PS4 buying games via smartphone
#1
Wed, 08/28/2013 - 00:46
PS4 buying games via smartphone
https://twitter.com/yosp/status/372466175080275968?screen_name=yosp
@SyriasSerj When you buy a PS4 game on smartphone, it will wake your PS4 up to start downloading the game. PS4 goes back to sleep after that
Awesome. I'm sure the X1 will also have that with Smartglass - considering it was originally supposed to be "always connected" I'm sure they built wake on LAN in.
Love things like this - it's what I really want for next gen, stuff that makes gaming easier.
maybe I am making an assumption here, please correct me if I am wrong. But does this not mean the ps4 will have to be connected to the internet (actively) in order to be able to use this function? I am guessing it will have to to be in somewhat of a regular fashion pinging/talking/connecting with or being able to receive a communication from the PSN servers
I am not trolling..In fact I debated posting this question/observation because more then likely this is going to turn out badley.
With that being said did they go into any further detail of how this process is different from what MS was doing? I do understand it is not preventing you from playing games if you are not connected to the net. Nevertheless you HAVE to be connected in order to use this function. Correct?
Sure, if you want to download games to your console, you have to be connected to the Internet. Sounds like a simple requirement for an optional feature.
Seems kinda like with my Tivo - it's always on, and have a link to the net but isn't always using it. However it pings occasionally because I can start recordings from my phone anywhere.
Sony has said from the beginning that the ps4 didn't require to be online to function but it would have functions that you want to have it online all the time. As far as I know both next gen consoles sit in a sort of sleep state.
Ps3 does this via remote play (did with the psp, haven't tried the vita) over a network. Psp would ping the ps3 and it would wake up and be ready to stream.
okey dokey. Thanks!
I'd guess that neither console will even need to ping the server occasionally to pull this off, if set up correctly. Either one could probably use push notifications from the servers to the console to do the job.
Cool, but you can kinda do that now on 360. If your phone can run xbox.com , you could log into it and buy an XBLA or GoD game and IF your console is on, it'll start downloading. I assume PS4 is polishing that with some type of mobile catalog app and the PS4 has 'wake on LAN' type capability to wake up and donwload when asked to.
Not really sure how much i'd use this feature, hardly used it on 360 . Unless the digital copies of the game are going to be 10-15 dollars cheaper than the retail version, I'll continue to buy retail. Might be good if there's some type of flash sale or something going on and I can hop on that and buy at work and have the game ready by the tim ei get home.
If Sony keeps the same pricing model for the PS4 that is has now for PS3 retail game digital downloads, there won't be a price break. The only thing you're saving is a trip to the store or waiting for the Amazon package.
I *think* the Vita digital downloads of retail games are at a slight discount, but it's been a while since I've purchased a new game on the Vita. I've been waiting for the PS+ freebies and PSN sales to buy them.
Sure but you do still buy DLC, which is the same situation. DLC drops when you're at work - log on, start the download. Ready to play when you get home.
I would use it for a situation like this.
Ya i fully expect the download version to be the same cost as the retail version. EVen though it doesn't cost them as much to bring a download to the customer as it does the retail version, they're taking that savings and sticking it in their pockets. When they pass it on to me, i'll be more open spending my money on a non-tangible product.
DLC is a good use for this though. I"m not a big DLC consumer but for the half dozen games i'll buy DLC for over the livetime of the next console i buy, i could see using this. Free2play games as well, I like checking them out because they'r usually indy titles and it doesn't cost anything to try it. SO ya, the more i think about it the more i can see using it.
I have read write ups about how the cost of physical vs. digital really isn't all that different when you consider servers, bandwidth, and upkeep.
Every write up I've ever read made me /headdesk. Given the ever decreasing cost of data storage (on a per unit basis, not the ever increasing total cost of storage based on total units of storage) and decreasing cost of bandwidth, and increasing costs of inventory (taxes, storage, transpotation, etc), the write-ups aren't done by objective cost accountants auditing the process. The write-ups are by people in the industry with a vested interest in increasing profit margins. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just don't try to sell me shit and tell me it's roses.
There was, in a thread likely long locked and buried, a point brought up that the *total* costs in digital distribution aren't likely lower, but a number of those costs sit outside the value chain of the industry; because, as a society and as consumers, we don't want the total 'craddle to grave' cost of technology baked into the purchase price.
Think of it this way: digital distribution has all the same costs as physical distribution, except the cost of the physical media and the channel costs associated with marketing the game. Retail outlets commonly charge the distributors a fee for favorable pricing on a shelf. As a consumer, you ultimately pay that.
Physical media still has "bandwidth", "upkeep", and "server" costs as well - almost all of which will be higher than digital distribution. "Bandwidth" is the transportation cost. Once you factor in overseas shipping, port handling fees and then transportation fees between distribution centers and warehouses, the costs run up. "Upkeep", all physical warehouses have maintenance costs and staffing overhead. "Servers" are part of the storage costs of digital data, very similar to a warehouse. Don't think, even for a moment, that the cost of a server farm is anywhere near the cost of a distribution network of warehouses. And it's not just the companies' own warehouses, it's all of the centres along the value chain between the publisher and the retailer.
Those costs, though not "value added" to the end consumer, are still incurred by someone. And those costs are ultimately in the costs of the physical game when you buy it. Any costing study I've read (about two of them, over at least a year ago) "cherry-picked" costs in the presentation of the data. It's not that it's wrong from a cost accounting perspective, but as an end consumer my definition of costs and those of the management accountant working at Company X are different.
Just something to keep in mind.
Also, I totally didn't intend to write this much: I just enjoy discussing costing methodolgy and value chains. Perhaps a bit too much.
Also, I'm not implying your point of view is wrong, Shadow. Just that I've had a different experience with the material I've read, and how it was presented made my eye twitch. Simply a different perspective on costs.
honestly I don't really have a point of view, I have just read those things. Thanks for the info.
I always figured ditigal was innately cheaper than pressing discs, making boxes and boxart and shipping, retailers, etc. but I've read the contrary some places.
You also need to consider that the disc is a one-time cost, but redownloading the game (and downloading the first time) along with the future option of doing so at a moment's notice is an ongoing cost.
The cost of pressing the disk is paid once, but the storage costs are ongoing. Some areas pay taxes on assets, which include inventory, which the unsold pressed disks continue to accrue. Also, I may be wrong, but a company only pays the bandwidth to upload the image of the game once. Further consider that they probably do that even in a physical medium distribution scenario, and that cost becomes an irrelevant cost (something that occus in both scenarios). The download costs for each game are paid by the consumer. I mean, I know I pay for download costs. 500gb isn't that high of a limit in a fully digital landscape, when you consider that the intent of Microsoft, for instance, is to become the hub of the entertainment centre of my home. Movies, tv shows, games, gaming on the cloud – those all add up to additional costs for *me*, not Microsoft (in this instance). The same goes for Sony. I don't think they pay when *I* download their game.
If we're both paying, than the telecoms are making a killing! (Charging for the same activety twice)