• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

plasmasd
Member
(03-01-2012, 12:54 AM)
plasmasd's Avatar
There is a PS2 emulator in every PS3. It can be accessed with CFW.

Some games work, some run horribly. The Original 60GB had the full PS2 hardware, the next revision emulated the EE.
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
(03-01-2012, 12:56 AM)
Combichristoffersen's Avatar

Originally Posted by Vaporizer

What? How does that work out? ripping ps2 games and putting their roms on psn. They have to be altered to fit in with the ps3 specs.


otherwise people would be playing their ps2 games even on non bc ps3 consoles

Sony wrote a functional PS2 emulator for the PS3 IIRC, but it only works for some games, which is why you're unlikely to see games like Jak & Daxter or God of War appear as PS2 classics (not that there'd be any point to that since they're available as HD remasters anyway) due to how they used a lot of tricks to squeeze as much juice as possible out of the PS2.
H_Prestige
Banned
(03-01-2012, 12:56 AM)

Originally Posted by Vaporizer

What? How does that work out? ripping ps2 games and putting their roms on psn. They have to be altered to fit in with the ps3 specs.


otherwise people would be playing their ps2 games even on non bc ps3 consoles

Sony made a fully software ps2 emulator the ps3. It just doesn't have full compatibility, and the ones on psn are a selection from those that happen to work. The ps2 classics are just ISO dumps like psone classics, they're not ports or anything.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
(03-01-2012, 12:57 AM)
Kai Dracon's Avatar
Here is a question for folks who say they don't care about BC because it's irrelevant to their interests - aka "I only play games one time".

What will you do when you cannot just turn around and sell your old games, and every purchase you make goes into the digital locker, bound to your Sony or Microsoft account forever?

Will it make sense for you to invest in games once they're no longer "disposable"?

When everything works like Steam (and we're getting to that point, including for games that come on physical media, with account DRM, online passes, etc), will platform continuity still seem irrelevant for the person who only plays the latest game and doesn't keep a back library or previous piece of hardware?

Perhaps it is true that Sony backed themselves into a corner with Cell in terms of future BC, but it's their cross to bear. They wanted in on the digital game, and they're actually doing more than Microsoft to put content on PSN where all purchases are eternal.

Contemporary digital platforms ask that the customer invest in them for the long haul. That puts the onus on the platform holder to ensure continuity for the customer
RedSwirl
Junior Member
(03-01-2012, 12:57 AM)
RedSwirl's Avatar

Originally Posted by Imbarkus

Bright future, plays games from 3 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, more, more, open architecture, full MMO support, why the fuck would I even be a console gamer? Exclusives? That shit'll be dead before you know it.

That's part of what I love about the 60GB PS3. It's one machine that plays 17 years worth of games.

When the PS2 was announced to be BC with PS1, there was a feeling that this wasn't just a new console, but an upgrade - the next PlayStation model. You could look at it the way Apple consumers look at the iPhone and iPad - one continuous line of hardware that plays the same software. I know underneath the hood that's not what it is, but console manufacturers need to start thinking in that direction. Same thing with the Game Boy.

I feel like the only way we'll get back to that is if the console manufacturers eventually build a complete library of classic console games.
iceatcs
Junior Member
(03-01-2012, 12:58 AM)
iceatcs's Avatar
Can it be done if replace AMD Fusion's GPUs with SPUs, and have dedicated graphic card it own, will it work better on PS3 BC in software?
AgentP
Banned
(03-01-2012, 12:58 AM)

Originally Posted by Vaporizer

What? How does that work out? ripping ps2 games and putting their roms on psn? They have to be altered to fit in with the ps3 specs.


otherwise people would be playing their ps2 games even on non bc ps3 consoles. you simply cant rip a game and play the ROM dumps on the ps3. It doesnt work like that.

It is like the Xbox emulation for the 360, it is per title. They add new titles as they get them working (along with publishing rights, testing, etc.). It is full software BC, the game is an unaltered. This week the added Primal to the PSN, it is not a re-make.
Vaporizer
Banned
(03-01-2012, 12:58 AM)

Originally Posted by Combichristoffersen

Sony wrote a functional PS2 emulator for the PS3 IIRC, but it only works for some games, which is why you're unlikely to see games like Jak & Daxter or God of War appear as PS2 classics (not that there'd be any point to that since they're available as HD remasters anyway) due to how they used a lot of tricks to squeeze as much juice as possible out of the PS2.

i see.

so some work alright. some crap. Shoddy system anyways. Sorry but i want full BC for ps4. Not a broken one.

Originally Posted by RedSwirl

That's part of what I love about the 60GB PS3. It's one machine that plays 17 years worth of games.

When the PS2 was announced to be BC with PS1, there was a feeling that this wasn't just a new console, but an upgrade - the next PlayStation model. You could look at it the way Apple consumers look at the iPhone and iPad - one continuous line of hardware that plays the same software. I know underneath the hood that's not what it is, but console manufacturers need to start thinking in that direction. Same thing with the Game Boy.

I feel like the only way we'll get back to that is if the console manufacturers eventually build a complete library of classic console games.


my 60 gb cost me £350 quid. Worth every penny.
Last edited by Vaporizer; 03-01-2012 at 01:01 AM.
Dr. Zoidberg
Member
(03-01-2012, 12:59 AM)
Dr. Zoidberg's Avatar

Originally Posted by H_Prestige

Why assume this? They can have ps3 BC and be well suited for multiplatform development at the same time. It's not an either/or thing.

I'm no expert. It's a hypothetical question that I thought might be interesting. Which is valued more? BC or better ports? If people had to choose, which would it be?

Originally Posted by H_Prestige

PS3's problems were a piece of crap GPU and a weird memory structure. If it weren't for Cell, 360 ports would be even worse.

If so, then why abandon Cell? Is it the expense, or that their partners are no longer interested in it? I always got the impression it was harder for devs to deal with than the more standard approaches.

<EDIT>

Also, those saying "NO BC = No Buy!" will change their tune when PS4 launches with an eye-popping "Uncharted 4: Drake's Dingleberry" or whatever they call it.
Last edited by Dr. Zoidberg; 03-01-2012 at 01:02 AM.
RedSwirl
Junior Member
(03-01-2012, 01:01 AM)
RedSwirl's Avatar

Originally Posted by AgentP

It is like the Xbox emulation for the 360, it is per title. They add new titles as they get them working (along with publishing rights, testing, etc.). It is full software BC, the game is an unaltered..

Although it doesn't work for the discs. With 360 BC, when a game is made compatible you can play the physical Xbox game on a 360. It would be badass if I could suddenly play my physical copies of God Hand and Odin Sphere on my slim PS3.
Pimpbaa
Official Forum Cocksucker
(03-01-2012, 01:03 AM)
Pimpbaa's Avatar

Originally Posted by SPE

Ditching Nvidia and the Cell for AMD makes hardware BC impossible, but software BC remains as an option.

Sticking with Nvidia won't make it any easier. Modern chipsets from both amd and nvidia are vastly different from the RSX.
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
(03-01-2012, 01:03 AM)
Combichristoffersen's Avatar

Originally Posted by Vaporizer

i see.

so some work alright. some crap. Shoddy system anyways. Sorry but i want full BC for ps4. Not a broken one.

I'd love for full BC in the PS4, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had to do some half-assed SW emulation like the 360 did for the Xbox and the PS3 is currently doing for the PS2 due to ditching the Cell.

Originally Posted by Dr. Zoidberg

I'm no expert. It's a hypothetical question that I thought might be interesting. Which is valued more? BC or better ports? If people had to choose, which would it be?

I lived through the PS1, PS2 and PS3 gens with inferior ports, so I can deal with that. I'd take BC over better ports personally.
Last edited by Combichristoffersen; 03-01-2012 at 01:07 AM.
H_Prestige
Banned
(03-01-2012, 01:04 AM)

Originally Posted by Pimpbaa

Sticking with Nvidia won't make it any easier. Modern chipsets from both amd and nvidia are vastly different from the RSX.

Isn't the same true regarding Xenos and the Wii GPU? I don't see anybody doubting BC on their side.
AgentP
Banned
(03-01-2012, 01:06 AM)

Originally Posted by Pimpbaa

Sticking with Nvidia won't make it any easier. Modern chipsets from both amd and nvidia are vastly different from the RSX.

Vast how? They are better is every way, but not alien technology. The biggest difference is dedicated vertex and shader pipelines. Surely you can emulate it with stream processors, they can produce the same images via DirectX, so they must do the same operations at some level.
bangai-o
Banned
(03-01-2012, 01:09 AM)
bangai-o's Avatar
did anyone mention that sony could just give a bunch of PS3s to Onlive to have bc? That would work.
Clear
This post contains disingenuous arguments meant to disguise my fanboyism. Reader beware!
(03-01-2012, 01:10 AM)
Clear's Avatar
LOL if neither Sony nor MS offer up large-scale backwards compatibility for digitally distributed software they are handing the market to Nintendo on a plate.

I mean, seriously, they'll have spent years building up a library of software on their online platforms, only to end up back behind again... to a company who basically took a powder on the whole thing.

Sorry guys, just can't see it. The big "game" is controlling the market, not technological willy-waving.
herzogzwei1989
Banned
(03-01-2012, 01:12 AM)
Unless I'm mistaken, they've expanded their story:


PlayStation 4 Ditching The Cell Processor, Sources Say, Which Leads to Some Wild Theories.
The PlayStation 4 will not use Sony's Cell processor nor any possible successor to the vaunted chipset that was introduced to the world through the PlayStation 3, gaming industry sources tell Kotaku.


What we're hearing from sources follow a Forbes rumor last week that chip-maker AMD would make the graphics chip for a PS4, a shift from the PS3's use of a graphics chip from AMD rival Nvidia.

The abandonment of the Cell architecture would thrill the many game developers who have struggled with the complex chipset, but it could also be viewed as the admission of a mistake.
Cell was the pet project of PlayStation creator Ken Kutaragi, who dreamed that the chip—a "Power Processing Element" married to eight "Synergistic Processing Elements"—would make the PS3 the most impressive gaming console ever. He spoke of a home equipped with multiple devices that were powered by Cell, all of them linking to each other to increase the computational power driving any of the devices.

Cell was not the revolution Sony hoped and hyped that it would be. It also never managed to make the PS3 appear to be significantly more powerful than the year-older Xbox 360. That could have been the Cell's fault or simply the result of development decisions that compelled game creators to make their games run on both the PS3 and the generally-more-popular Xbox 360.

But with no Cell or Cell successor in the PS4, what would Sony do? Here's where the reporting turns to speculation. One theory I've heard is that AMD will provide both the CPU and GPU for the PS4, meaning that AMD, not Sony, would engineer the main processing and graphics chips for the machine. Should AMD be doing that, they could go with the AMD Fusion architecture, which puts CPU and GPU on the same chip. AMD has already been putting chips like this out (one was considered for the MacBook Air), which would enable Sony to turn to developers and say: you could be working with the PS4 architecture right now; just work on an AMD Llano chip or something. Would developers like that? They'd have to prefer it to Cell and—what do you know—here's one of gaming history's best programmers, id's John Carmack, saying in an interview with PC Perspective last year that AMD Fusion-style chip architecture is "almost a forgone conclusion" for the future of computing.

A Sony rep declined to comment on this story, citing the company's policy not to comment on rumors and speculation.

Sony hasn't even acknowledged the existence of the PlayStation 4 let alone detailed the guts within it. But we're beginning to hear trickles of information about Sony's next gen. It's all vaguer than the talk for next Xbox, code-named Durango, which Microsoft has been showing to publisher and developer partners.

The lack of chatter on PS4 would suggest that Sony will once again put its next console out after Microsoft. But if the chipset for the PS4 is actually one that already exists, then aspiring PS4 developers might find themselves capable of ramping up for this new machine faster than expected. And if that happens, the code-named Durango, probable for 2013, might have a sparring partner from Sony sooner than we thought.

AgentP
Banned
(03-01-2012, 01:18 AM)

Originally Posted by Clear

LOL if neither Sony nor MS offer up large-scale backwards compatibility for digitally distributed software they are handing the market to Nintendo on a plate.
.

How? I have nothing with Nintendo, so how does their BC help Sony or MS? Having my PSN or XBL games tied to a PS3 or 360 does very little to change what I buy next time, the competitor's console won't play them either.
DieH@rd
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:18 AM)
DieH@rd's Avatar
And still im not really happy with the news. Selfquote from page1.... ~_~

Originally Posted by DieH@rd

Its a shame [if true].

As was discussed on B3D, three CELL clusters of 1PPE/4SPE would give realy awesome processing power, and would spend only 40W if manufactured at 32nm.

This leaves tons of wattage to be spent for GPU [7970 clocked at ~650mhz would spend less than 150W] and easy solution for BC.

Y2Kev
The Last Guardian is Dead. Sorry.
(03-01-2012, 01:20 AM)
Y2Kev's Avatar

Originally Posted by H_Prestige

Isn't the same true regarding Xenos and the Wii GPU? I don't see anybody doubting BC on their side.

Interesting question. I would figure wii would be easier to emulate because it is two gamecubes, etc, but 360 not so sure. Can anyone answer this?
funkystudent
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:23 AM)
funkystudent's Avatar
best solution would be to sell a premium SKU for $100 more that has the chips on the motherboard to let people play ps3 games.
Mike Works
(03-01-2012, 01:26 AM)
Mike Works's Avatar
My PS3 plays PS1, PS2, and PS3 games. My PS3 is the best PS3*/** and thus I don't need BC in the PS4. Suck it.

*granted it is fat

**plus it will probably die one day and then i'll be fucked
Jhriad
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:27 AM)
Jhriad's Avatar

Originally Posted by Satchel

I really wanted a PS4 that would play PS1,2 and 3 games.

A million times this. So next generation we can look forward to Sony re-releasing all HD collections for the next system since the PS3 versions won't work. Kudos Sony.

On a related note how much could I get for a PS3 80GB phat w/ BC plus 50-60 retail games and another 20 or 30 downloadable games?
Duxxy3
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:30 AM)
Duxxy3's Avatar
I don't think we're going to see a single next gen console above $299.
Eusis
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:31 AM)
Eusis's Avatar

Originally Posted by Y2Kev

Interesting question. I would figure wii would be easier to emulate because it is two gamecubes, etc, but 360 not so sure. Can anyone answer this?

I suspect Nintendo's planning to stick with the IBM/AMD route again, and thus keep it easy to run BC for, especially given the Wii U already has confirmed Wii BC. Xbox though... I'm going to suspect they'll do the same (IBM/AMD) just because of the issues moving from the original Xbox. If they do that I bet it'll be like the GC->Wii/Wii->Wii U, that BC will be easy to put in.
AndyMoogle
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:35 AM)
AndyMoogle's Avatar
If they don't have any BC in PS4, how long will they keep PS3 content on PSN? Perhaps they will remove all that like MS did with Xbox 1 content.

Slightly different situation, but still, who knows if they will bother keeping all that content there? Especially considering that next gen will probably last even longer than this one.
H_Prestige
Banned
(03-01-2012, 01:36 AM)

Originally Posted by Eusis

I suspect Nintendo's planning to stick with the IBM/AMD route again, and thus keep it easy to run BC for, especially given the Wii U already has confirmed Wii BC. Xbox though... I'm going to suspect they'll do the same (IBM/AMD) just because of the issues moving from the original Xbox. If they do that I bet it'll be like the GC->Wii/Wii->Wii U, that BC will be easy to put in.

I asked the question because a couple of posters here are suggesting that even a Cell/Nvidia based ps4 would barely get ps3 games running. Because apparently it's not just the Cell, but even the RSX is suddenly too weird. Just wondering how the 1999 GPU inside the Wii is any less archaic or the 2005 Xenos and its EDRAM.
bgassassin
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:37 AM)
bgassassin's Avatar

Originally Posted by Eusis

I suspect Nintendo's planning to stick with the IBM/AMD route again, and thus keep it easy to run BC for, especially given the Wii U already has confirmed Wii BC. Xbox though... I'm going to suspect they'll do the same (IBM/AMD) just because of the issues moving from the original Xbox. If they do that I bet it'll be like the GC->Wii/Wii->Wii U, that BC will be easy to put in.

Shame on you for being way out of the loop.

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pr...ease/34683.wss

http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases...011june07.aspx
Last Hearth
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:37 AM)
I don't know why everyone assumes no BC means your PSN games are useless. They could make ps4 ports of those games on PSN, and allow anyone whose account has purchased the ps3 version to download the PS4 version for free.

Seriously PSN games is not that big a deal, it's all the disc games that will no longer be playable.
H_Prestige
Banned
(03-01-2012, 01:39 AM)

Originally Posted by Last Hearth

I don't know why everyone assumes no BC means your PSN games are useless. They could make ps4 ports of those games on PSN, and allow anyone whose account has purchased the ps3 version to download the PS4 version for free.

Seriously PSN games is not that big a deal, it's all the disc games that will no longer be playable.

That's a lot of games to port.
AndyMoogle
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:39 AM)
AndyMoogle's Avatar

Originally Posted by Last Hearth

I don't know why everyone assumes no BC means your PSN games are useless. They could make ps4 ports of those games on PSN, and allow anyone whose account has purchased the ps3 version to download the PS4 version for free.

Seriously PSN games is not that big a deal, it's all the disc games that will no longer be playable.

They are adding retail PS3 games on PSN every week. Besides, who's going to pay for all those ports?
Pimpbaa
Official Forum Cocksucker
(03-01-2012, 01:40 AM)
Pimpbaa's Avatar

Originally Posted by AgentP

Vast how? They are better is every way, but not alien technology. The biggest difference is dedicated vertex and shader pipelines. Surely you can emulate it with stream processors, they can produce the same images via DirectX, so they must do the same operations at some level.

Maybe I worded it wrong. I'm just saying that going with nvidia won't benefit BC more or if at all. You will still have to do those things you mentioned either way.
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
(03-01-2012, 01:40 AM)
Combichristoffersen's Avatar

Originally Posted by Last Hearth

I don't know why everyone assumes no BC means your PSN games are useless. They could make ps4 ports of those games on PSN, and allow anyone whose account has purchased the ps3 version to download the PS4 version for free.

Seriously PSN games is not that big a deal, it's all the disc games that will no longer be playable.

You can sell your old disc-based games to at least recoup some of the cost, but you can't sell your old DD games, which will be rendered useless unless the PS4 will have BC with DD-based PS3 software (or you keep a PS3 around just to play old PSN games).
Eusis
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:40 AM)
Eusis's Avatar

Originally Posted by H_Prestige

I asked the question because a couple of posters here are suggesting that even a Cell/Nvidia based ps4 would barely get ps3 games running. Because apparently it's not just the Cell, but even the RSX is suddenly too weird. Just wondering how the 1999 GPU inside the Wii is any less archaic or the 2005 Xenos and its EDRAM.

Yeah, I wouldn't be able to answer that fully. My best guess though is that switching from nVidia to AMD (and, in theory, vice versa) is a pain when it comes to consoles. On PC both have to go through DirectX or Open GL anyway, but consoles can get deeper since only one of them is going to be used, and the Xbox showed it had a lot of problems with BC even when games worked. Of course, that was a two part switch, so maybe the CPU was even more to blame rather than a lesser or equal factor?

Originally Posted by bgassassin

Shame on you for being way out of the loop.

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pr...ease/34683.wss

http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases...011june07.aspx

Whoops, didn't check. Not that it really surprises me, so that's probably why I didn't consciously remember; it seemed like a foregone conclusion.
herzogzwei1989
Banned
(03-01-2012, 01:42 AM)

Originally Posted by H_Prestige

Just wondering how the 1999 GPU inside the Wii is any less archaic or the 2005 Xenos and its EDRAM.

off-topic:
Glad someone knows Wii's GPU is based on a 1999 architecture, Flipper, and not from 2001.


back on topic:
Are there any other exciting manycore architectures that Sony can choose from besides CELL and Intel's MIC?
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
(03-01-2012, 01:42 AM)

Originally Posted by Imbarkus

Exclusives? That shit'll be dead before you know it.

They won't be dead for as long Sony, MS, and Nintendo need to use them to push their respective platforms. Personally, exclusives for each platform is what I tend to care about the most anyway.


Originally Posted by NinjaFridge

PC isn't held back by the same constraints as the PS3. The PS2 Classics did not fully utilize the PS2 hardware so they can, with a little effort be made playable on PS3. They didn't max out the fillrate.

I think.

Well, Primal was definitely one of the most graphically intensive PS2 games, and now it's fully emulated in software on PS3. They have some damn good emulator developers at SCE. Just look at PSP games running flawlessly on Vita.
Last edited by Lord Error; 03-01-2012 at 01:46 AM.
Clear
This post contains disingenuous arguments meant to disguise my fanboyism. Reader beware!
(03-01-2012, 01:44 AM)
Clear's Avatar

Originally Posted by AgentP

How? I have nothing with Nintendo, so how does their BC help Sony or MS? Having my PSN or XBL games tied to a PS3 or 360 does very little to change what I buy next time, the competitor's console won't play them either.

Would you rather have an online store with 10 items on it, or 1000?

Games aren't getting quicker and easier to make, especially not the sort of large scale stuff that differentiates the console experience from the smartphone one.

Essentially, that's the real issue. The amount of stuff you have to sell to people once they've opted into buying your box is the key to profitability.
Eusis
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:47 AM)
Eusis's Avatar

Originally Posted by Lord Error

They won't be dead for as long Sony, MS, and Nintendo need to use them to push their respective platforms. Personally, exclusives for each platform is what I tend to care about the most anyway.

It'll also likely take all three having the same hardware (though we're coming REALLY close there, especially if this rumor is true), and roughly equal marketshares everywhere. Japanese developers for example have the luxury of ignoring the 360 if the international market either isn't a big deal or is still part of the niche market, too little support there for the effort it'd take to port. Similar if each system has its own control gimmick, an idea with the Wii Remote may not transfer to the Kinect or vice versa, and similar may apply to the Wii U's tablet.
Clear
This post contains disingenuous arguments meant to disguise my fanboyism. Reader beware!
(03-01-2012, 01:50 AM)
Clear's Avatar
Oh yeah, can somebody clear this one up:

Wasn't the real reason why 360 couldn't support XBox software directly under hardware due to the fact that the endian-ness of the two systems are different. Hence the need for recompiled exe's.

I'm sorry but given that Xbox uses DirectX API's (an abstraction layer purposely to allow for cross-compatibility) I cannot imagine how the choice of GPU had anything to do with it.
iceatcs
Junior Member
(03-01-2012, 01:54 AM)
iceatcs's Avatar

Originally Posted by herzogzwei1989

Are there any other exciting manycore architectures that Sony can choose from besides CELL and Intel's MIC?

I think AMD Bulldozer have octa-core processor. I dunno if 8 is enough.
Opteron can do 16 cores.
Persona7
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:57 AM)
Persona7's Avatar

Originally Posted by Last Hearth

I don't know why everyone assumes no BC means your PSN games are useless. They could make ps4 ports of those games on PSN, and allow anyone whose account has purchased the ps3 version to download the PS4 version for free.

Seriously PSN games is not that big a deal, it's all the disc games that will no longer be playable.

I highly doubt Namco will ever spend another development dollar on Noby Noby Boy again.
SPE
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:59 AM)
If BC doesn't make it into the Xbox3 or PS4, it would impact MS and Sony in two key ways. One is the obvious inability for customers to play their existing library of games, so gives them no tie to their existing accounts.

Aside from this, the digital stores of MS and Sony makes BC next gen far more important. It's not like Xbox retail software (new, not pre-owned) was selling when the 360 launched. The PS2 faired better, but anecdotally, I'd say a lot of its software sales post-PS3 sales were pre-owned, so in no benefit for Sony's finances.

If the Xbox3 or PS4 launches without BC, so without the means to buy from the existing XBLA or PSN catalogue, they're cutting off a big source of revenue. It would also scare off 360/PS3 owners buying digital games if they had planned on buying the future consoles.
Xplatformer
Member
(03-01-2012, 01:59 AM)
Xplatformer's Avatar

Originally Posted by BurningNad

I don't buy new systems to play old games, that's what my old systems are for. Bring on the new and better choice of technology, i say.

This?

Leave the DS3 behind while you're at it Sony.
DidntKnowJack
Member
(03-01-2012, 02:01 AM)
Well, this wouldn't be ideal as far as backwards compatibility is concerned, but as long as I know this will be the case ahead of time, I'll just make sure I keep my PS3 around.

Originally Posted by Xplatformer

Leave the DS3 behind while you're at it Sony.

I like the DS3. PS4? Bring on the DS4.
CrunchyFrog
Member
(03-01-2012, 02:02 AM)
CrunchyFrog's Avatar
All these people bitching about lack of BC are ridiculous. Yeah it's nice to have but to not buy a console outright because of its absence is just silly. Thank god none of you were around for the cartridge console days. Int his case it's warranted, cell was a needlessly complx architecture which nobody caught on to in the game dev community and which failed to gain any traction in the mainstream electronics industry as it was intended. It was a failed pet project, and it's time to move on. If it comes at the cost of BC to have a 10x easier dev environment, then so be it.
SPE
Member
(03-01-2012, 02:04 AM)
BurningNad, does that mean each time you buy a new iPhone, you be happy to lose all your apps and start over again? And end up carrying around 3-4 phones?

Of course not. Having one Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony console under my TV is enough. I don't want legacy systems there when the new consoles could be running their games.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
(03-01-2012, 02:04 AM)
Fine Ham Abounds's Avatar
I'm both appalled and intrigued by this possibility. Anything that makes getting software produced for the system easier is at least partially beneficial.

Whatever happens, BC is more of a matter of convenience for me, as I pretty much never get rid of any game or console I've ever owned.
AtomskEater
Member
(03-01-2012, 02:09 AM)
AtomskEater's Avatar
I would be pissed about lack of BC, just because I don't like less features in general. I keep all my old consoles, so it won't be a deal breaker. If lack of Cell ultimately means PS4 would be better or easier to develop for, then I would deal.
cpp_is_king
Member
(03-01-2012, 02:17 AM)
cpp_is_king's Avatar
As far as not using a cell, to anyone who has developed for the PS3 in the past, this has been obvious for a long time. Everyone fucking hates it, and I'm sure some of the larger companies haven't been so nice to them when explaining to them what would happen if they go with a cell in the PS4.
cpp_is_king
Member
(03-01-2012, 02:18 AM)
cpp_is_king's Avatar

Originally Posted by Nirolak

Why do you think concerns Sony more:

1.) Performance per cost for their next home console.
2.) Running PS3 games.

3.) Finding developers who will actually agree to develop for their system.

Thread Tools