Dude, you're like the only person I've ever head of that actually plays their Wii.
I don't think so, I'm pretty sure you know lots of people on Polycount that played it mainly for the fact that it has Monster Hunter Tri. Unless that doesn't count for some reason. Other than that I think the last Wii game I played was probably Skyward Sword.
Dude, you're like the only person I've ever head of that actually plays their Wii.
My wife and I still play ours very regularly. Rhythm Heaven took up a good few weeks recently. Played through Twilight Princess and Wind Waker (GC game on our Wii) again before that. Started over on Mario Galaxy recently, as well. Most immediately my wife is going crazy with Monster Hunter Tri while I work, but I've been feeling like going through Kirby's Epic Yarn again at some point too...
Games my wife and I have gone through in the past year for the Wii (or on the Wii):
Mario Galaxy
Mario Galaxy 2
Monster Hunter Tri
Skyward Sword
Twilight Princess
Wind Waker (GC)
Chocobo's Dungeon
Rhythm Heaven Fever
Mario Kart Wii
Soul Calibur II (GC)
Okami
Kirby's Epic Yarn
Super Paper Pario
Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door (GC)
Paper Mario (N64, picked up through the Wii store)
Pokemon Snap (N64, picked up through the Wii store)
...probably a few others, but those I can think of most immediately.
I'll admit, it doesn't have a great many of the sorts of games I enjoy that I can get for my PC, and the gimmick of the wii remote and motion control annoy me a bit. But it certainly gets used, well worth the little bit I paid for it (got a nice sale bundle). Also nice because my GC's button to open and close the lid is pretty busted.
And from what it looks like, other than the hand helds (3DS & Vita, got 'em both), I probably won't be getting any more consoles anytime soon. Couldn't care less about the Wii-U right now, and if the PS4 & "720" are going to need to be hooked up to the Internet so consistently...well then I'll just use my PC instead and save myself the trouble.
I think the backwards compatibility argument is a bit of a mess. It's hard to say if people would use it, considering that it is not easily available in the first place!
If I remember correctly, the early PS3s did it in hardware, but then the later ones did it just fine in software. So why dropping it eventually ? It makes no sense.
I personally would love to have it on my PS3, and it does suck having to plug the PS2 to enjoy good old gems. I think Sony created that problem themselves anyways, by making the PS2 fully retro compatible but then gradually dropping the feature out of the PS3. In a way they "named themselves into a corner." If 2 can play 1, then sure enough 3 should play 2 and 1. But turns out, 3 can only play 1. Haaaa!
Also, true enough, the visual quality of PS2 games might not hold up too well (sometimes). But PS3 games are in a different league - I don't think that Uncharted will look that outdated by the time the PS4 will be released. We all know that we kinda reached a visual plateau already. So, yes, if I get to buy a PS4 I would expect it to play PS3 games. It just seems to make sense!
Also - some emulated PS2 games can look really, really stunning on the PC, but they can be a pain to setup. If the PS3 could perfectly play them (and we know that it can, considering that it used to!! Hardware or not) I would sure use it a lot for that. Because or their visual simplicity and clarity, some PS2 titles really have something to offer. Bit of a shame that they are being locked out of the current system really.
I keep reading that the PS4 is moving away from the Cell processor and into the land of regular processors and will focus more on a traditional PC style system like the xbox, with a processor and a graphics chip.
So instead of asking the Cell processor(s) to handle everything the hardware will be pretty standard to what developers have always used. Which should be good for development, especially cross platform titles but I'm pretty sure that's the nail in the coffin for backwards compatibility unless they can do it through software which doesn't seem likely.
Either way software or hardware, backwards compatibility is going to suck up some development time and eat up resources on top of the cost of delivering the next console, which all feeds back into the price.
If it has to be done through hardware I hope they offer different versions, so the people who aren't going to use backward compatibility are only stuck helping to pay for the labor costs of backwards compatibility.
Now hopefully they don't lock the segments of RAM away from each other.
A thousand times this. While we're at it, let's hope that the available memory on both this and the next Xbox are within ~64MB of each other. Even if they have the same amount of physical memory the OS will add some variance, but if they have a different amount of physical memory available to them it'll be a nightmare.
Just because you have mommies attic doesnt mean we all do.
Hilarious! Yeah, arshlevon, who worked on PS3 launch titles..... Lives in his Mom's attic. Cool story bro. Condesending to an industry veteran when in all likely hood you needed your Mom's permission to buy the games he's worked on, classic!
Also - some emulated PS2 games can look really, really stunning on the PC, but they can be a pain to setup. If the PS3 could perfectly play them (and we know that it can, considering that it used to!! Hardware or not) I would sure use it a lot for that. Because or their visual simplicity and clarity, some PS2 titles really have something to offer. Bit of a shame that they are being locked out of the current system really.
It would be, I always thought that ff12 looked fantastic visually, and I really wanted to play it in HD.
But this is conflicting with interests in re-releasing games in HD and selling them anew, which I totally understand in a bussiness sense but despise as a consumer.
Either way software or hardware, backwards compatibility is going to suck up some development time and eat up resources on top of the cost of delivering the next console, which all feeds back into the price.
The cell would've ended up being the nail, regardless though, ps3 compatibility is out of the picture, but ps2 and ps1 emulation is not far fetched, considering ps1 games sold in the psn store are already emulated.
Hilarious! Yeah, arshlevon, who worked on PS3 launch titles..... Lives in his Mom's attic. Cool story bro. Condesending to an industry veteran when in all likely hood you needed your Mom's permission to buy the games he's worked on, classic!
I meant for storage purposes? Like storing consoles from years past? Read my post properly Joe.
Also pior, yeah some PS2 games might look amazing on PC emulators but even if the PS3 had PS2 emulation it wouldn't look as good, it would still output at the original def. All those emulators out there have really high resolution options. I have to say, if someone jerry-rigged stereo 3d into an emulator like dolphin I would definitely try it, illegal or no. Mario Galaxy in 1080p and 3D? Yum
Its pretty difficult and not perfect for snes games.
I doubt the games in the psn store are emulated, I expect they are converted.
That's for complete perfect hardware emulation, there's a bunch of cheating related to emulating consoles, and nearly all emulators will cheat.
psx games are actually emulated on the psp which is a slower machine than the ps3, and it's the one people have been using to play other games than the ones sold on the psn.
I meant for storage purposes? Like storing consoles from years past? Read my post properly Joe.
BS, there is no way to tell a grown adult that they use "Mommies attic" without being a condescending ass. I read your post properly, if you meant something else you should have written it properly.
Oh I was being condescending, never denied that, but the way he descended on anyone who who was complaining about backwards compatibility or lack thereof was too aggressive and only took his situation into account, so I wanted to take him down a peg
But I was referring to his storage options, that was pretty clear. I think you're mixing it up with `living in the BASEMENT'. Nobody claimed he does that lol. I was simply saying not all of us have a base where we can store years of consoles, so BC is often handy. Lowers piracy and emulator usage too. I can bring my laptop where I want, but not several consoles. One max. Would be nice if it let me play games from its predecessors as we know it can.
I really don't think anyone gives a shit about piracy of previous-generation games or the emulation thereof.
I mean, legally there has to be some modicum of interest to maintain copyright, but it's not like that's anything being considered in the development of a console like this.
I'm not sure where you get that "we know it can" play games from it's predecessors since most of the talk here is revolving around the fact that the hardware is different so it would need to be able to handle software emulation of the PS3 as it would not have the hardware solution (which original PS3s have, whereas later PS3s have a reduced list of backwards compatible titles due to not having an Emotion Engine processor in there and running everything in software).
I'm not sure where you get that "we know it can" play games from it's predecessors since most of the talk here is revolving around the fact that the hardware is different so it would need to be able to handle software emulation of the PS3 as it would not have the hardware solution (which original PS3s have, whereas later PS3s have a reduced list of backwards compatible titles due to not having an Emotion Engine processor in there and running everything in software).
is it reduced really - and significantly at that?
i had one with software only BC that ran everything thrown at it without trouble - though admittedly my game library does have it's limits.
same goes for the foreman-grill-style test kits which do it even better - by ignoring region locks of emulated PS2 titles. these can't be all earliest revisions from 2006 either.
my reason for wanting BC - one box and one set of controllers under the telly, not a myriad of them and cables, adapters and power supplys. plus - once you got used to managing save games on the PS3 HD, there was no going back to PS2 really.
personally i would not care about PS3 backwards compatibility though - can't remember much that was worth replaying from this generation at all. but that must be just me.
I'm not sure where you get that "we know it can" play games from it's predecessors since most of the talk here is revolving around the fact that the hardware is different so it would need to be able to handle software emulation of the PS3 as it would not have the hardware solution (which original PS3s have, whereas later PS3s have a reduced list of backwards compatible titles due to not having an Emotion Engine processor in there and running everything in software).
Mostly I mean PSOne and PS2 emulation when I say that there's no way the PS4 couldn't do BC. PS3 games I can understand not running if they are indeed abandoning cell, but maybe then they shouldn't be? What would be so wrong with a CELL 2, same architecture, stronger chip?
Mostly I mean PSOne and PS2 emulation when I say that there's no way the PS4 couldn't do BC. PS3 games I can understand not running if they are indeed abandoning cell, but maybe then they shouldn't be? What would be so wrong with a CELL 2, same architecture, stronger chip?
Again though, we'll probably know better by June.
It's a huge pain in the ass to work with from what I understand from our programmers, and for everything it does well it does another thing worse than the 360.
Basically the Cell processor made it much more difficult to make a PS3 port that was up to the 360's capabilities, and between those issues and the 360 coming out first you wound up with the vast majority of cross-platform games working better on the 360.
From an art perspective the split memory was a bigger problem than the processor, and I think it's the biggest contributor to the differences in cross platform games.
soooo... time to bump this thread... what a conference, eh? I love the whole support to indie titles, and the amount of games coming out. So many different types of games, and they are all not just realistic shooters. It's just awesome!
the price is insanely cheap. 400! thats the price of a good GPU!
New Kingdom Hearts!! oh yea!!!
can't wait for this console to make it to my house
the presentation is kinda sloppy, and feel rushy.
not because of bad thing they showed , because of waaaayyy too many stuff they want to put there within 2 hours. luckily most of it are great stuff.
im definitely going to ps4, it hard to believe 400$ for insane spec.
They crammed a lot into 2 hours. It didn't even feel like that much time had passed. That being said, I do wish they had covered more about the hardware. No reference of the camera, the motion controlling, etc.. Not that I cared THAT much about it, but it should have been covered.
But, as it stands now, I plan to get the PS4. This is Sony's to lose. So far, most of their actions seem to be, announce everything opposite of MS, and not much on their own. I may not like something later, once they make announcements not connected to MS announcements. So far though, Sony seems to be attempt to make the consumer happy, and this consumer is happy that they are trying to make me happy
I dont get this "PS4 slaying Xbox" thing. When they polled (on amazon) what console people will buy, nearly half are still going with the xbox. Furthermore, by the PS4 pulling that used game move as a means to up one over microsoft in the popularity contest, they have effectively slapped the third party publishers and developers in the face. Third party publishers will be more likely to side with the platform that allows them to protect their license agreements and software. This is a situation where no one really wins, especially the gamer.
I dont get this "PS4 slaying Xbox" thing. When they polled (on amazon) what console people will buy, nearly half are still going with the xbox. Furthermore, by the PS4 pulling that used game move as a means to up one over microsoft in the popularity contest, they have effectively slapped the third party publishers and developers in the face. Third party publishers will be more likely to side with the platform that allows them to protect their license agreements and software. This is a situation where no one really wins, especially the gamer.
What? Why is it a slap in the face to 3rd party publishers? That's ridiculous. They kept the status quo. Not to mention, game publishers can still add ALL THE DRM they want.
What? Why is it a slap in the face to 3rd party publishers? That's ridiculous. They kept the status quo. Not to mention, game publishers can still add ALL THE DRM they want.
Not really.
This was always seemed to be a grey area for console makers.
This is pretty much validation that Sony is on the side of Used game sales, and now fully advocates it.
The problem seems to be with the shops and not with the consumers, set a fixed rate pre-ownned sale or something and publishers/developers create a ranking system for their games? I don't know, if you pay £45 for a game and it lasts 8 hours, what do you do with it afterwards? Let a friend borrow it maybe?
My question about the used game thing is ok, microsoft is going to change people to use a used game... Makes sense... where's that money go? Back to the company that made the game int eh first place? or Microsoft?
My question about the used game thing is ok, microsoft is going to change people to use a used game... Makes sense... where's that money go? Back to the company that made the game int eh first place? or Microsoft?
My guess, microsoft first and because they invest in development it will go back into future games... So I think the developers who originally made the game that was just re-purchased won't see much more than they normally would.
As a free market society consumers will buy whatever they feel is more worth their money. If they feel Used Games and a cheaper console is more worth there money than who are we to enforce DRM and restrictions? I don't like used games anymore than you guys but I will never say they shouldn't be allowed. We just have to adapt to it and figure out a better, more efficient, and consumer friendly response to it. The last thing I want is for us to turn into the music industry after Napster came about and become an enemy of the people.
I've always struggled with the argument against used game sales. If you sell something you effectively lose ownership of it, and thus there's no logical reason why you'd deserve any compensation in case the new owner decides to transfer ownership to someone else.
Is there any other type of business where the original publisher gets a piece of the profit for resales? I'm interested in seeing if this happens in practice anywhere else, as it seems to go entirely against the first sale doctrine. For the record I'm strictly talking about disc based sales.
As developers, isn't anyone a bit worried that Sony is 'pro-used games'??
That video was practically an advertisement for it.
Not really, as time has proven again, plenty of arrogant Publishers and Dev's still charge premium for their 10+ year old games which goes directly to their pockets. Quality aside, I can't think of anything more crazy in this market.
Without the second market, it would be almost impossible to buy games for some people, at that point, you might as well make it a niche thing, which over time can really change the dynamics of the market, for worse.
Lastly, why should the electronic industry be free of this market? I can think if plenty of more important, everyday, physical things that have a second hand market and it hardly is a warrant for some kind of creator uprising.
Every time I get upset about used games I have to remind myself that almost every other entertainment medium has one. Books, movies, music, etc. People borrow those and pass them around and sell/buy them used all the time and those industries are still alive.
I grew up swapping games with friends and it seems to have turned out alright. There's nothing special about video games that should remove them from this sort of market or process.
Every time I get upset about used games I have to remind myself that almost every other entertainment medium has one. Books, movies, music, etc. People borrow those and pass them around and sell/buy them used all the time and those industries are still alive.
Not the same. Game's are software, they require a mixture of intellectual property and interactivity to exists. For software, they require licenses and the means in which to run the said software.
Additionally, movies unlike games have both a primary and a secondary market. First they release in theaters, of which you pay for the service tied to the theater experience. Such tickets cannot be used and resold. After months it enters the secondary markets, which involve selling the rights to use the said film on tv (hbo, showtime...ect). This generates income, even for old movies which find their way on tv. So the revenue stream is longer. Additionally, on regular tv commercials contribute to the revenue and of course there is the act of buying the dvds themselves.
Compare this to the game industry. Software which makes use of complex interactive systems which run in real time, third party technologies used to run the said software (physics engine for example) (cost money). Game's dont have a secondary market. They are released on day one with only a primary market unlike films and they will only make serious money in localized regions for the first month or two upon release. The age far more than film and tv in regards to long term profits. Game development not only has more risks and cost associated with it, but also the biggest losses as well as the biggest gains.
Books on the other hand only require the ability to speak a given language and the manner in which to communicate it (type writer or word processor). Many are forced to rely on the digital distribution of content which can be controlled and not resold via stores like amazon and barns in noble. IN fact bookstores have been shutting down left and right. The real money is in movie and game deals for the said content. Some still write and sell novels because its their passion, others because they have educational institutions force students to buy them. The cost to write a novel will never be what it takes to make a film or a game, since the novelist would be considered rich just to have the budget of a AAA game or tv show. They wouldnt have to write for the rest of their life.
So you can see that comparing movies and books to the games (software) and the business model is completely unrelatable.
I grew up swapping games with friends and it seems to have turned out alright. There's nothing special about video games that should remove them from this sort of market or process.
There is a ton thats "special" about video games that changes the very nature of how you should look at them.
Furthermore, the cost to make games has changed by no small margin. There were no established used game industries back then which would undercut new games for a quick profit. The damage to the industry by used games is a fairly recent phenomenon.
It used to be you would walk into a game store and have a small bin for used games. They didnt have the same kind of exposure or draw nor established business model built around them. You could find walls of PC games, NES and SNES titles..all new. Now your modern Best Buy and GameStop retailers have mostly used game space. 70% of their shelf space is used titles, they heavily market them, while you are lucky to find 20 PC games tossed in one corner, if any at all. New games are put behind counters and are limited to the first month or two a a major release.
So there is a HUGE difference between then and now. In fact I still remember when NES games cost me nearly $100 and my copy of Breath of Fire 2 (snes) was worth $300. Not really so much any more. Prior to all that, the home console industry nearly died due to lack of quality and buggy releases (since arcades were the normal money maker, it wasnt seen as such a big deal).
So I remember to breathe. And let it go.
You wont let it go when you lose your job over it, or your favorite types of games are no longer being made because they fill up used game shelve faster (and result in less profit for the publisher/developer) thus giving incentive NOT to make those types of titles.
Its not something you let go of when you see the actual damage being done.
Just because books are a written medium doesn't mean they are lesser or better than games, they are still a commodity. Consumers buy things, therefore there is supply and demand. Most gamers don't realise the amount of skills and abilities that are involved in making a game. They see games as commodities/purchases.
You wont let it go when you lose your job over it, or your favorite types of games are no longer being made because they fill up used game shelve faster (and result in less profit for the publisher/developer) thus giving incentive NOT to make those types of titles.
Its not something you let go of when you see the actual damage being done.
Fair enough, but last I checked, people are losing jobs after completing projects, and specific genres are overwhelmingly dominating the market as is. I don't have any data whatsoever to back up my next claim, but when was the last time a developer was aggressively driven out of business because primarily used games undercut profit? Most of the time, it's a that developer gets bought out, makes a game that doesn't meet astronomical expectations, and then gets shuttered by the publisher to make the quarterlies look nice. I think to get to that point [where used games are prime contender for destroying us], the entire industry has to be at a pretty low hurting point, which its not currently (think of the original arcade or home console crash-levels).
Replies
I don't think so, I'm pretty sure you know lots of people on Polycount that played it mainly for the fact that it has Monster Hunter Tri. Unless that doesn't count for some reason. Other than that I think the last Wii game I played was probably Skyward Sword.
My wife and I still play ours very regularly. Rhythm Heaven took up a good few weeks recently. Played through Twilight Princess and Wind Waker (GC game on our Wii) again before that. Started over on Mario Galaxy recently, as well. Most immediately my wife is going crazy with Monster Hunter Tri while I work, but I've been feeling like going through Kirby's Epic Yarn again at some point too...
Games my wife and I have gone through in the past year for the Wii (or on the Wii):
Mario Galaxy
Mario Galaxy 2
Monster Hunter Tri
Skyward Sword
Twilight Princess
Wind Waker (GC)
Chocobo's Dungeon
Rhythm Heaven Fever
Mario Kart Wii
Soul Calibur II (GC)
Okami
Kirby's Epic Yarn
Super Paper Pario
Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door (GC)
Paper Mario (N64, picked up through the Wii store)
Pokemon Snap (N64, picked up through the Wii store)
...probably a few others, but those I can think of most immediately.
I'll admit, it doesn't have a great many of the sorts of games I enjoy that I can get for my PC, and the gimmick of the wii remote and motion control annoy me a bit. But it certainly gets used, well worth the little bit I paid for it (got a nice sale bundle).
And from what it looks like, other than the hand helds (3DS & Vita, got 'em both), I probably won't be getting any more consoles anytime soon. Couldn't care less about the Wii-U right now, and if the PS4 & "720" are going to need to be hooked up to the Internet so consistently...well then I'll just use my PC instead and save myself the trouble.
If I remember correctly, the early PS3s did it in hardware, but then the later ones did it just fine in software. So why dropping it eventually ? It makes no sense.
I personally would love to have it on my PS3, and it does suck having to plug the PS2 to enjoy good old gems. I think Sony created that problem themselves anyways, by making the PS2 fully retro compatible but then gradually dropping the feature out of the PS3. In a way they "named themselves into a corner." If 2 can play 1, then sure enough 3 should play 2 and 1. But turns out, 3 can only play 1. Haaaa!
Also, true enough, the visual quality of PS2 games might not hold up too well (sometimes). But PS3 games are in a different league - I don't think that Uncharted will look that outdated by the time the PS4 will be released. We all know that we kinda reached a visual plateau already. So, yes, if I get to buy a PS4 I would expect it to play PS3 games. It just seems to make sense!
Also - some emulated PS2 games can look really, really stunning on the PC, but they can be a pain to setup. If the PS3 could perfectly play them (and we know that it can, considering that it used to!! Hardware or not) I would sure use it a lot for that. Because or their visual simplicity and clarity, some PS2 titles really have something to offer. Bit of a shame that they are being locked out of the current system really.
So instead of asking the Cell processor(s) to handle everything the hardware will be pretty standard to what developers have always used. Which should be good for development, especially cross platform titles but I'm pretty sure that's the nail in the coffin for backwards compatibility unless they can do it through software which doesn't seem likely.
Either way software or hardware, backwards compatibility is going to suck up some development time and eat up resources on top of the cost of delivering the next console, which all feeds back into the price.
If it has to be done through hardware I hope they offer different versions, so the people who aren't going to use backward compatibility are only stuck helping to pay for the labor costs of backwards compatibility.
A thousand times this. While we're at it, let's hope that the available memory on both this and the next Xbox are within ~64MB of each other. Even if they have the same amount of physical memory the OS will add some variance, but if they have a different amount of physical memory available to them it'll be a nightmare.
Hilarious! Yeah, arshlevon, who worked on PS3 launch titles..... Lives in his Mom's attic. Cool story bro. Condesending to an industry veteran when in all likely hood you needed your Mom's permission to buy the games he's worked on, classic!
It would be, I always thought that ff12 looked fantastic visually, and I really wanted to play it in HD.
But this is conflicting with interests in re-releasing games in HD and selling them anew, which I totally understand in a bussiness sense but despise as a consumer.
The cell would've ended up being the nail, regardless though, ps3 compatibility is out of the picture, but ps2 and ps1 emulation is not far fetched, considering ps1 games sold in the psn store are already emulated.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/08/accuracy-takes-power-one-mans-3ghz-quest-to-build-a-perfect-snes-emulator.ars
Its pretty difficult and not perfect for snes games.
I doubt the games in the psn store are emulated, I expect they are converted.
I meant for storage purposes? Like storing consoles from years past? Read my post properly Joe.
Also pior, yeah some PS2 games might look amazing on PC emulators but even if the PS3 had PS2 emulation it wouldn't look as good, it would still output at the original def. All those emulators out there have really high resolution options. I have to say, if someone jerry-rigged stereo 3d into an emulator like dolphin I would definitely try it, illegal or no. Mario Galaxy in 1080p and 3D? Yum
That's for complete perfect hardware emulation, there's a bunch of cheating related to emulating consoles, and nearly all emulators will cheat.
psx games are actually emulated on the psp which is a slower machine than the ps3, and it's the one people have been using to play other games than the ones sold on the psn.
BS, there is no way to tell a grown adult that they use "Mommies attic" without being a condescending ass. I read your post properly, if you meant something else you should have written it properly.
But I was referring to his storage options, that was pretty clear. I think you're mixing it up with `living in the BASEMENT'. Nobody claimed he does that lol. I was simply saying not all of us have a base where we can store years of consoles, so BC is often handy. Lowers piracy and emulator usage too. I can bring my laptop where I want, but not several consoles. One max. Would be nice if it let me play games from its predecessors as we know it can.
I mean, legally there has to be some modicum of interest to maintain copyright, but it's not like that's anything being considered in the development of a console like this.
I'm not sure where you get that "we know it can" play games from it's predecessors since most of the talk here is revolving around the fact that the hardware is different so it would need to be able to handle software emulation of the PS3 as it would not have the hardware solution (which original PS3s have, whereas later PS3s have a reduced list of backwards compatible titles due to not having an Emotion Engine processor in there and running everything in software).
is it reduced really - and significantly at that?
i had one with software only BC that ran everything thrown at it without trouble - though admittedly my game library does have it's limits.
same goes for the foreman-grill-style test kits which do it even better - by ignoring region locks of emulated PS2 titles. these can't be all earliest revisions from 2006 either.
my reason for wanting BC - one box and one set of controllers under the telly, not a myriad of them and cables, adapters and power supplys. plus - once you got used to managing save games on the PS3 HD, there was no going back to PS2 really.
personally i would not care about PS3 backwards compatibility though - can't remember much that was worth replaying from this generation at all. but that must be just me.
Mostly I mean PSOne and PS2 emulation when I say that there's no way the PS4 couldn't do BC. PS3 games I can understand not running if they are indeed abandoning cell, but maybe then they shouldn't be? What would be so wrong with a CELL 2, same architecture, stronger chip?
Again though, we'll probably know better by June.
It's a huge pain in the ass to work with from what I understand from our programmers, and for everything it does well it does another thing worse than the 360.
Basically the Cell processor made it much more difficult to make a PS3 port that was up to the 360's capabilities, and between those issues and the 360 coming out first you wound up with the vast majority of cross-platform games working better on the 360.
From an art perspective the split memory was a bigger problem than the processor, and I think it's the biggest contributor to the differences in cross platform games.
the price is insanely cheap. 400! thats the price of a good GPU!
New Kingdom Hearts!! oh yea!!!
can't wait for this console to make it to my house
Conference [ame="
As for destiny, is that ps3 or ps4?
not because of bad thing they showed , because of waaaayyy too many stuff they want to put there within 2 hours. luckily most of it are great stuff.
im definitely going to ps4, it hard to believe 400$ for insane spec.
But, as it stands now, I plan to get the PS4. This is Sony's to lose. So far, most of their actions seem to be, announce everything opposite of MS, and not much on their own. I may not like something later, once they make announcements not connected to MS announcements. So far though, Sony seems to be attempt to make the consumer happy, and this consumer is happy that they are trying to make me happy
That video was practically an advertisement for it.
What? Why is it a slap in the face to 3rd party publishers? That's ridiculous. They kept the status quo. Not to mention, game publishers can still add ALL THE DRM they want.
Not really.
This was always seemed to be a grey area for console makers.
This is pretty much validation that Sony is on the side of Used game sales, and now fully advocates it.
My guess, microsoft first and because they invest in development it will go back into future games... So I think the developers who originally made the game that was just re-purchased won't see much more than they normally would.
That's just my speculation.
Is there any other type of business where the original publisher gets a piece of the profit for resales? I'm interested in seeing if this happens in practice anywhere else, as it seems to go entirely against the first sale doctrine. For the record I'm strictly talking about disc based sales.
[SKETCHFAB]b7LzIm8JrnPw4GBDOMBNGYc39qM[/SKETCHFAB]
Without the second market, it would be almost impossible to buy games for some people, at that point, you might as well make it a niche thing, which over time can really change the dynamics of the market, for worse.
Lastly, why should the electronic industry be free of this market? I can think if plenty of more important, everyday, physical things that have a second hand market and it hardly is a warrant for some kind of creator uprising.
I grew up swapping games with friends and it seems to have turned out alright. There's nothing special about video games that should remove them from this sort of market or process.
So I remember to breathe. And let it go.
Not the same. Game's are software, they require a mixture of intellectual property and interactivity to exists. For software, they require licenses and the means in which to run the said software.
Additionally, movies unlike games have both a primary and a secondary market. First they release in theaters, of which you pay for the service tied to the theater experience. Such tickets cannot be used and resold. After months it enters the secondary markets, which involve selling the rights to use the said film on tv (hbo, showtime...ect). This generates income, even for old movies which find their way on tv. So the revenue stream is longer. Additionally, on regular tv commercials contribute to the revenue and of course there is the act of buying the dvds themselves.
Compare this to the game industry. Software which makes use of complex interactive systems which run in real time, third party technologies used to run the said software (physics engine for example) (cost money). Game's dont have a secondary market. They are released on day one with only a primary market unlike films and they will only make serious money in localized regions for the first month or two upon release. The age far more than film and tv in regards to long term profits. Game development not only has more risks and cost associated with it, but also the biggest losses as well as the biggest gains.
Books on the other hand only require the ability to speak a given language and the manner in which to communicate it (type writer or word processor). Many are forced to rely on the digital distribution of content which can be controlled and not resold via stores like amazon and barns in noble. IN fact bookstores have been shutting down left and right. The real money is in movie and game deals for the said content. Some still write and sell novels because its their passion, others because they have educational institutions force students to buy them. The cost to write a novel will never be what it takes to make a film or a game, since the novelist would be considered rich just to have the budget of a AAA game or tv show. They wouldnt have to write for the rest of their life.
So you can see that comparing movies and books to the games (software) and the business model is completely unrelatable.
There is a ton thats "special" about video games that changes the very nature of how you should look at them.
Furthermore, the cost to make games has changed by no small margin. There were no established used game industries back then which would undercut new games for a quick profit. The damage to the industry by used games is a fairly recent phenomenon.
It used to be you would walk into a game store and have a small bin for used games. They didnt have the same kind of exposure or draw nor established business model built around them. You could find walls of PC games, NES and SNES titles..all new. Now your modern Best Buy and GameStop retailers have mostly used game space. 70% of their shelf space is used titles, they heavily market them, while you are lucky to find 20 PC games tossed in one corner, if any at all. New games are put behind counters and are limited to the first month or two a a major release.
So there is a HUGE difference between then and now. In fact I still remember when NES games cost me nearly $100 and my copy of Breath of Fire 2 (snes) was worth $300. Not really so much any more. Prior to all that, the home console industry nearly died due to lack of quality and buggy releases (since arcades were the normal money maker, it wasnt seen as such a big deal).
You wont let it go when you lose your job over it, or your favorite types of games are no longer being made because they fill up used game shelve faster (and result in less profit for the publisher/developer) thus giving incentive NOT to make those types of titles.
Its not something you let go of when you see the actual damage being done.
Fair enough, but last I checked, people are losing jobs after completing projects, and specific genres are overwhelmingly dominating the market as is. I don't have any data whatsoever to back up my next claim, but when was the last time a developer was aggressively driven out of business because primarily used games undercut profit? Most of the time, it's a that developer gets bought out, makes a game that doesn't meet astronomical expectations, and then gets shuttered by the publisher to make the quarterlies look nice. I think to get to that point [where used games are prime contender for destroying us], the entire industry has to be at a pretty low hurting point, which its not currently (think of the original arcade or home console crash-levels).
Because they can be.
Valve and Blizzard both decided to not be a part of that market, and they're doing incredibly well.