Backwards compatibility is nice, to limit the pieces of hardware connected to my TV, but it's definitely not a deal breaker. I haven't once considered playing a PS2 game on my PS3.
id rather see/play an updated HD version of an old game...rage with PC texture rez and streaming or HD remakes than have my rose tinted specs torn away from me
i have never understood the need for backwards compatibility. while a minor convenience, it has had no impact on me wanting a console, i don't know why so many people feel entitled to something so fucking silly.
i didn't give 2 shits that the snes could not play nes games,or a dreamcast could not play genesis carts, or dos games didn't work on xp, or gameboy games not working in a gba, or atari 2600 games not working in a jaguar, or vhs tapes not working in a dvd player, or the tires from my 1964 mustang not fitting on my 2012 bmw, or the shoes i had when i was 4 years old not fitting anymore, or 8 tracks not playing on my ipod.
guess what?
shit changes, get over it.
if you like playing archaic games no one plays anymore go buy vintage hardware to play them. its not the responsibility of hardware manufactures to cater to your outdated catalog of media. why should they have to invest extra money and resources for a small percentage self entitled complainers? One of sony's biggest mistakes this gen was even attempting it, it cost so much extra money to shoe-horn in the vacuum tubes and wood paneling of the ps2 into the ps3 that the system was way bigger and much more expensive. this made the same butt hurt cry babies that would complain about something so irrelevant as backwards compatibility cry about price, so they didn't accomplish anything.
Jeez you are coming across a little unpleasant there. Just because YOU don't avail of backwards compatibility doesn't mean there are millions out there who would like it, or hell, maybe even need it? What about people who live in small spaces? What about people who have to trade in their older consoles to afford the new one? There are a dozen good reasons why there should be backwards compatibility. Make no mistake. SONY do not share your views. They are just trying to bleed gamers dry with HD re-releases and PSN ports for games we have already payed for.
Also I don't understand the 'self entitlement' comment. Am I not entitled to play the games I bought before? On the new system I just dropped 500 on?
Very ashamed that it won't be
A) backwards compatible won't accept pre owned games
Seriously? What happened to the old days ..where you would put the bloody disc in and play the damn game?
Now we have to deal with stuff like
"install the game", "update your system", "connect to the network"
Very ashamed that it won't be
A) backwards compatible won't accept pre owned games
Seriously? What happened to the old days ..where you would put the bloody disc in and play the damn game?
Now we have to deal with stuff like
"install the game", "update your system", "connect to the network"
Ugh
And stuff like Patches and Small Updates
In this age the customer is the Alpha and beta testers
i dont ahve a massive amount of time to play games and the amount of times i turn the PS3 on to be forced into a 15 minute (or longer, generally longer) cycle of update, install restart install game... i often have no time to play the game at the end...
Now we have to deal with stuff like
"install the game", "update your system", "connect to the network"
Ugh
How is it that no one saw that you were joking...
I was so happy when they gave me the option to instal the games onto the box. Load times got shorter, and in some cases where the bottle neck was the disc read speed the textures were able to stream in at a higher res. But at the same time, it still wasn't like the OLD days of PC gaming where you didn't need to keep the disc around.
I would love it if i could buy a game in a store and install it and then not need the disc any more. The game could come with a unlock code built(not to be typed in) in that when it installed it would check with its online database to see if it was still valid. If invalid it could ask if you wanted to buy the game which would be cheaper than buying in a store. But hey that's just me...
Gamestop is reaping what they sowed - they also killed off most of the small locally owned game stores so they can go burn in a ditch for all I care.
This doesn't really make a bunch of sense to me. I know it's customary to hate on Gamestop but much to the developer's chagrin they are making money for a reason. But you know what, lets just say that Gamestop didn't exist and those mom and pop shops didn't shut down. We'd still be dealing with the same issues of used game sales just without some corporate scapegoat to blame things on. If this were the case would you still be clamoring over the evils of mom and pop game stores? I see the same argument used for "I hate Gamestop for selling so many used games! I hate them for closing down these local stores I loved (...that also sold a large number of used games...)"
Back on topic, I really don't like the idea of this online only thing. Steam is nice because they give out large sales. That is the main reason I use them, otherwise I still buy from brick and mortar. However Steam isn't the only option where you can buy PC games from. I realize the the hip new thing is for one use codes and DLC but it's getting to the point of being really annoying. I could be wrong on this, but something the codes are linked to one user named account. So I bought the collectors edition of ME3. I have Javik and that's neat. My wife just beat ME2. She's getting hyped to play through 3 on our xbox, but it is my understanding that because I used the code on my account she can't get Javik unless she shells out another $10 even though I bought the game totally legit. That to me is ridiculous, and it's bad enough when concerned with DLC or online passes, but now it will be linked for entire games? Perhaps I am mistaken and way off base here but the competition for dealing with used games is to make playing games unwieldy seems to be a piss poor choice to me.
Gamestop is only half to blame. I say half because i don't know what came first this new gamer mentality of buying new games to play them for a week then sell them back a week later to buy a new game. Gamestop just helps cater to this trend by pushing them to do this more and more. That's why we hate them, well one of the reasons.
What needs to be fought against is that mentality of tempbuying games. The sooner we can put an end to this trend the healthier the industry will be. Making games longer doesn't help, not unless its 80hrs+ long and cant be beat in that week. "making them more fun" or "replay-ability" both don't effect these buyers. So something that makes it no longer cost effective to do this is necessary at this point.
For the DLC thing if she loaded up your account on her box(if she has her own box) then she would get to use all your DLC. If she has her own account then no your fucked. It would be nice to have the option like iTunes has to use it on up to x accounts. So you would just give that account permissions to use the DLC.
For digital games a loan option would be great, so they can use your "copy" for a x days that you give them. During that time you cant play it but they can.
i dont ahve a massive amount of time to play games and the amount of times i turn the PS3 on to be forced into a 15 minute (or longer, generally longer) cycle of update, install restart install game... i often have no time to play the game at the end...
You know what really annoys me, is Sony offers the 'auto download updates' option, but to plus users only. Honestly, with how slow their system is for this, they really should make that available to all.
Also I don't understand the 'self entitlement' comment. Am I not entitled to play the games I bought before? On the new system I just dropped 500 on?
No, your not.
I don't get to play my extensive laser disc collection in my blue ray player,just because i spent a lot of money on my blue ray player and think i should be entitled to, that's the definition of self entitlement.
If space is an issue then do what i do, store your consoles some place until you want to play them. it takes all of 2 seconds for me to hook up my old nes and play mega man. all of a sudden in 2 seconds i have access to my entire collection of nes games, played on the hardware they were developed for.. and i never had to cry on internet.
Gamestop is only half to blame. I say half because i don't know what came first this new gamer mentality of buying new games to play them for a week then sell them back a week later to buy a new game. Gamestop just helps cater to this trend by pushing them to do this more and more. That's why we hate them, well one of the reasons.
This is a great point. Day one sales are always going to start with new game sales. Can't find used until someone trades them in and something to remember is that for every used game sale there was at least one new copy that was sold. The issue I have with the PS4 "one use" setup is the same problem I have with the MPAA and the RIAA. Rather than look at why people do certain behaviors and adapt or make a better business plan their policy tends to be extremely limiting to how you use their product. What I would like to see is something more in line with first time uses get something special but not something that when taken away breaks the game. An example would be Shale from the first Dragon Age. Aside from the mission to retrieve him he added nothing to the story. It was nice to have him but his absence would neither hinder or ruin the game.
For a multiplayer game you could add a special skin or costume or perhaps special particle effects to show that person off. Something that would be neat to have but not hinder the game.
Also, for this to work you'd be on a database online. Well, a year ago we learned that the PSN was anything but foolproof. Between LulzSec hacking and the natural disasters it was offline over 30 days and it had an enormous impact on multiplayer access to a number of games such as Portal 2, Mortal Kombat, and lets not forget that DC Universe was a large release around that time. DC Universe is free to play now and from what I've seen this usually is the effect from a MMO not doing well on the subscription model. Something we'll never truly know is whether this was caused by the blackout or the games merits. This was bad enough for multiplayer game access but now if something like it happens in the future, you just lose access to your entire library and are barred from playing any new games until access is restored. A game that you worked so hard on could tank completely because of a network failure and that to me is more severe than the strawman of used game sales.
Well security for your psn/live account needs to become something more like bank security with your 1 minute life Code Generators. At least then you can have more peace of mind. The lack of security on the internet spreads pretty wide and we can only get more serious about it.
I very much agree that the behaviour of buying a game just to quickly resell it is something that could be better shaped in other ways.
As for behaviours...id just love it if the upcoming easter sale on steam was something sony and microsoft etc were delivering on consoles too. I know that the friends and colleagues I have with steam get pretty excited around the sale period every 6pm when the refresh happens. To me those sales and the delivery structure are a fantastic behaviour changer and I don't begrudge the fact I can't resell my steam games one bit because of it.
With all the high streets dying couldnt Sony just do direct postage sales?
Like you pay for a digital download and can get a Blu Ray copy if you pay a bit extra which they post directly to you.
If you dont have the bandwith to download then you just buy the disc. SO they have their own direct shop where Sony gets all the money and they can divy that up.
Sometimes these companies have no sense.
I'm not bothered about no backwards compatability thats why I always keep my previous consoles.
But it seem crazy if they are stopping second hand sales, I think the loose nature of the PS1 was part of the reason why it became so popular.
No, your not.
I don't get to play my extensive laser disc collection in my blue ray player,just because i spent a lot of money on my blue ray player and think i should be entitled to, that's the definition of self entitlement.
If space is an issue then do what i do, store your consoles some place until you want to play them. it takes all of 2 seconds for me to hook up my old nes and play mega man. all of a sudden in 2 seconds i have access to my entire collection of nes games, played on the hardware they were developed for.. and i never had to cry on internet.
Entitlement is when you ask for something you didn't pay for, thinking you deserve it.
Consumer wishes is when you ask for a feature in a product you intend to buy but have not yet.
Is it self entitlement that I want my bluray player to play dvds?
Or, your new ps4 doesn't come with any controllers, a wish for a bundled controller = self entitlement?
The biggest problem with these shops and their re-selling service is, that the employees are 'forced' to tell the customers that there are second hand games available, which obviously are cheaper than the newer games, so most of them would go for it. You can't blame the customers for getting the right deal, but you can blame the stores for actively denying actual sales of new versions by pushing out the second hand games first to make more money.
But a blu-ray player CAN play DVDs. It's a simple matter for them to add that support, so they do. The PS4 cannot play PS3 games. It's not a simple matter for them to add that support, and it would make the price higher. They did the math, and you're in the minority, most people wouldn't pay extra for that feature.
So yeah, under those conditions, it doesn't really make sense to be demanding this.
Maybe Sony can come out with a special PS4 that also plays PS3 games... but that's a different topic. Personally, I hope they do. Why not?
But a blu-ray player CAN play DVDs. It's a simple matter for them to add that support, so they do. The PS4 cannot play PS3 games. It's not a simple matter for them to add that support, and it would make the price higher. They did the math, and you're in the minority, most people wouldn't pay extra for that feature.
So yeah, under those conditions, it doesn't really make sense to be demanding this.
Maybe Sony can come out with a special PS4 that also plays PS3 games... but that's a different topic. Personally, I hope they do. Why not?
I know blu-ray drives are fully capable of playing dvd's, I was just pulling a comparison since you cannot play psx games on your ps3 even though it is fully capable.
There's an extra fee involved with playing movies on consoles, hence why the dvd-capable wii doesn't play dvd movies.
I'm not saying that it's easy to add something crazy such as ps3 emulation on the ps4, I'm just saying that it isn't self entitlement to ask for such a feature.
Now ps2 and ps1 emulation wouldn't require anything BUT software, but once again, maybe that's self entitlement?
Still, for nintendo, backwards compatibility seems mighty important.
The biggest problem with these shops and their re-selling service is, that the employees are 'forced' to tell the customers that there are second hand games available, which obviously are cheaper than the newer games, so most of them would go for it. You can't blame the customers for getting the right deal, but you can blame the stores for actively denying actual sales of new versions by pushing out the second hand games first to make more money.
Most any job in retail you work you will be 'forced' to sell something you don't want to. When I worked retail I was 'forced' to try and sell copy protection plans to every customer that bought something that was covered. Obviously not everyone would bite. Yet again, I feel that currently that particular excuse is a straw man. It really is going to depend on how they expect this to fold out and how available they make their library of games readily available.
If games continue to remain disc based with an activation code (which i imagine they will) what implications and possible ramifications can this have in the future? What if your code doesn't work? Most stores now a days will not accept returns for opened games but they will switch it out for another copy that they will then open (so you cannot return it new elsewhere.) If your code does not work, they have no way to verify that you did not use it online already or that you implemented the new code so your friend could 'sell' you his used disc. So chances are most stores will no longer deal with returns in the same way and will tell you to take it up with manufacturer.
Also, I don't know about you, but there are a number of games that I have had to buy used simply because I could not find them new. Whether it was because they were older titles or that they were created with limited quantities sometimes you don't have a say. So in this new setup, if you can't find it new, you're just plain out of luck.
Finally, just because someone sells their games to a shop doesn't mean that they are not taking their money and buying new. I am curious if this goes ahead, will you see game sales as a whole go down because people are not getting a return investment on selling their used games therefore, not having as much money to spend on new titles. It's not as if everyone who does this buys new but there is frankly no way to prove that this doesn't happen one way or the other.
If games continue to remain disc based with an activation code (which i imagine they will) what implications and possible ramifications can this have in the future? What if your code doesn't work? Most stores now a days will not accept returns for opened games but they will switch it out for another copy that they will then open (so you cannot return it new elsewhere.) If your code does not work, they have no way to verify that you did not use it online already or that you implemented the new code so your friend could 'sell' you his used disc. So chances are most stores will no longer deal with returns in the same way and will tell you to take it up with manufacturer.
It's how pc games have been since the late 90's, so just look towards that direction to see how things goes.
Also, I don't know about you, but there are a number of games that I have had to buy used simply because I could not find them new. Whether it was because they were older titles or that they were created with limited quantities sometimes you don't have a say. So in this new setup, if you can't find it new, you're just plain out of luck.
Won't be as much of an issue when everything goes digital, we will eventually run out of physical copies, but the very same games can be bought online.
Finally, just because someone sells their games to a shop doesn't mean that they are not taking their money and buying new. I am curious if this goes ahead, will you see game sales as a whole go down because people are not getting a return investment on selling their used games therefore, not having as much money to spend on new titles. It's not as if everyone who does this buys new but there is frankly no way to prove that this doesn't happen one way or the other.
Every title they do trade in will end up becoming revenue for the used game store, and those that trade in will not get anywhere near the $-5 that the store sells used games for.
I personally think it'll change slightly for the better, but not much.
dvd/blu-ray should just be so you have an option to play games if you have a slow or no internet connection. All the hard copy is for is to skip the download and let you jump rite into installing the game. The "cd key" is the expensive thing that really is the game sale. That way a used disc would be only worth a few bucks. That way a "used" copy of the game would be like $5 and would still require you to buy an authorization code $50(using the same games pricing) that same code you could also by on your console. The authorization code would let you download the game any time you wanted to any box that you were logged into. You log out and the game is just pointless data.
The "discs" would need to just have a small rewrite portion of the disc that when you install the game it write over the authorization code.
The people with no internet connection would just have to keep the game disc in the drive to play. They would see no difference, used games would still only be a little bit cheaper because they would have to buy the disc and the authorization code.
I'm not saying that it's easy to add something crazy such as ps3 emulation on the ps4, I'm just saying that it isn't self entitlement to ask for such a feature.
Now ps2 and ps1 emulation wouldn't require anything BUT software, but once again, maybe that's self entitlement?
Still, for nintendo, backwards compatibility seems mighty important.
its one thing to ask for a feature, its another to expect it, my initial statement was in reply to someone saying if they spend a lot of money on a system are they not entitled to play all their old games on that system? my answer was no, you are not entitled to that. to expect a product to preform a function it was never intended to preform is silly. while convenient, its not necessary and i don't think it should be expected, this is only going to make hardware more expensive or massively gimped in functionality and that brings me to nintendo...
I am not sure how familiar you are with nintendos system architecture, but there is a reason why you can play gamecube games on a wii, a wii is a gamecube, its the same hardware, exactly the same. they added a bit more ram and overclocked the processor.
the same with the ds and gameboy, its built on the ARM architecture. this allows them the ability to have backwards compatibility, but they are also giving consumers the shaft by releasing the same system over and over again in a new package and selling for twice as much as the old system.
I am not sure how familiar you are with nintendos system architecture, but there is a reason why you can play gamecube games on a wii, a wii is a gamecube, its the same hardware, exactly the same.
I'm certainly not about to dispute this because my Wii does play my GC games, but technically they dropped that functionality from the newer Wii models. For whatever the hell reason.
I don't get to play my extensive laser disc collection in my blue ray player,just because i spent a lot of money on my blue ray player and think i should be entitled to, that's the definition of self entitlement.
We are talking one generation back. Does your bluray play DVD's? Do you use that feature? Bet ya do! Or do you have a seperate DVD and bluray player... that would boggle my mind, genuinely.
If space is an issue then do what i do, store your consoles some place until you want to play them.
Just because you have mommies attic doesnt mean we all do. Some of us have to move around quite a lot to find work. And theres other reasons. A dozen other reasons. There are seven billion people on the planet. All our situations are different. Not everyone lives the life you do. It would be nice if I could put just one very large box in my suitcase rather than several.
What you don't seem to be understanding or accepting here is that no one would have a problem with this if the PS4 genuinely couldn't emulate PS2/PS1 games and couldn't run PS3 games because of wildly different architecture... rather, it looks like they are just screwing us out of more money, and could easily provide these features.
But then again I've just realised we are arguing over pure speculation. It'll be easier to after E3. If it's a case that because they are abandoning CELL PS3 games become unrealistic on the PS4, I can understand that. But considering SONY's history with removing features for no reason apart from the obvious HD re-release cash-in...
My Ps3 barely gets any love and I only have about 10 games. Understand that i am from the Atari pong and 2600 generation and didn't see a game console in my life until the Ps3 was dropped in price.
The price of a $60 hyped up game is also cringe-worthy. I usually wait until it drops below 29.99.
At least now Walmart will throw some of those PS3 games into the less than $10 bin ...when this gets going.
I don't get why people are complaining about the built in kinect, the hardware for that can't be much more than $30 if its built in. The blu ray drive would cost a customer a lot more. http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/13/kinect-hardware-worth-56-according-to-teardown/ having a standard built in mic and cam could be worth it for some features in games.
A built-in kinect wouldn't be a very good idea seeing as it would limit how and where you could place the system, unless they mean as a pack-in peripheral.
I like how Andreas accused arshlevon of making assumptions followed by assuming he lived with his mom and never had to move for work. I rent a moving truck or hire movers - I have a 15 foot truck's worth of stuff.
The PS3 was backwards compatible because it basically had a PS2 inside of it. They removed that to cut down on manufacturing costs.
@Justin: I thought it was modded so people could play ps3 games as well as ps2 games. (I know it pretty much sounded the same but there is a huge difference between implementing the entire system within a system and a implementing a mod chip <.<)
What you don't seem to be understanding or accepting here is that no one would have a problem with this if the PS4 genuinely couldn't emulate PS2/PS1 games and couldn't run PS3 games because of wildly different architecture... rather, it looks like they are just screwing us out of more money, and could easily provide these features.
But then again I've just realised we are arguing over pure speculation. It'll be easier to after E3. If it's a case that because they are abandoning CELL PS3 games become unrealistic on the PS4, I can understand that. But considering SONY's history with removing features for no reason apart from the obvious HD re-release cash-in...
How does not including backwards comparability screw you over? It's a new console. It's not a new model of the PS3 that doesn't play older PS3 games.
Here's a simple solution. Don't like it. Don't buy it. Problem solved. I've moved more than anyone on these boards for jobs. I can almost guarantee that one and I have still managed to hold on to ps2, xbox, older pc and my current games (at least the ones I want to keep). I don't give a flying fuck if it's backwards compatible. WHY? Because I ALREADY own the older console...
I honestly don't know why I even bothered responding though as this is a common theme with you Andreas...
I'm with Jesse on this, backwards capability is nice, but it's not necessary. Even if you dont still have your PSX, or your brother took your PS2 to uni and you keep meaning to get it back off him, but you never do, and oh man he's home for easter and you forgot to get him to bring it back...
I can buy a playstation 2 on ebay for <£20, half the price of a new game. and besides this, if you have a PC capable of playing current gen games, you can emulate everything PS2 and older without too much hastle. There will always be a community of gamers keeping the retro torch alive, I don't think I'll ever worry about not being able to play an old game again.
That said - Always online DLC and frequent mandatory patches are a Very Bad Thing. It's been working out on steam for a while, but I can install steam on my new pc and carry my library over. Try playing your PS3 when the PS4 is out in a decade or so and I think your going to have alot of problems. And even now - if you're in the military, have a lousy connection, moving house, on holiday, round a friends, whatever, Your going to have an absolute ballache with the next generation of consoles.
I agree backwards compatibility is nice if its free and fully featured but it never really has been.
I hang onto hardware and old toys pretty much for the same reason, nothing triggers old memories like rummaging through a box and finding something you completely forgot about. When you get rid of things, you lose the ability to instantly connect with it when you pick it up. I save the stuff so I can forget about it, but its not forgotten, if that makes sense. I keep it so I can pick it up later and remember, without having to constantly think about it and try to hold onto the memory because that's the only thing I have.
Sure you're getting a few bucks for "old junk", cash is nice, but you're also getting a pile of regret that will be paid at some point in the future. I can't be sure I will never regret selling "old junk" for a few bucks. That doesn't mean I horde stuff or live in a trash heap, but if things are important to you, you take care of them.
Also on a pure economic basis you will never be paid any less for your hardware than when you trade it in for the next big thing. Do yourself a favor and sit on it and when other idiots trade theirs in for minor short term gain, you can ratchet up the price and make a nice chunk of change off of their stupidity, yea I'm talking to you idiots who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to get back what you sold in garage sales for a few bucks...
If you think about it there is only a small window of time where you can collect the hardware and the games. You can't expect that those things will be available and around forever, unless you personally take care of them.
its one thing to ask for a feature, its another to expect it, my initial statement was in reply to someone saying if they spend a lot of money on a system are they not entitled to play all their old games on that system? my answer was no, you are not entitled to that. to expect a product to preform a function it was never intended to preform is silly. while convenient, its not necessary and i don't think it should be expected, this is only going to make hardware more expensive or massively gimped in functionality and that brings me to nintendo...
Note, I was talking before you buy something, as a fan, requesting features for hardware you wish to buy, and in some cases these features were removed post purchase such as otherOS.
I am not sure how familiar you are with nintendos system architecture, but there is a reason why you can play gamecube games on a wii, a wii is a gamecube, its the same hardware, exactly the same. they added a bit more ram and overclocked the processor.
the same with the ds and gameboy, its built on the ARM architecture. this allows them the ability to have backwards compatibility, but they are also giving consumers the shaft by releasing the same system over and over again in a new package and selling for twice as much as the old system.
You're fully correct on the wii, it's essentially the same which makes it easy, but again, that wasn't a random choice but the recognition that people might want to play their old games on it.
The wiiU however will utilize the powerpc which is different from arm, where once again they'll have to either pack extra hardware or emulate, but they are going for backwards compatibility.
The Gba actually packs the old Z80 cpu along with the arm7, the DS packs an ARM9 + the older ARM7, the 3DS does actual emulation if I remembered it right, so they're doing a bit more than simply just pushing the mhz.
The short is: while it's cheaper for nintendo they do recognize some value in backwards compatibility, new platforms come with just a small amount of launch titles, bridging people over with backwards-compatibility is brilliant.
Again though: It's pretty selfish to assume self-entitlement just for voicing an opinion about a platform or a wish for a feature, one thing is very certain: everyone who had the previous platform will carry a large collection of games over.
How does not including backwards comparability screw you over? It's a new console. It's not a new model of the PS3 that doesn't play older PS3 games.
Here's a simple solution. Don't like it. Don't buy it. Problem solved. I've moved more than anyone on these boards for jobs. I can almost guarantee that one and I have still managed to hold on to ps2, xbox, older pc and my current games (at least the ones I want to keep). I don't give a flying fuck if it's backwards compatible. WHY? Because I ALREADY own the older console...
I honestly don't know why I even bothered responding though as this is a common theme with you Andreas...
There's a point though to it, as he said he doesn't expect them to emulate the ps3 or even pack the actual hardware in it, but there's an actual trend where the console-manufacturers will sell you ps1 games you already own by packing an emulator with the actual game iso and have you download that.
But actually letting you put in your ps1 cd in the fully capable cd-reading bluraydrive and have the fully functioning sony ps1 emulator run that game is seemingly missing.
They're not removing ps1 and ps2 emulation because they can't do it or it's too expensive, they're doing it because it would interfere with them selling those games again.
How does not including backwards comparability screw you over?
Because there's a very good chance they are doing it intentionally so we have to spend even more money on HD Releases/PSN versions of games we've already bought. That's my only objection. Seems a simple enough concept to me, not sure why it's not getting across.
Moving across America is also quite different to moving across landmasses, especially when you are arranging your own moving. Shit is cheap in America, and that goes for moving companies too. But we're probably getting OT. It really is this simple. SONY could easily integrate at least PSOne and PS2 emulation into the PS4. But they are choosing not to in the hope they can rip-off the consumer. Am I gonna refuse to buy the thing no matter what great games come out for it? No. But as a consumer, and someone who has purchased all of their consoles, and countless games for those consoles, I do feel I have the right to call them out over them reaching into my pockets un-neccesarily AGAIN when I have JUST spent another 500 on their newest machine.
But again we are arguing about pure speculation so I don't see the point. If the rumours turn out to be true, then I stand by my opinion.
In the end I would like to see as much processing power as is economically possible. If that means they drop compatability or,
assure no Piracy with internet always connections or,
Absorb the huge profits Game Stop would have had without growing actual development in any way.
My biggest fear is that all the jaded gamers out there refuse to show up for the party if we deliver nothing new to the experience to justify paying for a highend system.
Wouldn't 6x the power over the xbox 360 that microsoft touts as revolutionary, simply represents a typical mid level enthusiast pc hardware experience?
If the p4 uses southern isle tech, that would give them plenty of time to implement the mature 22nm technology that promises to bring a signifigant power boost over the first troubled stab at 22nm wafers? Even if current technology was already in production, I would hope that the PS4 Southern Isle chips along with whatever other enhanced memory and apu trickery represents alot more than 6x the power of a PS3 system?
Considering that we would be economically chained to the PS4 for another 7 to 10 years, even if there was an initial wave of sales for new systems. I would be afraid of an underpowered machine that became obsolete even quicker than the current generation.
If that kind of power results in no possible return of investment from hardware sales, then I certainly hope they can pull off eating Game Stop.
My gut tells me they will pull this off.
And that AMD and Sony will leverage Southern Isle and AMD APU to offload graphics power.
And with no used market alternative, the industry will benefit from the huge added capital.
As long as the content delivers, the game market cries so loud because they are that addicted. Even if they will not buy at full price, if the market forces lower prices, that would still probably be better for every one in the long run?
Even though I agree, that compatability should be the last concern, if the cost is to high.
I have been stopping myself, catching myself lately from using the entitlment card.
Which is real hard to exorsize like using cruel meaningless words like > JUST, ONLY, MERELY.
There is usually no claim to entitlment that just isn't a disagreement over the relative value of need. In which case, what has value, what is value added will always be relative? Otherwise, when is added value or service for your dollar, for your loyalty, a bad thing? Or when does it become entitlement? I have heard this same discussion many times. Over the percieved loss of value from the loss of compatability from ps3 to ps2 games. In the real world it never sounded like blind immature entitlement but the earnest desire for what they percieved as progress.
I do admit the discussion on the internet has a completely different tone. But almost every corner of the internet is now gleefully sick with nerd rage.
I would not let someone's disgust over what simply seems right to your intuition shame you. And there is no reason for the backlash tone. Why try and argue that your beliefs over a feature do not constitute entitlement? If you believe you are entitled customer satifaction with a feature that adds value to a product then it is equally ridiculous to deny yourself because you are afraid of being dealt the entitlment card. You are however, wrong.
I think there is to much on the line. In the face of lay-offs I think whatever course keeps more people employed here is the best. I am assuming I am done now. I'll consider myself lucky if I can get work rendering flying logos or Web design work for the friend of the family member who heard you were into computers. I have seen some responses from gamers in the articles posted that point out that more capital means more job security for the industry. Where the current nerd rage atmosphere is no longer directly aimed at only publishers, but despite the hours and sweat poured out by crunch meisters everyday alot of venom is spewed out against developers as well. I'ts nice to know that some of the end users genuinely support developers. I think if we made the case that supporting new game sales is support for a healthy industry and we might get more support than if Kotick and John Riccitiello make the same appeal?
I think ill just spend the money on the latest GTX when the ps4 comes out and build my friend a computer with my old graphics card so he doesn't have to be a console victim either.
I think ill just spend the money on the latest GTX when the ps4 comes out and build my friend a computer with my old graphics card so he doesn't have to be a console victim either.
I used to work with a guy at best buy and he would always upgrade his gfx card whenever the new ati or nvidia cards came out since he had 2 rigs. He always gave his older cards to us. We had a list. I built one hell of a system with his hand me downs..
I have not owned a console since I was 11 and the Magnavox Odessey introduced the space age wonder of pong. I did play alot of Mario in the late 80's from my roomate's nintendo. But that was the last controller that I felt comfortable with. By the time I seriously considered xim360/3. Red Dead and Brutal Legend already look kind of ugly to me now? Would consider ps3 if there was something advanced like xim because uncharted, and killzone still look nice?
Otherwise, I usually buy the any gtx X80 that represents a leap in power. And probably will till videogames have the same light and shadow fidelity of Rango. But even if Phones become the new console after this round. I still assume it is that console that will always determine the overall standard? I am hoping the hexcore XBOX with dual GPU's totally pwns my hexcore intel and tri SLI gtx480. That would be great!
I used to work with a guy at best buy and he would always upgrade his gfx card whenever the new ati or nvidia cards came out since he had 2 rigs. He always gave his older cards to us. We had a list. I built one hell of a system with his hand me downs..
Older GFX card given for free? Damn!! I wish I had that sort of a deal.
I am struggling to find out if Dell xps 9100 is locked or not so that I can decide if I have to buy stuff from Dell or Newegg.
I remember being all bent out of shape about the lack of PS2 backwards compatibility on the PS3 (got mine a year after launch).
On my 360, I ended up playing Halo for 15mins, before I couldn't stand how shitty it looked compared to Halo 3. I also couldn't stand the fuzzy God of Blurry War 2. I waited till it was up-rezzed to HD before finishing it. I think somewhere in there was 30 mins of Panzer Dragoon Orta, and 1 game of Fusion Frenzy before I realised how silly backwards compatibility was.
I actually wonder, did any of you Xbox/early PS3 adopters extensively play anything from the previous catalogue? Or am I the only elitist graphics snob.
I remember being all bent out of shape about the lack of PS2 backwards compatibility on the PS3 (got mine a year after launch).
On my 360, I ended up playing Halo for 15mins, before I couldn't stand how shitty it looked compared to Halo 3. I also couldn't stand the fuzzy God of Blurry War 2. I waited till it was up-rezzed to HD before finishing it. I think somewhere in there was 30 mins of Panzer Dragoon Orta, and 1 game of Fusion Frenzy before I realised how silly backwards compatibility was.
I actually wonder, did any of you Xbox/early PS3 adopters extensively play anything from the previous catalogue? Or am I the only elitist graphics snob.
Bless you! admitting you are a graphic snob nowadays takes courage.
Where any graphic advancement or concentration is somehow automatically shallow and tacky? sometimes the idea of returning to brush and canvas instead of realtime graphic aspiration sounds like heaven! Making pretty pictures without being second guessed sure sounds dreamy.
But I suffer snobbery for even the current generation. I think it comes from knowing how beautiful work by the amazing talent here looks like with target rendered beauty shots without compromise. Can't go back to earth once you have seen the promised land!
I remember being all bent out of shape about the lack of PS2 backwards compatibility on the PS3 (got mine a year after launch).
On my 360, I ended up playing Halo for 15mins, before I couldn't stand how shitty it looked compared to Halo 3. I also couldn't stand the fuzzy God of Blurry War 2. I waited till it was up-rezzed to HD before finishing it. I think somewhere in there was 30 mins of Panzer Dragoon Orta, and 1 game of Fusion Frenzy before I realised how silly backwards compatibility was.
I actually wonder, did any of you Xbox/early PS3 adopters extensively play anything from the previous catalogue? Or am I the only elitist graphics snob.
Actually for me I was able to get the early 80GB version of the PS3, so I liked its backwards compatability. While my PS2 couldn't read my Star Ocean game my PS3 was able to. Other than that I did have a tendency to play Zone of the Enders on my PS3 and I didn't play Tales of the Abyss until I did so on the PS3.
Overall I'm not too focused on graphics, on the other hand though, my computer is still running on a 9600GT.
There is actually a few times where I would go back to older games simply because I felt like the newer games of a franchise I like didn't get a good HD sequel or anything. And while it's a little different I like the backwards compatability of my 3DS, I got to use it to play my Profesor Layton games and Solatorobo in between 3DS title releases, and since my brother's DS Lite broke he can use my old DS.
For the Wii playing GameCube games I would plug in Phantasy Star Online for splitscreen a little, play some Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Wind Waker, or F-Zero GX. While I still do have my Gamecube I do enjoy that the Wii takes up less space.
Replies
Jeez you are coming across a little unpleasant there. Just because YOU don't avail of backwards compatibility doesn't mean there are millions out there who would like it, or hell, maybe even need it? What about people who live in small spaces? What about people who have to trade in their older consoles to afford the new one? There are a dozen good reasons why there should be backwards compatibility. Make no mistake. SONY do not share your views. They are just trying to bleed gamers dry with HD re-releases and PSN ports for games we have already payed for.
Also I don't understand the 'self entitlement' comment. Am I not entitled to play the games I bought before? On the new system I just dropped 500 on?
A) backwards compatible
Seriously? What happened to the old days ..where you would put the bloody disc in and play the damn game?
Now we have to deal with stuff like
"install the game", "update your system", "connect to the network"
Ugh
So it's your fault? GET EM BOYS!! ;P
But yeah, I agree with your points.
And stuff like Patches and Small Updates
In this age the customer is the Alpha and beta testers
How is it that no one saw that you were joking...
I was so happy when they gave me the option to instal the games onto the box. Load times got shorter, and in some cases where the bottle neck was the disc read speed the textures were able to stream in at a higher res. But at the same time, it still wasn't like the OLD days of PC gaming where you didn't need to keep the disc around.
I would love it if i could buy a game in a store and install it and then not need the disc any more. The game could come with a unlock code built(not to be typed in) in that when it installed it would check with its online database to see if it was still valid. If invalid it could ask if you wanted to buy the game which would be cheaper than buying in a store. But hey that's just me...
This doesn't really make a bunch of sense to me. I know it's customary to hate on Gamestop but much to the developer's chagrin they are making money for a reason. But you know what, lets just say that Gamestop didn't exist and those mom and pop shops didn't shut down. We'd still be dealing with the same issues of used game sales just without some corporate scapegoat to blame things on. If this were the case would you still be clamoring over the evils of mom and pop game stores? I see the same argument used for "I hate Gamestop for selling so many used games! I hate them for closing down these local stores I loved (...that also sold a large number of used games...)"
Back on topic, I really don't like the idea of this online only thing. Steam is nice because they give out large sales. That is the main reason I use them, otherwise I still buy from brick and mortar. However Steam isn't the only option where you can buy PC games from. I realize the the hip new thing is for one use codes and DLC but it's getting to the point of being really annoying. I could be wrong on this, but something the codes are linked to one user named account. So I bought the collectors edition of ME3. I have Javik and that's neat. My wife just beat ME2. She's getting hyped to play through 3 on our xbox, but it is my understanding that because I used the code on my account she can't get Javik unless she shells out another $10 even though I bought the game totally legit. That to me is ridiculous, and it's bad enough when concerned with DLC or online passes, but now it will be linked for entire games? Perhaps I am mistaken and way off base here but the competition for dealing with used games is to make playing games unwieldy seems to be a piss poor choice to me.
What needs to be fought against is that mentality of tempbuying games. The sooner we can put an end to this trend the healthier the industry will be. Making games longer doesn't help, not unless its 80hrs+ long and cant be beat in that week. "making them more fun" or "replay-ability" both don't effect these buyers. So something that makes it no longer cost effective to do this is necessary at this point.
For the DLC thing if she loaded up your account on her box(if she has her own box) then she would get to use all your DLC. If she has her own account then no your fucked. It would be nice to have the option like iTunes has to use it on up to x accounts. So you would just give that account permissions to use the DLC.
For digital games a loan option would be great, so they can use your "copy" for a x days that you give them. During that time you cant play it but they can.
You know what really annoys me, is Sony offers the 'auto download updates' option, but to plus users only. Honestly, with how slow their system is for this, they really should make that available to all.
No, your not.
I don't get to play my extensive laser disc collection in my blue ray player,just because i spent a lot of money on my blue ray player and think i should be entitled to, that's the definition of self entitlement.
If space is an issue then do what i do, store your consoles some place until you want to play them. it takes all of 2 seconds for me to hook up my old nes and play mega man. all of a sudden in 2 seconds i have access to my entire collection of nes games, played on the hardware they were developed for.. and i never had to cry on internet.
This is a great point. Day one sales are always going to start with new game sales. Can't find used until someone trades them in and something to remember is that for every used game sale there was at least one new copy that was sold. The issue I have with the PS4 "one use" setup is the same problem I have with the MPAA and the RIAA. Rather than look at why people do certain behaviors and adapt or make a better business plan their policy tends to be extremely limiting to how you use their product. What I would like to see is something more in line with first time uses get something special but not something that when taken away breaks the game. An example would be Shale from the first Dragon Age. Aside from the mission to retrieve him he added nothing to the story. It was nice to have him but his absence would neither hinder or ruin the game.
For a multiplayer game you could add a special skin or costume or perhaps special particle effects to show that person off. Something that would be neat to have but not hinder the game.
Also, for this to work you'd be on a database online. Well, a year ago we learned that the PSN was anything but foolproof. Between LulzSec hacking and the natural disasters it was offline over 30 days and it had an enormous impact on multiplayer access to a number of games such as Portal 2, Mortal Kombat, and lets not forget that DC Universe was a large release around that time. DC Universe is free to play now and from what I've seen this usually is the effect from a MMO not doing well on the subscription model. Something we'll never truly know is whether this was caused by the blackout or the games merits. This was bad enough for multiplayer game access but now if something like it happens in the future, you just lose access to your entire library and are barred from playing any new games until access is restored. A game that you worked so hard on could tank completely because of a network failure and that to me is more severe than the strawman of used game sales.
I very much agree that the behaviour of buying a game just to quickly resell it is something that could be better shaped in other ways.
As for behaviours...id just love it if the upcoming easter sale on steam was something sony and microsoft etc were delivering on consoles too. I know that the friends and colleagues I have with steam get pretty excited around the sale period every 6pm when the refresh happens. To me those sales and the delivery structure are a fantastic behaviour changer and I don't begrudge the fact I can't resell my steam games one bit because of it.
Like you pay for a digital download and can get a Blu Ray copy if you pay a bit extra which they post directly to you.
If you dont have the bandwith to download then you just buy the disc. SO they have their own direct shop where Sony gets all the money and they can divy that up.
Sometimes these companies have no sense.
I'm not bothered about no backwards compatability thats why I always keep my previous consoles.
But it seem crazy if they are stopping second hand sales, I think the loose nature of the PS1 was part of the reason why it became so popular.
Entitlement is when you ask for something you didn't pay for, thinking you deserve it.
Consumer wishes is when you ask for a feature in a product you intend to buy but have not yet.
Is it self entitlement that I want my bluray player to play dvds?
Or, your new ps4 doesn't come with any controllers, a wish for a bundled controller = self entitlement?
The biggest problem with these shops and their re-selling service is, that the employees are 'forced' to tell the customers that there are second hand games available, which obviously are cheaper than the newer games, so most of them would go for it. You can't blame the customers for getting the right deal, but you can blame the stores for actively denying actual sales of new versions by pushing out the second hand games first to make more money.
So yeah, under those conditions, it doesn't really make sense to be demanding this.
Maybe Sony can come out with a special PS4 that also plays PS3 games... but that's a different topic. Personally, I hope they do. Why not?
I know blu-ray drives are fully capable of playing dvd's, I was just pulling a comparison since you cannot play psx games on your ps3 even though it is fully capable.
There's an extra fee involved with playing movies on consoles, hence why the dvd-capable wii doesn't play dvd movies.
I'm not saying that it's easy to add something crazy such as ps3 emulation on the ps4, I'm just saying that it isn't self entitlement to ask for such a feature.
Now ps2 and ps1 emulation wouldn't require anything BUT software, but once again, maybe that's self entitlement?
Still, for nintendo, backwards compatibility seems mighty important.
Most any job in retail you work you will be 'forced' to sell something you don't want to. When I worked retail I was 'forced' to try and sell copy protection plans to every customer that bought something that was covered. Obviously not everyone would bite. Yet again, I feel that currently that particular excuse is a straw man. It really is going to depend on how they expect this to fold out and how available they make their library of games readily available.
If games continue to remain disc based with an activation code (which i imagine they will) what implications and possible ramifications can this have in the future? What if your code doesn't work? Most stores now a days will not accept returns for opened games but they will switch it out for another copy that they will then open (so you cannot return it new elsewhere.) If your code does not work, they have no way to verify that you did not use it online already or that you implemented the new code so your friend could 'sell' you his used disc. So chances are most stores will no longer deal with returns in the same way and will tell you to take it up with manufacturer.
Also, I don't know about you, but there are a number of games that I have had to buy used simply because I could not find them new. Whether it was because they were older titles or that they were created with limited quantities sometimes you don't have a say. So in this new setup, if you can't find it new, you're just plain out of luck.
Finally, just because someone sells their games to a shop doesn't mean that they are not taking their money and buying new. I am curious if this goes ahead, will you see game sales as a whole go down because people are not getting a return investment on selling their used games therefore, not having as much money to spend on new titles. It's not as if everyone who does this buys new but there is frankly no way to prove that this doesn't happen one way or the other.
It's how pc games have been since the late 90's, so just look towards that direction to see how things goes.
Won't be as much of an issue when everything goes digital, we will eventually run out of physical copies, but the very same games can be bought online.
Every title they do trade in will end up becoming revenue for the used game store, and those that trade in will not get anywhere near the $-5 that the store sells used games for.
I personally think it'll change slightly for the better, but not much.
The "discs" would need to just have a small rewrite portion of the disc that when you install the game it write over the authorization code.
The people with no internet connection would just have to keep the game disc in the drive to play. They would see no difference, used games would still only be a little bit cheaper because they would have to buy the disc and the authorization code.
its one thing to ask for a feature, its another to expect it, my initial statement was in reply to someone saying if they spend a lot of money on a system are they not entitled to play all their old games on that system? my answer was no, you are not entitled to that. to expect a product to preform a function it was never intended to preform is silly. while convenient, its not necessary and i don't think it should be expected, this is only going to make hardware more expensive or massively gimped in functionality and that brings me to nintendo...
I am not sure how familiar you are with nintendos system architecture, but there is a reason why you can play gamecube games on a wii, a wii is a gamecube, its the same hardware, exactly the same. they added a bit more ram and overclocked the processor.
the same with the ds and gameboy, its built on the ARM architecture. this allows them the ability to have backwards compatibility, but they are also giving consumers the shaft by releasing the same system over and over again in a new package and selling for twice as much as the old system.
I'm certainly not about to dispute this because my Wii does play my GC games, but technically they dropped that functionality from the newer Wii models. For whatever the hell reason.
Don't mistake your opinion for fact.
We are talking one generation back. Does your bluray play DVD's? Do you use that feature? Bet ya do! Or do you have a seperate DVD and bluray player... that would boggle my mind, genuinely.
Just because you have mommies attic doesnt mean we all do. Some of us have to move around quite a lot to find work. And theres other reasons. A dozen other reasons. There are seven billion people on the planet. All our situations are different. Not everyone lives the life you do. It would be nice if I could put just one very large box in my suitcase rather than several.
What you don't seem to be understanding or accepting here is that no one would have a problem with this if the PS4 genuinely couldn't emulate PS2/PS1 games and couldn't run PS3 games because of wildly different architecture... rather, it looks like they are just screwing us out of more money, and could easily provide these features.
But then again I've just realised we are arguing over pure speculation. It'll be easier to after E3. If it's a case that because they are abandoning CELL PS3 games become unrealistic on the PS4, I can understand that. But considering SONY's history with removing features for no reason apart from the obvious HD re-release cash-in...
The price of a $60 hyped up game is also cringe-worthy. I usually wait until it drops below 29.99.
At least now Walmart will throw some of those PS3 games into the less than $10 bin ...when this gets going.
e: fixed link
that link broke, a space got stuck in it. I fixed it for you in the quote
Haha. Ha.
I don't get why people are complaining about the built in kinect, the hardware for that can't be much more than $30 if its built in. The blu ray drive would cost a customer a lot more. http://www.joystiq.com/2010/11/13/kinect-hardware-worth-56-according-to-teardown/ having a standard built in mic and cam could be worth it for some features in games.
The PS3 was backwards compatible because it basically had a PS2 inside of it. They removed that to cut down on manufacturing costs.
4 pages passed, no concept.
So I'll just randomly leave that here:
http://www.gadgetvenue.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ps4-game-console-design.jpg
Now I can peacefully read it. Please continue.
@Justin: I thought it was modded so people could play ps3 games as well as ps2 games. (I know it pretty much sounded the same but there is a huge difference between implementing the entire system within a system and a implementing a mod chip <.<)
How does not including backwards comparability screw you over? It's a new console. It's not a new model of the PS3 that doesn't play older PS3 games.
Here's a simple solution. Don't like it. Don't buy it. Problem solved. I've moved more than anyone on these boards for jobs. I can almost guarantee that one and I have still managed to hold on to ps2, xbox, older pc and my current games (at least the ones I want to keep). I don't give a flying fuck if it's backwards compatible. WHY? Because I ALREADY own the older console...
I honestly don't know why I even bothered responding though as this is a common theme with you Andreas...
I can buy a playstation 2 on ebay for <£20, half the price of a new game. and besides this, if you have a PC capable of playing current gen games, you can emulate everything PS2 and older without too much hastle. There will always be a community of gamers keeping the retro torch alive, I don't think I'll ever worry about not being able to play an old game again.
That said - Always online DLC and frequent mandatory patches are a Very Bad Thing. It's been working out on steam for a while, but I can install steam on my new pc and carry my library over. Try playing your PS3 when the PS4 is out in a decade or so and I think your going to have alot of problems. And even now - if you're in the military, have a lousy connection, moving house, on holiday, round a friends, whatever, Your going to have an absolute ballache with the next generation of consoles.
I hang onto hardware and old toys pretty much for the same reason, nothing triggers old memories like rummaging through a box and finding something you completely forgot about. When you get rid of things, you lose the ability to instantly connect with it when you pick it up. I save the stuff so I can forget about it, but its not forgotten, if that makes sense. I keep it so I can pick it up later and remember, without having to constantly think about it and try to hold onto the memory because that's the only thing I have.
Sure you're getting a few bucks for "old junk", cash is nice, but you're also getting a pile of regret that will be paid at some point in the future. I can't be sure I will never regret selling "old junk" for a few bucks. That doesn't mean I horde stuff or live in a trash heap, but if things are important to you, you take care of them.
Also on a pure economic basis you will never be paid any less for your hardware than when you trade it in for the next big thing. Do yourself a favor and sit on it and when other idiots trade theirs in for minor short term gain, you can ratchet up the price and make a nice chunk of change off of their stupidity, yea I'm talking to you idiots who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to get back what you sold in garage sales for a few bucks...
If you think about it there is only a small window of time where you can collect the hardware and the games. You can't expect that those things will be available and around forever, unless you personally take care of them.
Note, I was talking before you buy something, as a fan, requesting features for hardware you wish to buy, and in some cases these features were removed post purchase such as otherOS.
You're fully correct on the wii, it's essentially the same which makes it easy, but again, that wasn't a random choice but the recognition that people might want to play their old games on it.
The wiiU however will utilize the powerpc which is different from arm, where once again they'll have to either pack extra hardware or emulate, but they are going for backwards compatibility.
The Gba actually packs the old Z80 cpu along with the arm7, the DS packs an ARM9 + the older ARM7, the 3DS does actual emulation if I remembered it right, so they're doing a bit more than simply just pushing the mhz.
The short is: while it's cheaper for nintendo they do recognize some value in backwards compatibility, new platforms come with just a small amount of launch titles, bridging people over with backwards-compatibility is brilliant.
Again though: It's pretty selfish to assume self-entitlement just for voicing an opinion about a platform or a wish for a feature, one thing is very certain: everyone who had the previous platform will carry a large collection of games over.
There's a point though to it, as he said he doesn't expect them to emulate the ps3 or even pack the actual hardware in it, but there's an actual trend where the console-manufacturers will sell you ps1 games you already own by packing an emulator with the actual game iso and have you download that.
But actually letting you put in your ps1 cd in the fully capable cd-reading bluraydrive and have the fully functioning sony ps1 emulator run that game is seemingly missing.
They're not removing ps1 and ps2 emulation because they can't do it or it's too expensive, they're doing it because it would interfere with them selling those games again.
Because there's a very good chance they are doing it intentionally so we have to spend even more money on HD Releases/PSN versions of games we've already bought. That's my only objection. Seems a simple enough concept to me, not sure why it's not getting across.
Moving across America is also quite different to moving across landmasses, especially when you are arranging your own moving. Shit is cheap in America, and that goes for moving companies too. But we're probably getting OT. It really is this simple. SONY could easily integrate at least PSOne and PS2 emulation into the PS4. But they are choosing not to in the hope they can rip-off the consumer. Am I gonna refuse to buy the thing no matter what great games come out for it? No. But as a consumer, and someone who has purchased all of their consoles, and countless games for those consoles, I do feel I have the right to call them out over them reaching into my pockets un-neccesarily AGAIN when I have JUST spent another 500 on their newest machine.
But again we are arguing about pure speculation so I don't see the point. If the rumours turn out to be true, then I stand by my opinion.
assure no Piracy with internet always connections or,
Absorb the huge profits Game Stop would have had without growing actual development in any way.
My biggest fear is that all the jaded gamers out there refuse to show up for the party if we deliver nothing new to the experience to justify paying for a highend system.
Wouldn't 6x the power over the xbox 360 that microsoft touts as revolutionary, simply represents a typical mid level enthusiast pc hardware experience?
If the p4 uses southern isle tech, that would give them plenty of time to implement the mature 22nm technology that promises to bring a signifigant power boost over the first troubled stab at 22nm wafers? Even if current technology was already in production, I would hope that the PS4 Southern Isle chips along with whatever other enhanced memory and apu trickery represents alot more than 6x the power of a PS3 system?
Considering that we would be economically chained to the PS4 for another 7 to 10 years, even if there was an initial wave of sales for new systems. I would be afraid of an underpowered machine that became obsolete even quicker than the current generation.
If that kind of power results in no possible return of investment from hardware sales, then I certainly hope they can pull off eating Game Stop.
My gut tells me they will pull this off.
And that AMD and Sony will leverage Southern Isle and AMD APU to offload graphics power.
And with no used market alternative, the industry will benefit from the huge added capital.
As long as the content delivers, the game market cries so loud because they are that addicted. Even if they will not buy at full price, if the market forces lower prices, that would still probably be better for every one in the long run?
Even though I agree, that compatability should be the last concern, if the cost is to high.
I have been stopping myself, catching myself lately from using the entitlment card.
Which is real hard to exorsize like using cruel meaningless words like > JUST, ONLY, MERELY.
There is usually no claim to entitlment that just isn't a disagreement over the relative value of need. In which case, what has value, what is value added will always be relative? Otherwise, when is added value or service for your dollar, for your loyalty, a bad thing? Or when does it become entitlement? I have heard this same discussion many times. Over the percieved loss of value from the loss of compatability from ps3 to ps2 games. In the real world it never sounded like blind immature entitlement but the earnest desire for what they percieved as progress.
I do admit the discussion on the internet has a completely different tone. But almost every corner of the internet is now gleefully sick with nerd rage.
I would not let someone's disgust over what simply seems right to your intuition shame you. And there is no reason for the backlash tone. Why try and argue that your beliefs over a feature do not constitute entitlement? If you believe you are entitled customer satifaction with a feature that adds value to a product then it is equally ridiculous to deny yourself because you are afraid of being dealt the entitlment card. You are however, wrong.
I think there is to much on the line. In the face of lay-offs I think whatever course keeps more people employed here is the best. I am assuming I am done now. I'll consider myself lucky if I can get work rendering flying logos or Web design work for the friend of the family member who heard you were into computers. I have seen some responses from gamers in the articles posted that point out that more capital means more job security for the industry. Where the current nerd rage atmosphere is no longer directly aimed at only publishers, but despite the hours and sweat poured out by crunch meisters everyday alot of venom is spewed out against developers as well. I'ts nice to know that some of the end users genuinely support developers. I think if we made the case that supporting new game sales is support for a healthy industry and we might get more support than if Kotick and John Riccitiello make the same appeal?
I used to work with a guy at best buy and he would always upgrade his gfx card whenever the new ati or nvidia cards came out since he had 2 rigs. He always gave his older cards to us. We had a list. I built one hell of a system with his hand me downs..
Otherwise, I usually buy the any gtx X80 that represents a leap in power. And probably will till videogames have the same light and shadow fidelity of Rango. But even if Phones become the new console after this round. I still assume it is that console that will always determine the overall standard? I am hoping the hexcore XBOX with dual GPU's totally pwns my hexcore intel and tri SLI gtx480. That would be great!
For PC longevity that is.
Older GFX card given for free? Damn!! I wish I had that sort of a deal.
I am struggling to find out if Dell xps 9100 is locked or not so that I can decide if I have to buy stuff from Dell or Newegg.
Lets get back on the topic.
This!!!
On my 360, I ended up playing Halo for 15mins, before I couldn't stand how shitty it looked compared to Halo 3. I also couldn't stand the fuzzy God of Blurry War 2. I waited till it was up-rezzed to HD before finishing it. I think somewhere in there was 30 mins of Panzer Dragoon Orta, and 1 game of Fusion Frenzy before I realised how silly backwards compatibility was.
I actually wonder, did any of you Xbox/early PS3 adopters extensively play anything from the previous catalogue? Or am I the only elitist graphics snob.
Bless you! admitting you are a graphic snob nowadays takes courage.
Where any graphic advancement or concentration is somehow automatically shallow and tacky? sometimes the idea of returning to brush and canvas instead of realtime graphic aspiration sounds like heaven! Making pretty pictures without being second guessed sure sounds dreamy.
But I suffer snobbery for even the current generation. I think it comes from knowing how beautiful work by the amazing talent here looks like with target rendered beauty shots without compromise. Can't go back to earth once you have seen the promised land!
Actually for me I was able to get the early 80GB version of the PS3, so I liked its backwards compatability. While my PS2 couldn't read my Star Ocean game my PS3 was able to. Other than that I did have a tendency to play Zone of the Enders on my PS3 and I didn't play Tales of the Abyss until I did so on the PS3.
Overall I'm not too focused on graphics, on the other hand though, my computer is still running on a 9600GT.
There is actually a few times where I would go back to older games simply because I felt like the newer games of a franchise I like didn't get a good HD sequel or anything. And while it's a little different I like the backwards compatability of my 3DS, I got to use it to play my Profesor Layton games and Solatorobo in between 3DS title releases, and since my brother's DS Lite broke he can use my old DS.
For the Wii playing GameCube games I would plug in Phantasy Star Online for splitscreen a little, play some Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Wind Waker, or F-Zero GX. While I still do have my Gamecube I do enjoy that the Wii takes up less space.
Tagline: Sexiest console evar! They will get millions of sales.