Sony are living in a future where we all have latency-free Internet.
With Far Cry 4 you need to d\l a chunk of the game; there's a 2-hour limit and the owner only has 10 keys to offer. It's basically an innovative demo solution Ubisoft came up with but for some reason only offering it on PS.
Latency aside you can play with a friend using only one copy of the game (yours or his/her), would you rather if they don't have this feature?
With Far Cry 4 you need to d\l a chunk of the game; there's a 2-hour limit and the owner only has 10 keys to offer. It's basically an innovative demo solution Ubisoft came up with but for some reason only offering it on PS.
FUCK you Sony add some real features instead of this shared garbage i want some fucking DLNA, more apps, and new UI that isnt shit.
The draw back being, if you are allowing your friend to stream your game, you won't be able to use your PS4 for anything else. While someone else is streaming the game, it is still just your game running on your system where you can't do anything. As the blog put it, it's a "virtual couch" so just imagine that you have a friend over and they decide to play your games for awhile, when they do that you can't do anything else with your console.I'm not sure that is happening though. Why would some of the big pubs agree to that? For games like Unity or Fry Cry you would be able to play the entire game for free. There has to be a drawback. I'm not getting my hopes up.
Well, yes. That covers the part of why would a player buy games anymore. What i'm asking is what does the publisher gets to entice it to basically allow anyone who wants to play the game for free to do so. That's a giant tradeoff. And if Sony plans to do PS+ revenue share with the pubs, then how it's going to divided it between a range of games that are getting various amounts of usage of that feature?You are "passing the controller" as Sony describes it, which probably means you aren't using your own saves, trophy data or anything when using SharePlay, plus your friend has to be online and let their PS4 stream while playing. That's how I think it works anyways.
FUCK you Sony add some real features instead of this shared garbage i want some fucking DLNA, more apps, and new UI that isnt shit.
I'm not sure that is happening though. Why would some of the big pubs agree to that? For games like Unity or Fry Cry you would be able to play through the entire game for free. There has to be a drawback. I'm not getting my hopes up.
Sony are living in a future where we all have latency-free Internet.
Well, yes. That covers the part of why would a player buy games anymore. What i'm asking is what does the publisher gets to entice it to basically allow anyone who wants to play the game for free to do so. That's a giant tradeoff. And if Sony plans to do PS+ revenue share with the pubs, then how it's going to divided it between a range of games that are getting various amounts of usage of that feature?
Sony are living in a future where we all have latency-free Internet.
Me and my friends will be passing the controller a ton during Bloodborne.
Just like the old days, you die, you pass the controller on.
Well, because publishers will assuredly have the option to not allow SharePlay in their games. So in the case of Ubisoft, they probably won't allow in FC4.Which is kind of my point. Why do that when you can do the entire co-op game with PSshare, without having to download anything and for an unlimited amount of times?
Obviously. The question is why would a publisher opt in in the first place and what can Sony offer that they would be willing to?Eh, I'm sure they'll be able to opt out if they want.
The way it sounded to me is that there is still only one copy of the game being used. To me it sounds like the Remote Desktop feature on windows.
Well, because publishers will assuredly have the option to not allow SharePlay in their games. So in the case of Ubisoft, they probably won't allow in FC4.
Which goes back to my question, why would a publisher willingly give it's game for free for anyone that has a friend that owned it. The added exposure and marketing seems like a drop in a bucket for me in this case. Would they expect people to only play a bit and then go buy it because they can't stand the streaming nature of the feature etc. ? If Sony are planning to share PS+ revenue with pubs that allow the feature then it better be a heck of a sum to justify giving the game away like that, even in a streaming form.
Obviously. The question is why would a publisher opt in in the first place and what can Sony offer that they would be willing to?