PlayStation Now Thoughts...
If you read my blog, you'll find I like to play the devil's advocate to the mainstream media more than anything. I do have my preferences and biases, and those do shine through overall. And this is one of those cases. Where I may be more an Xbox guy than a PlayStation guy, I actually think PS Now is an incredible service and idea. And frankly, I was a little disappointed to hear that MS had tried something similar and thrown it out due to concerns over performance capabilities.
So, while this particle entry may be a little negative seeming, I'm actually a huge fan of this concept. My problems with it are more around the way it is being hyped and what I see as gross negligence on the part of hard core Sony fans and media sources.
Many are effectively dubbing this the death of Xbox. And I see 2 problems with that. Firstly, the performance is untested. Yes, they showed this at CES but I'll get into why that isn't a true test and secondly is something I just mentioned. Microsoft already developed their own similar service. They could revive that service at any time and offer a competing solution.
I also see a 3rd problem in the form of 3rd party hardware support. And then I see a 4th "problem" in the form of mass hypocrisy.
Firstly, though, is performance. The one reason I was a little disappointed in Microsoft's announcement and happy for Sony's is that the value of performance varies by genre and even by title. In some games an input delay of even hundreds of milliseconds will go unnoticed. In others it can render the game unplayable. A delay of 40-50ms is much more common, especially if you have a good connection and there is a central server close enough to you. And that level of performance is probably adequate for 90%+ of games. Even FPS games would be ok as long as you aren't playing online and definitely not for tournaments.
But, as I said, the performance in untested. And while they have shown the service in use, they haven't shown the service in use when the system is under load. I would also wager that the demo they showed was run from a server inside of the building, rather than what hardware will be used when the service is finalized and publicly available. And, lastly, the titles they mentioned testing weren't the sort where the input lag would have been a huge factor.
I could be wrong on the server being local. But it actually makes a lot of sense if you think of it, and from more than one perspective. The first being, you have the greatest chances of the demo not failing to meet expectations. You also aren't at the mercy of the internet connection inside of a building likely over saturated. You aren't at the mercy of the ISP in general. And, since the service isn't publicly available, having a server up and running outside of Sony's home turf local enough to CES to get appreciable speeds is unlikely. I'll wager that the service they connected to was on a hardwired network that the demo unit was attached too.
And, lets face it, Sony has never been good at handling volume. The PS4 launch destroyed their networks for almost 2 days. The PS Now service will target multiple devices, which means an even larger install base. Obviously I don't know the future, but Sony's track record sucks. And a service on this scale for Sony will likely suffer massive problems initially and ongoing problems for months if not years.
Intertwined with performance is quality. People have bitched and moaned to no end that some games don't run at 1080p on the Xbox One and do on the PS4. What graphics quality do you think PS Now will maintain? The more detailed the image, the more bandwidth is required. The more bandwidth consumed the greater the likelihood of lag either in receiving the image or in processing data. So, expect lower res gaming than even the PS3 was capable of handling.
Second on my list was Microsoft's ability to fight back with their own service. As I mentioned, Microsoft spoke of building and testing a similar service and scrapping it over performance concerns. Microsoft is the company behind Azure, one of the largest cloud computing services out there. If anyone in the field of console gaming has the framework to reliably host such a system, it is Microsoft. And while it isn't known how far along their service was at the time it was scrapped, once has to assume that they weren't too far from completion if they were able to get it to a point where things were testable.
Best case scenario for MS is that the performance is roughly the same as PS Now and they were virtually done and simply back-burnered it over performance concerns. In which case they could simply dust it back off and deliver on it as soon as Sony proves the market is there for such a service. Worst case scenario is they weren't near completion or their performance was worse than Sony's. In that case, they can take their time and learn from Sony while they finish up and deliver a superior service a little late to the game. This would only be problematic for Microsoft if the entire notion caught them off guard and they hadn't even started on something. That would put them way behind Sony and it might also mean that they don't have the technical expertise to pull it off. But the fact that they already built out something like this in their labs shows that neither point is a concern.
My third point was around peripherals. The obvious ones are things that relied on the PS3 eye. Even though the PS4 has an eye, it is quite likely an entirely different animal than the one in the PS3, so, how do you port the inputs from that to a PS3 game? The PS4 doesn't have the silly wands either. But then you get an even more complex question, how do you efficiently emulate a PS3 controller on a TV? Or even on a PSP/Vita? Controller may be resolvable via a blue tooth controller of some sort. But, effectively, I think you're going to see a much reduced catalogue. PS Move based games probably won't be there, and shooters that used the PS3 wand and the likes. Not a huge issue perhaps, but definitely an issue.
And the last is the mass hypocrisy. PSNow will be an online service which means it requires an always on internet connection and the games are fully DRM'd. Hey wait! Isn't that why people had an e-riot over the Xbox One launch announcement? It was! But guess what? Not a peep out of it on this topic. Or at least not yet that I can find. Not to mention, if you wanted to play something already in your collection you'll either need to pay a subscription fee or re-purchase the game. Specifics on costs aren't out yet. But the service has no way of knowing which games you own and they aren't going to be able to give them away for free.
Again, that last point is more me playing the devils advocate than anything else. I actually supported MS's original vision for the Xbox One. And so I obviously see nothing wrong with the PSNow model. But it IS worth noting that any game you buy on PSNow will be a digital only title, encumbered with DRM and requiring an always on internet connection to use it. Also the sort of model this service employs doesn't typically support any form of games trading. So, it could actually end up being even more restrictive than what Xbox One would have brought.
If people truly are anti-DRM, then they should actually be ripping into the notion of a service like this. If having an always on internet connection truly is as wild an expectation as people claimed it was during the Xbox unveiling then this service should never get off the ground.
But, I suspect none of those things will happen. I expect this platform will be wildly successful. The hypocrites will ignore or find ways to justify them as though ignorance or excuses somehow change reality. DRM is DRM, and a requirement to be always connected to the internet means the need to not only pay for an internet connection, but also that it be up 100% of the time you want to use it.
So, while this particle entry may be a little negative seeming, I'm actually a huge fan of this concept. My problems with it are more around the way it is being hyped and what I see as gross negligence on the part of hard core Sony fans and media sources.
Many are effectively dubbing this the death of Xbox. And I see 2 problems with that. Firstly, the performance is untested. Yes, they showed this at CES but I'll get into why that isn't a true test and secondly is something I just mentioned. Microsoft already developed their own similar service. They could revive that service at any time and offer a competing solution.
I also see a 3rd problem in the form of 3rd party hardware support. And then I see a 4th "problem" in the form of mass hypocrisy.
Firstly, though, is performance. The one reason I was a little disappointed in Microsoft's announcement and happy for Sony's is that the value of performance varies by genre and even by title. In some games an input delay of even hundreds of milliseconds will go unnoticed. In others it can render the game unplayable. A delay of 40-50ms is much more common, especially if you have a good connection and there is a central server close enough to you. And that level of performance is probably adequate for 90%+ of games. Even FPS games would be ok as long as you aren't playing online and definitely not for tournaments.
But, as I said, the performance in untested. And while they have shown the service in use, they haven't shown the service in use when the system is under load. I would also wager that the demo they showed was run from a server inside of the building, rather than what hardware will be used when the service is finalized and publicly available. And, lastly, the titles they mentioned testing weren't the sort where the input lag would have been a huge factor.
I could be wrong on the server being local. But it actually makes a lot of sense if you think of it, and from more than one perspective. The first being, you have the greatest chances of the demo not failing to meet expectations. You also aren't at the mercy of the internet connection inside of a building likely over saturated. You aren't at the mercy of the ISP in general. And, since the service isn't publicly available, having a server up and running outside of Sony's home turf local enough to CES to get appreciable speeds is unlikely. I'll wager that the service they connected to was on a hardwired network that the demo unit was attached too.
And, lets face it, Sony has never been good at handling volume. The PS4 launch destroyed their networks for almost 2 days. The PS Now service will target multiple devices, which means an even larger install base. Obviously I don't know the future, but Sony's track record sucks. And a service on this scale for Sony will likely suffer massive problems initially and ongoing problems for months if not years.
Intertwined with performance is quality. People have bitched and moaned to no end that some games don't run at 1080p on the Xbox One and do on the PS4. What graphics quality do you think PS Now will maintain? The more detailed the image, the more bandwidth is required. The more bandwidth consumed the greater the likelihood of lag either in receiving the image or in processing data. So, expect lower res gaming than even the PS3 was capable of handling.
Second on my list was Microsoft's ability to fight back with their own service. As I mentioned, Microsoft spoke of building and testing a similar service and scrapping it over performance concerns. Microsoft is the company behind Azure, one of the largest cloud computing services out there. If anyone in the field of console gaming has the framework to reliably host such a system, it is Microsoft. And while it isn't known how far along their service was at the time it was scrapped, once has to assume that they weren't too far from completion if they were able to get it to a point where things were testable.
Best case scenario for MS is that the performance is roughly the same as PS Now and they were virtually done and simply back-burnered it over performance concerns. In which case they could simply dust it back off and deliver on it as soon as Sony proves the market is there for such a service. Worst case scenario is they weren't near completion or their performance was worse than Sony's. In that case, they can take their time and learn from Sony while they finish up and deliver a superior service a little late to the game. This would only be problematic for Microsoft if the entire notion caught them off guard and they hadn't even started on something. That would put them way behind Sony and it might also mean that they don't have the technical expertise to pull it off. But the fact that they already built out something like this in their labs shows that neither point is a concern.
My third point was around peripherals. The obvious ones are things that relied on the PS3 eye. Even though the PS4 has an eye, it is quite likely an entirely different animal than the one in the PS3, so, how do you port the inputs from that to a PS3 game? The PS4 doesn't have the silly wands either. But then you get an even more complex question, how do you efficiently emulate a PS3 controller on a TV? Or even on a PSP/Vita? Controller may be resolvable via a blue tooth controller of some sort. But, effectively, I think you're going to see a much reduced catalogue. PS Move based games probably won't be there, and shooters that used the PS3 wand and the likes. Not a huge issue perhaps, but definitely an issue.
And the last is the mass hypocrisy. PSNow will be an online service which means it requires an always on internet connection and the games are fully DRM'd. Hey wait! Isn't that why people had an e-riot over the Xbox One launch announcement? It was! But guess what? Not a peep out of it on this topic. Or at least not yet that I can find. Not to mention, if you wanted to play something already in your collection you'll either need to pay a subscription fee or re-purchase the game. Specifics on costs aren't out yet. But the service has no way of knowing which games you own and they aren't going to be able to give them away for free.
Again, that last point is more me playing the devils advocate than anything else. I actually supported MS's original vision for the Xbox One. And so I obviously see nothing wrong with the PSNow model. But it IS worth noting that any game you buy on PSNow will be a digital only title, encumbered with DRM and requiring an always on internet connection to use it. Also the sort of model this service employs doesn't typically support any form of games trading. So, it could actually end up being even more restrictive than what Xbox One would have brought.
If people truly are anti-DRM, then they should actually be ripping into the notion of a service like this. If having an always on internet connection truly is as wild an expectation as people claimed it was during the Xbox unveiling then this service should never get off the ground.
But, I suspect none of those things will happen. I expect this platform will be wildly successful. The hypocrites will ignore or find ways to justify them as though ignorance or excuses somehow change reality. DRM is DRM, and a requirement to be always connected to the internet means the need to not only pay for an internet connection, but also that it be up 100% of the time you want to use it.
Comments
Post a Comment