowered compared to the competition, but I've never felt limited by the PS3, except in regard to things that were conscious software decisions by Sony. A spec boost holds no appeal to me until I start seeing desirable, concrete examples of games that would not work due to the PS3's hardware limitations.

That said, final judgement (of course) is dependent on the full picture. But I think part of my problem is that the PS3 was so good for its day--and hardware has just evolved to a point in general--that the PS3 really does not feel dated or constrained, even six years after its debut. Would it be nice if every game could run in 1080p instead of "lesser" HD resolutions? Sure, but if slightly prettier visuals are the only significant difference, that's not worth the expense.

Every major hardware generation so far has brought new capabilities that enabled new types of game design. The NES moved games beyond the extreme simplicity of the early days. Hardware was still extremely limited at the time, though, and the Genesis and SNES brought enough processing power to expand on that. The SNES in particular brought a bunch of dedicated hardware that allowed for new game design, such as pseudo-3D gameplay and transforming environments. The next generation brought both 3D--leading to a fundamental change in game design--and an exponential increase in storage space, though the 3D was still severely restricted by limited system resources. The Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, and GameCube took the fledgeling 3D and really polished it, allowing 3D game design to mature. The PS3, 360, and Wii saw that maturation of online console gaming as well as digital distribution, and the PS3 and 360 finally brought enough horsepower to handle advanced AI and complex game engines while still pushing high-quality 3D graphics, and the Wii prompted a rethink of control schemes and game accessibility. They also brought large internal storage. Nintendo transitioned from the Wii to the Wii U because the Wii was a budget console, and its hardware was something of a relic even at launch, and newer hardware will finally allow it to play the kinds of games that the PS3 and 360 have been getting but the Wii couldn't handle with its slow, single-core CPU and limited memory. But the next generation PlayStation brings... um... an opportunity for Sony to streamline its business model? Exciting

You can always (always) make 3D graphics prettier, particularly with more RAM and storage to push around, but that starts taking an exponentially increasing amount of work (and thus cost to develop) for diminishing returns. And I think most consumers would agree that the PS3's graphics are "good enough," if no other significant benefit accompanies the cost increase of a spec boost. I can't see the PS3 offering significant hurdles to anything a developer would want to do in 2D. Most 3D designs seem to work pretty well, even with some rather advanced game engines running. Until I start seeing more evidence of the current hardware getting in the way of game design, I see no reason to upgrade.

For everyone except Nintendo, the end of this console generation feels kind of forced.

[Ex-Cyber]

Yeah; I could see the point of a new generation if it could render 4K at good frame rates, but the rumors are that this generation will just have hardware-accelerated 4K video decode rather than targeting 4K generally. The RAM upgrade is probably worthwhile, though; I expect that it's a bit of a struggle to fit the latest and greatest into 512MB.

[Specially Cork]

I agree that this generation may still have more gas in its tank - only proven by games like Destiny, Watch_Dogs and perhaps even GTA5 which will be "cross-generation" and landing on consoles both old and new. I guess the real difference will be in comparison screenshots and videos.

The social-networking stuff is a good lol for me because being in China, I generally don't have access to those anyway (love all those iPad apps that want me to share on Facebook), but downloading stuff is fine. I managed to download all 20GB of Ni No Kuni off PSN without too much fuss.

Aaaand backwards compatability....I've never really cared for it. I just play my games on their original systems and that's the end of that. I don't think I will ever understand why people care about it so much. I mean, it was never really a major feature of console gaming to begin with was it? It seems every time a console launches without it, people moan about it like it's the first time and they're being screwed over. My N64 won't play NES games. My Dreamcast won't play Master System games (...well, I guess it will now but....you know what I mean).

[Juan]

It's about time consoles (hopefully) catch up with PCs to help improve multiplatform titles.

Not much to say about the PS4 since, well, I don't know much about it. But I like the fact that there's one controller with all the functions, instead of supporting different hardware configurations.

[Specially Cork]

Edited.

Honestly I might just pick up a WiiU then upgrade my PC and go make love to Steam with the rest of the sane world.

[cube_b3]

I'll make my comment brief:

I early adopted last time, bought the Wii realized I made a mistake and bought the 360; 2 years later.
I again realized it was a mistake and finally bought the PS3 60GB 3 years back and I realized this is what I should have bought all those years ago.

The PS3 Original Model is the best of this generation and the last of it's kind with true backward compatibility, built in wifi, Blu-Ray player. The system is a keeper and those who have the 60GB should take great care of it. I am good for the next 3 years. Given that this year PS4 won't come till the end of the year and it takes a little over 2 years for the market to decide weather it would float or tank.

[Luriden]

I don't want ANYTHING I do gaming-related tied to a social network. None of my friends are gamers, and actually look down upon my gaming habits. That's like a porn site with a Facebook sharing button. Do not want. I haven't read up on everything they've said about PS4 due to laziness, but all I'm hearing about is social networking. If it's a console built entirely on that idea, I'll pass.

[DanteJay]

The controller looks fantastic. More importantly though, it's the great games that will get my purchase. Not sure if the rest of the world will respond the same way. But I imagine with the console market shifting in a new direction, a lot more will probably depend on it's price-point.

+1 on x86 architecture.

Also, because this is Sony, and because of how they've been tiptoeing around the issue of used games, I really do believe they are going to incorporate the purchase of licenses for used games.

[melancholy]

I'm impressed, actually, and it's partially because almost every single negative rumor leading up to this launch has been completely debunked. They confirmed that, despite the focus on social connectivity, you can use the console completely offline if you want. They confirmed that it will play used games. They confirmed that game prices will not be going up at all. It's all stuff that should be no-brainers with consoles, but with all the crazy rumors flying about, it left everyone wondering how restrictive this new generation would be. Microsoft will now have a very, very tough time if they announce any of those restrictions on their own console, so I have new hope in the next gen.

Beyond that, it's all sounding great. Just a graphics update was enough to sell me, honestly. This generation is so pathetically out of date that I practically abandoned console games last year in favor of their PC counterparts. So to see these games looking competitive against the rest of the market is wonderful. I also like how they are completely focused on their core audience. There was barely a drop of casual gaming in that presentation, and all the social aspects were centered around connecting with other gamers, basically showing they are ready to challenge XBL. I don't care about Live or PSN, but the millions of Live subscribers proves that the majority do. I also like some of the little things, like integrating some Move controller input into the controller. I know, blah motion controls, but there are some decent uses for it and it's nice not having to buy extra hardware just to use it.

The PS4 seems to be on the right track so far. I'm probably going to preorder, which isn't surprising considering the PS3 was my favorite console of last generation. Sony sucked balls for the first 4 years of the PS3's life, and they are finally coming around to being a competitive game company again.

In news that is sure to encourage grimacing and facepalming, Sony has confirmed purchases made on the PlayStation Network will not carry over from PS3 to PS4.

Fuck you Sony.

Two points you should consider:

1. This isn't just a minor upgrade, the PS4 is centered around completely different architecture. Games on the PSN will literally have to be reworked to run on the new x86 format. So while I'm positive a handful of PSN games will be recompiled and thrown up on the PS4's network to make a couple quick bucks, the majority of the games playable on the PS3 simply won't even exist on the PS4

2. Your next post, you say this:

Aaaand backwards compatability....I've never really cared for it. I just play my games on their original systems and that's the end of that. I don't think I will ever understand why people care about it so much. I mean, it was never really a major feature of console gaming to begin with was it? It seems every time a console launches without it, people moan about it like it's the first time and they're being screwed over. My N64 won't play NES games. My Dreamcast won't play Master System games (...well, I guess it will now but....you know what I mean).

Therefore completely contradicting your complaint of PSN purchases not transferring to the PS4. They already announced that PS3 games will not be compatible with the PS4. Why would PSN games be any different? They are still PS3 games, even if they are only digital. The PS4 isn't backwards compatible, you don't care that it's not backwards compatible, but PSN GAMES DONT TRANSFER?!?! BURN SONY IN A FIRE!!! Silly.

[Specially Cork]

I'm impressed, actually, and it's partially because almost every single negative rumor leading up to this launch has been completely debunked. They confirmed that, despite the focus on social connectivity, you can use the console completely offline if you want. They confirmed that it will play used games. They confirmed that game prices will not be going up at all. It's all stuff that should be no-brainers with consoles, but with all the crazy rumors flying about, it left everyone wondering how restrictive this new generation would be. Microsoft will now have a very, very tough time if they announce any of those restrictions on their own console, so I have new hope in the next gen.

Beyond that, it's all sounding great. Just a graphics update was enough to sell me, honestly. This generation is so pathetically out of date that I practically abandoned console games last year in favor of their PC counterparts. So to see these games looking competitive against the rest of the market is wonderful. I also like how they are completely focused on their core audience. There was barely a drop of casual gaming in that presentation, and all the social aspects were centered around connecting with other gamers, basically showing they are ready to challenge XBL. I don't care about Live or PSN, but the millions of Live subscribers proves that the majority do. I also like some of the little things, like integrating some Move controller input into the controller. I know, blah motion controls, but there are some decent uses for it and it's nice not having to buy extra hardware just to use it.

The PS4 seems to be on the right track so far. I'm probably going to preorder, which isn't surprising considering the PS3 was my favorite console of last generation. Sony sucked balls for the first 4 years of the PS3's life, and they are finally coming around to being a competitive game company again.

In news that is sure to encourage grimacing and facepalming, Sony has confirmed purchases made on the PlayStation Network will not carry over from PS3 to PS4.

Fuck you Sony.

Two points you should consider:

1. This isn't just a minor upgrade, the PS4 is centered around completely different architecture. Games on the PSN will literally have to be reworked to run on the new x86 format. So while I'm positive a handful of PSN games will be recompiled and thrown up on the PS4's network to make a couple quick bucks, the majority of the games playable on the PS3 simply won't even exist on the PS4

2. Your next post, you say this:

Aaaand backwards compatability....I've never really cared for it. I just play my games on their original systems and that's the end of that. I don't think I will ever understand why people care about it so much. I mean, it was never really a major feature of console gaming to begin with was it? It seems every time a console launches without it, people moan about it like it's the first time and they're being screwed over. My N64 won't play NES games. My Dreamcast won't play Master System games (...well, I guess it will now but....you know what I mean).

Therefore completely contradicting your complaint of PSN purchases not transferring to the PS4. They already announced that PS3 games will not be compatible with the PS4. Why would PSN games be any different? They are still PS3 games, even if they are only digital. The PS4 isn't backwards compatible, you don't care that it's not backwards compatible, but PSN GAMES DONT TRANSFER?!?! BURN SONY IN A FIRE!!! Silly.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. Ni No Kuni and Journey are the only legitimate PS3 games I've bought off PSN.

I'm only concerned about my sizeable (30+) Playstation Classics collection. They aren't PS3 games. They're disc images running on an emulator. The same emulator that will undoubtedly be running on the PS4. There's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't transfer. I don't think its silly to expect that.

[cube_b3]

Who thinks they will redesign the controller to be more similar to normal Dual Shocks?

I think there might be button over crowding and people will be accidental touching the touch pad.

[Code-Red]

Paid passes for used games
No BC (understandably)
PSN is no longer free
Touch pads on controller (still the old shit Dualshock design)

No thanks. Then again, the Xbox infinity looks even worse.

[Specially Cork]

Paid passes for used games

Please tell me this is just an unconfirmed rumour...

[DaMadFiddler]

you can use the console completely offline if you want

Really, this is something that shouldn't even be in question, not something to get excited about.

They confirmed that game prices will not be going up at all.

This too. The one thing I do like about the age of digital distribution is that it's helped open the door to smaller developers, less-standard projects, and greater price flexibility.

Just a graphics update was enough to sell me, honestly. This generation is so pathetically out of date that I practically abandoned console games last year in favor of their PC counterparts.

Maybe it's just because I haven't kept up with PC gaming the last several years, but this past hardware generation kind of reached the point where it's "good enough" visually that a graphics boost alone isn't going to do much for me.

The PS4 seems to be on the right track so far. I'm probably going to preorder, which isn't surprising considering the PS3 was my favorite console of last generation. Sony sucked balls for the first 4 years of the PS3's life, and they are finally coming around to being a competitive game company again.

I wouldn't say the first four years, but yeah, they did make a giant mess of the PS3 launch. That said, the system surprised me by being my favorite platform of this last generation by far. To be fair, though, the PS3 is an incredibly good piece of hardware considering its age, and I'm kind of sorry they're not continuing to evolve its architecture.

1. This isn't just a minor upgrade, the PS4 is centered around completely different architecture. Games on the PSN will literally have to be reworked to run on the new x86 format. So while I'm positive a handful of PSN games will be recompiled and thrown up on the PS4's network to make a couple quick bucks, the majority of the games playable on the PS3 simply won't even exist on the PS4.

The way I see it, WE as the consumers SHOULDN'T have to consider that. Sony decided to switch architectures? Fine, but any drawbacks to that decision are THEIR problem to deal with, not mine. It's up to them to create a product that meets the needs and interests of their user base; they're obviously free to choose any system architecture they want for that, but if they spend seven years pushing people on the idea that downloading games is just as good as buying them in hard copy, it's THEIR problem if people get understandably concerned when they announce plans for a replacement product that won't handle any of those games.

It's not the same as the NES/SNES jump, for two reasons. First, though they have been trying to de-emphasize it some these past couple of years, backwards compatibility has always been a significant part of the PlayStation brand. But that's a whole separate discussion. Second, and more importantly: digital downloads have been sold to the public as being "as good as" / "better than" physical copies, but moves like this show just how inferior they can be when mismanaged. When you upgrade from NES to SNES, you still have all these NES cartridges that can be played on the right hardware, even if not on the SNES. You can either keep them to play on other hardware, or sell/trade/give them away, either with the system or separately. You bought them, and you still have that library to do whatever with. With a digital download tied to your account, if you move that account to a platform where that title "doesn't exist," then that entire library of games you've bought, spending however many tens or hundreds of dollars cumulatively, also "doesn't exist" for all intents and purposes. And since you have to have your account set up on any hardware they're installed on in order for them to work, you can't sell or trade or even give them away unless you're willing to give someone else access to your PSN account as well.

Of course, this assumes you're not planning to keep your PS3 as well... but Sony has always sold each new PlayStation with the specific argument that it is a "replacement" for the previous model (and this actually relates to the backwards compatibility issue, as that's always been part of making that case; at each new PlayStation launch until now, people upgrading have been able to rest assured that all their old games will still be able to play on the new system), and the credit for selling off an old system is part of the budget for a significant percentage of buyers.

It also significantly hurts the market for early adopters, as those older games give players a reason to use the system for that first year or so before the platform has started to establish a library of its own. We got a Wii U for Christmas, and while there are several games in the pipeline that look intriguing, we use it far more for Wii games at this point than for Wii U titles; in fact, half the reason we wanted it was because our Wii broke and we wanted to keep playing those games. The Wii U wouldn't have much appeal for us right now if it didn't play Wii games, as it likely won't have much of a catalog until this time next year; I'd also be pretty sore at not being able to transfer over the $300 or so worth of Virtual Console & WiiWare purchase I had. The same thing helped me decide to purchase a Wii, and a DS. the DS is the only system I ever preordered; I was a college student at the time (as many, many gamers are), and had to sell my GBA to afford it. But I knew that even if the system failed, even if its library never got beyond a handful of decent first-party games, I could still at least use it as an improved GBA with my existing games. Similarly, when I bought my PS3, I bought it for three reasons: Blu-Ray playback, PS2 games, and Oblivion. I didn't have a PS2, and I wanted to go back and play all the games I'd skipped; we still have more PS2 games than PS3 games, though the PS3 library has gotten quite good the last few years. Without the draw of playing PS2 games, I wouldn't have bought one when I did, because the PS3 was still kind of a laughingstock at that point... and by the time its library would have had enough appeal on its own, the PS2 compatibility was cut, so I would have ended up skipping the system altogether. Part of the reason I bought the damn thing was BECAUSE of Sony's established legacy of complete backwards compatibility: I thought that here, at last, was something of a de facto standard, a platform on which I could buy all my games and know that that five, ten, twenty years down the line, I'd still be able to come back to them. That was one of the main traits I'd come to associate with the PlayStation brand.

I realize I'm not the average consumer: I demand more, I put up with less, I have higher expectations. But I am also a loyal customer (each console I own, along with its native games and accessories, easily comprises more that $1000 worth of goods), and the things I bitch about generally pertain to ways the industry is trying to retrain consumer expectations so they can keep milking us over the same purchases and erode any expectation of a purchase having any permanence. I do take offense to that, and I'm starting to agree with the (admittedly small) group of people who say we need a unified, standardized gaming platform. Something that will maintain legacy support from generation to generation, and that will keep games all on the same platform in the present rather than segmented markets. But again, that's a separate rant, and that approach does have its own (significant) drawbacks. I didn't start off supporting that idea at all, specifically because of those drawbacks (less flexibility in hardware evolution, less ability to tailor hardware to software needs as Nintendo does, slower upgrade cycles resulting in fewer leaps forward and radical hardware designs like the PS3 and SNES).

I was pushed in that direction entirely by the way the industry has treated its customers. They set pretty damned specific expectations for US: that we should always want to upgrade whenever an upgrade is available (no compelling reasons necessary), that there shouldn't be any need to support older products because we're not spending money on them NOW (regardless of how much they cost us when we did get them), that we should be not only willing but eager to tie all of our personal and social information into our gaming, that we should be willing to re-buy the same titles over and over if we want to keep playing them regardless of whether we already own a copy, and that we are just demanding and unrealistic if we expect any modicum of support or service from them that doesn't serve as an additional source of new revenue.

We have an entirely new medium of art here. Video games (well, software in general) represent the first new art form ever created that is completely dependent on a specific, custom digital platform in order to function. Video can be saved to film, which is viewable by simple mechanical means. Similarly, audio can be saved to phonograph discs, also playable by simple mechanical means. Plays can be acted, stories told or written, images drawn or painted or printed or photographed or copied by any number of simple means. Sculpture and pottery and woodwork and metalwork--and the tools and art and toys and decorations made from them--are physical objects in and of themselves.

Games don't have that; by their very nature, they HAVE to be executed on a very specific digital platform that falls within very narrow specifications. And by not only locking them away behind restrictive DRM but by actively causing them to expire (either through imposed means such as timed DRM or by de facto expiration means such as providing no path to move that software forward to newer hardware generations), we run the risk of creating an entire art form--an entire MEDIUM of human creation--that will be lost forever to history. Sure, some games get ported and updated. But IP law leaves some orphaned; others are simply left behind as "not profitable" by their creators. Electrolytic capacitors--upon which all modern electronics depend--only have an average lifespan of about 20-30 years. This has somewhat been offset by piracy and hardware clones, but emulation is not perfect and everything after the 16-bit era is complex enough to be both difficult and impractical to clone. Once the last SEGA Saturn dies, Panzer Dragoon Saga will cease to exist as a playable game. Shenmue will follow the last Dreamcast to its grave. These are just two examples of games that we will never get to share with our grandchildren, because they simply won't exist any more... a tragedy that is completely preventable. I shudder to think of all the great games of the last 10 years that will no longer exist in playable form, simply because backwards compatibility didn't have enough appeal to console makers.

Sony completely lost me with this; it was a demonstration of how they really are no better than any other company, hardware or software. Their priorities bear no resemblance to mine, and there is absolutely nothing about the new platform that appeals to me in the least. The most important features are software that could have been implemented to some degree on their existing hardware, the new hardware has little to sell me on its own at this point and doesn't really seem to open the door to any new kinds of gaming experiences, and the system is completely unsuitable as a replacement for my PS3. I think they've fallen into the same trap as TV and stereo makers, where they're just sticking in features "to be new" and that are obviously for the sole purpose of increasing their own revenue, without even bothering to come up with compelling reasons for the people they're actually trying to sell to. The PS4 is sort of like all the different Facebook updates. It changes things around a bit, it's more complex, but it's not necessarily any better, and most of the new features are obviously there to better meet their business needs rather than my needs as the actual user of the product.

I've never had any interest in the Xbox platform, so at least at this early point, it looks like we'll be sticking exclusively with Nintendo for the next generation.

[Code-Red]

I'm honestly not even going to bother reading that wall of text, because I don't care enough about the subject...

But hardware emulation is simply not possible going forward unless huge leaps in processing power are made (which they haven't). It only compounds the issue when the hardware being emulated is on another architecture, and was stupidly difficult to program for in the first place (PS3's Cell might as well be on the same level as the Saturn and Jaguar).

I think it was a mistake going with PowerPC/Cell in the first place, personally. I'm sure the only reasons Microsoft and Sony did that were to:

a) Keep costs down
b) Design the processor themselves
c) Ensure all measures against piracy could be taken

I don't think they wanted a re-hash of the original Xbox (which was powered by a Pentium III). But I digress, you have to realize that it takes (conservative estimate here) 4x the processing power of the hardware being emulated to get smooth gameplay (at the original resolution). It took almost 8 years for PCSX2 to be playable, needing a quad core @ 3Ghz and a decent graphics card. Hell, Sony needed to add an Emotion engine chip to the first generation of PS3's in order to have BC on the PS3, and it bit them in the ass because it added cost onto an already expensive product.

Paid passes for used games

Please tell me this is just an unconfirmed rumour...

As of right now, it is. During the PS4 launch, however, Sony claimed that they weren't going to be adding protection for used discs. But when they were grilled on the subject of used games, they clamed up and wouldn't provide any other details. Leads me to believe they are going to pull an EA and force users to pay for License passes for used games. It gives them an edge over Xbox Infinity which is going to ban discs with new protection methods, but still leads to Sony getting profit.

Just another sad and costly road gamers are heading down. I myself, will not be buying a new console.

[Specially Cork]

I can see where DMF is coming from after skim-reading his report, but here's the thing with me: the games always shine brightest. I would like to take a stand against various industry practices, but there's no way of doing that without forcing myself to miss out on some really great games. I can't do that.

So what to do? Be one of those guys that moans about it all the time but still hands over his cash? Or just shut up and take it? Sadly it's usually the latter for me. I'm pissed at Sony for their PSN decision, but equally pissed at myself that once some AAA GOTY titles land on the PS4, I'll fold and buy one.

[DaMadFiddler]

Okay... yeah. I kinda meandered back and forth between two or three main points there, and um... hm. I guess this is an example of why I shouldn't post late at night.

[Jeeba Jabba]

I'm a PC gamer, so I'm primarily happy to see the consoles moving forward, which means better ports. I play games on the PS3 a couple of times a year, and I only hook the Xbox up when a new Halo title is released. I've invested over 2,500 into my desktop, and recently 1,000 into my ASUS G46. Regardless of all of this, nothing revives childhood innocence in me like a new console generation. It's a rebirth for all of my favorite studios and franchises. So yeah, I'll be pre-ordering it as soon as that's possible... even if it fully evolves into a Netflix/Hulu/Bluray machine six months later.

As for the used game thing, people are just going to have to deal with it. It was coming sooner or later (considering it's been this way on the PC for ages). I've never bought used games, nor do I trade them in, so it won't personally affect me.

[Specially Cork]

I'm a PC gamer, so I'm primarily happy to see the consoles moving forward, which means better ports. I play games on the PS3 a couple of times a year, and I only hook the Xbox up when a new Halo title is released. I've invested over 2,500 into my desktop, and recently 1,000 into my ASUS G46. Regardless of all of this, nothing revives childhood innocence in me like a new console generation. It's a rebirth for all of my favorite studios and franchises. So yeah, I'll be pre-ordering it as soon as that's possible... even if it fully evolves into a Netflix/Hulu/Bluray machine six months later.

As for the used game thing, people are just going to have to deal with it. It was coming sooner or later (considering it's been this way on the PC for ages). I've never bought used games, nor do I trade them in, so it won't personally affect me.

Isn't it just a step further towards 100% digital distribution though? Not a problem in the PC market, but on consoles when you're only going to have once choice it's a bit scary. PSN prices are already a joke for full releases. I'd hate to think how bad things could get without competition.