I highly anticipate that it won't be backwards compatible simply because the PS3 uses the cell processor and PS4 won't. As much as they struggled with getting ps2 compatibility, they won't likely get there for PS3.Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
Printable View
I highly anticipate that it won't be backwards compatible simply because the PS3 uses the cell processor and PS4 won't. As much as they struggled with getting ps2 compatibility, they won't likely get there for PS3.Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
Not surprising, I'd say it's a given it wont be backwards compatible. They're using a completely different architecture this time around. I'll never understand why they went with the cell for the PS3. The only thing it did was cause them to bleed money and lead to the 360 getting much better multiplatform games.
I'd find it highly surprising if either console is backwards compatible. It's just not that big of a worry for consoles anymore.
More baseless speculation:
http://youtu.be/rHWNx4RApZA
I disagree. I think it's a bigger problem than in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by morsdraconis
1) It saves converts a lot of money if we can trade in our old console towards it knowing we can still play all of our old games on it. Without it you have to keep both consoles plugged in your TV and save no money. I expect these consoles to get off to sluggish starts so the PS3 and 360 will still have a long life yet.
2) These new games aren't going to be much better. Not having backwards compatible never bothered me from the PS1 to the PS2 because the graphical improvements were so crazy and most games were so much better you never wanted to look back. But this will be the smallest improvement in graphics we have ever seen. I also see very few hardware limitations on the current systems that prevent the games from being better. EA's football games aren't going to be better on the PS4 unless they get better programmers. 95% of the problems with the current games are AI related due to poor design and programming. I think many people will want the option of playing their older games which may be better than the new games if this gen is any indication.
While that's mostly true, there are hardware limitations that prevent them from taking them to the next level... as is now, they essentially have to spend every year trying to squeeze out an extra KB of disc space or save RAM here & there, etc. With these new consoles, I'm sure they would eventually max out the limitations but it probably wouldn't be until the 3rd or 4th release.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy
At the very least, a new console would make menu navigation much better on the PS3 side... the major hold-back is the RAM, that's why it's a pain in the ass to recruit on the console.
I can understand some of those limitations like replay length but I don't excuse terrible cpu QB AI or game management as limitations of hardware. That's just bad programming.Quote:
Originally Posted by gschwendt
AI abilities can be heavily, heavily influenced by the hardware too. There's really no way to know which is the cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy
More X-Box 720 Rumors
Additional alleged Xbox 720 details have come to light today. Sources speaking to Edge said the platform will require an Internet connection to function and that a new version of Xbox Live will be an "integral" component of Microsoft's new platform. Though Microsoft is reportedly "absolutely committed" to online functionality for its new machine, games will still be offered in physical form, the sources said.
In addition, the sources said games for the new system will ship with activation codes and "have no value beyond the initial user." This falls in line with a report from last year, which said the Xbox 720 could block used games in some way. Analysts do not believe this is likely.
These games will reportedly be manufactured on 50GB Blu-ray discs, an upgrade from the DVD drive the Xbox 360 currently sports. Sony's PlayStation 3 supports Blu-ray, and it has since it was first launched in 2006. Blu-ray disc capacity is significantly greater than that of DVD.
In addition, the sources said Microsoft will ship a new version of Kinect alongside the Xbox 720. No further information was made available, though a previous report said "Kinect V2" could support four-player full-body tracking and allow gamers to sit down while playing. In addition, this technology is believed to adapt to players' living room, meaning they will not need to move furniture for an optimal experience.
Lastly, Edge's source said the previously rumored Xbox 720's specifications will include an AMD eight-core x64 1.6GHz CPU, a D3D11.x 800 MHz graphics solution, and 8GB of DDR3 RAM. At present, the platform's hard drive capacity is still reportedly up in the air.
An Xbox 360 successor is, of course, still unannounced and Microsoft did not comment on this report. It may not be long before that changes, as the platform holder is rumored to announce the Xbox 720 during an Apple-style media presentation in late March, perhaps in conjunction with the 2013 Game Developers Conference.
So no backwards capability in new machines, no renting and no selling or buying of used games? They just added a ton of extra costs to this machine for the user making the transition. No thanks next gen. Come see me when you are under $299 and you have a truly great library of games.
Xbox 720 could block used games in some way. Analysts do not believe this is likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy
That was from CDJ's post.
I don't care about not being able to play used games, but they better not require users to be online at all times just to play games. Nothing annoyed me more than not being able to play Diablo 3 unless I was online, so I'm certainly not going to purchase anything that has such a ludicrous requirement again.
While I'm on the topic of Microsoft, I hope they have some exclusives other than Forza, Halo, Gears, and Call of Duty DLC. If you look at this year's offering, you've got Gears of War Judgment(which isn't even a Gears game but rather some sick breeding of Call of Duty, Halo, and Gears all in one) vs God of War Ascension, The Last of Us, Sly 4, The Show, and Beyond.
Considering the PS4 is going back to a more PC like architecture, the 360 will no longer have better 3rd party multiplatform versions of games, so Microsoft's bare bones exclusive library is really going to be a glaring issue if they don't correct it.
Honestly, my PS3 has essentially become an NCAA Football game console. Practically everything else I play on PC. I keep telling myself that I won't jump on the console this year A) because the library will be shallow and B) because I don't know that I'll play it enough to warrant jumping on it early. That said, I told myself that I would wait 6 months on the PS3 but that lasted only a month.
As far as restrictions from consoles allowing you to play rented/used games, I'm hoping that they offer some kind of system that allows you to play any of these games that you don't have an "activation code" for up to a week or so. That way, you could rent games but also take a game over to a friends house. It'd be similar to EA's games allowing you a trial period for online services.
Yeah it will be "interesting" to see how Sony and Microsoft handle these "issues" (used games; online only; etc...). I do not like the concept of having to have an internet connection to play your system especially when Microsoft requires you to pay to play online.
You can still be "online" with XBL Silver account... you just can't play online multiplayer, etc. I'll be curious if MS decides to go a route similar to PSN+ with their next console... make it worth the money to buy but don't pull features away if you don't buy.Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
According to the word from some game review website higher ups, everything that is to be known about the two new systems is already known (both systems are "done" hardware wise already).
As for the always online thing, welcome to the new DRM format. It'll be interesting to see how many of your guys that hate the idea do it anyway. Hell, I hate it too, but you gotta get over it. It's happening and unless you don't want to play video games, there's nothing you can do about it.
They will never give give xbox live for free, it makes entirely too much money for them and is the sole reason they have been beating the PS3 online because they have a revenue stream to back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by gschwendt
After the anti-used game report for the next XBOX, Gamestop shares dropped 6.8% today.
I think that used to be the case, but I have to think people are beginning to wake up to Microsoft's BS.
It is most certainly true that Xbox Live used to be way better than PS Network, however, those days are quickly going by the wayside. Microsoft still invests more in their arcade games, but the vast majority of the games are on both platforms. Sony has a few of their own gems, so in the arcade games area, it's pretty close to a wash.
A lot of people are really in love with Plus, so that's a huge positive for Sony. You can play online, watch Netflix, and everything else without paying a subscription fee. With Microsoft, you can't play online without Live, nor can you even watch Netflix without a Gold subscription, which is really retarded. The only thing Microsoft has over Sony right now is the party ability and how easy it is to send out invites and set up a party. To me, that isn't worth $60 a year, especially compared to something like Plus that actually gives you games to play at no extra cost.
But I tend to agree, I don't think Microsoft is smart enough to realize that they're going to have to change things up to compete with Sony in the upcoming generation. I fully believe they're going to continue charging $60 for the ability to play online, continue focusing on Kinect and the casual market, and continue going after timed exclusive DLC deals. It worked this generation, but I truly don't believe it will the next.
I agree with every point you make, I was simply implying that because the charged 60.00 was the reason it was better for a span of what 3-4 years, I agree that is not the case now as PSN has come a very long way.Quote:
Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn
Good, I only buy new games and Gamestop can bite my shinny metal ass. The online only thing is moronic. Just look at the outrage over the new Sim City and requiring an always on connection.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBHuskers
Well with PS+, Sony really upped the ante by giving you FULL RETAIL games for free. I bet in the past few months alone, over a dozen retail games for PS3 and Vita, including Vita's Uncharted, Gravity Rush, Just Cause 2, etc. for FREE. LittleBigPlanet Karting is a fairly new title, PS+ members were able to snag it for $10 just a week after it was a great deal on Best Buy for $20.
If MS offered the same type of game offering ON TOP of Gold, then maybe they could get an advantage.
Do you keep all the games you buy? Because you can't sell them when you are done anymore. I trade almost all my games or sell them online when I am done. Kiss that goodbye if this ends up happening. Clearly they see this as a way to push digital distribution and cloud services which I do not like.Quote:
Originally Posted by bdoughty
I've become too much of a hoarder that takes forever to finish a game :D so I don't sell back as much as I collect.
Now if they are requiring an activation code (i.e. the current Online Pass) rather than some on-disc encoding, you could still buy used from Gamefly, and their sales will go through the roof because they provide the unused code with the game you buy from them. That's where I get at least half of my new games, if not more is Gamefly used.
I have been using the On Demand to get a few games lately. I have also bought plenty of XBLA games so it really does not concern me, since you can't sell them either. I usually gave away my games or donated them to the hospital. I generally get my moneys worth in a game so it really is not an issue for me. I understand others concerns as money is tight and a trade in is a way of turning a couple used games into a new game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy
Nothing is set in stone until it comes straight from the mouth of MS.
I wonder how Sony responds to this whole must be online/no used games? On one hand the consumers would "reward" them if they said no used games are fine. That could be a BIG selling point for the ps4 over the 720. On the other hand, the game manufacturers certainly want this b/c they feel they are missing out on $ from the used game purchases. Would game manufacturers "punish" Sony if they didn't follow 720's "lead" on this "issue? I doubt it, b/c the consumers would flock there thus they would be passing up a large chunk of game sales.
IMHO, Sony would be best to NOT follow MS on this issue and try to drive the point home to the consumers in the lead up to launch.
http://youtu.be/Ue1sR9tnl4Q
IF this is to be believed sounds like Sony has the early "edge" as preference for the manufacturers. Sony's system is "preferable platform to work on" "OS is less oppressive than MS's next gen solution"
We are talking about companies like EA and Activision. Companies that love to punish their customers already. Publishers would find a way.Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
I can just see it now.
Next Gen COD - Exclusive to Xbox: Multiplayer
Next Gen Madden - Exclusive to Xbox: End Zones
Eh, makes no difference to me. Whenever I upgrade, I'll still go Xbox. I rarely ever trade in or sell my games, and when I buy a game, I prefer to get it new, so no used games really isn't that big of a deal to me. As for always online, I already sign into Xbox Live first thing when I get on and stay signed in every time I play. And I've needed a regular internet connection for PC games for a while now, so it is not a big deal at all. I really don't get all the bitching seen all over the internet these days.
It would be interesting although I suspect if EA/Activision were to pull a move that blatantly obvious they'd just sell very few PS4 games and another publisher would/could come in for and make a game on the PS4 similar to Madden/COD. Hell Sony already makes a pretty nice sports game. I suspect if they REALLY wanted to they have the resources to make a really solid football title as well should the need ever arise.Quote:
Originally Posted by bdoughty
That's pretty much where we're heading. There's nothing more lame than exclusive and timed exclusive DLC. I mean, seriously...if you're going to give one system a time advantage, just make your game exclusive to that console. EA and Activision are by far the two worst ones in this practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by bdoughty
I still don't like it. I'm connected all the time, too, but what happens if my internet goes down? I can't play my single player games. I don't like that at all. If they want to institute some kind of system that has a one time activation per game and you need to be on the internet to do that activation, that's fine...but I shouldn't be required to be connected all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes
Technically they could just flip the bird at that specific console and just not make one. EA is no stranger to that game, poor little DREAMCAST and based on what little info is available they might be bypassing a WiiU version of Madden 25.Quote:
Originally Posted by CLW
Asahi Shimbun, one of Japan’s biggest newspapers, has run an interesting story – translated by The Verge -- indicating that the PlayStation 4 will cost over 40,000 Yen, or about $430.
The Verge puts this into context: PS3 cost approximately 60,000 Yen (nearly $650) in Japan when it launched in late 2006, and as we all know very well, it ran an outrageous $599 in the United States at that time.
So is this rumored price point good news? Yes, if it’s true. A 40,000 Yen price point in Japan indicates that PlayStation 4 may launch in the west at around $400, or $200 less than PS3 cost in 2006. However, this is all speculation; we hope to have plenty of hard facts following Sony’s event in New York City on February 20, which IGN will attend.
The newspaper report also indicates, according to The Verge, that the PlayStation 4 will launch in Japan and the US in 2013 (no mention of Europe indicates that the console won’t launch there until 2014) and that the DualShock 4 – or whatever it will be called – is “roughly the same shape” as the DualShock 3 currently used with the PlayStation 3.
We’ve reached out to Sony for official comment on Asahi Shimbun’s story, and will update when we hear back.
Link
Count me in as a person who will NOT BE buying a new console on day one. The cost is a factor but I still have bad memories of the move to next gen. I will take a wait and see approach this time.
I won't be buying a console on day one and I waited over a year to get my PS3. I do have a hard time believing a PS4 would only cost $400. There would be some huge losses if sold at that price. They are still charging $250 for the PS3! The math is fuzzy there. Sony and MS lost a boatload of money the first 3-4 years on these consoles. Overall the console business hasn't made them much money this generation. Sony did win the Blu Ray war but I'm not sure the philosophy of losing $100 on a console at launch is a good idea anymore.
Did not buy a 360 at launch, in fact I waited about a year to make the plunge. Will have plenty of time to decide on what next gen console to get. Best part is all of the launch/early released games are much cheaper by that time.
Understandable. For me, when my internet goes out, the last thing I'm concerned with is playing my game. I'm busy checking the router and cable modem, trying to figure out why the hell the internet went out. But I completely understand your position and opposition to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by I OU a Beatn
Yeah, if they charged only $400 at launch, from the details that have been released thus far, it sounds like Sony would be taking a bath from day one on the PS4 just like they were with the PS3. Would they really do that to themselves for a second straight launch? A second straight console?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaymo76
Same here. I didn't even buy my 360 until 2009, so it was cheaper, the fuck-ups and problems had largely been fixed, and I was able to get a load of games right away for cheap prices, as bdoughty said, because they had already been sitting on shelves for years and dropping in value.Quote:
Originally Posted by bdoughty
Even if the 720 comes out this fall, I only just got my new 360 Slim (to replace my old 360 with the constantly dying disc drive) a year ago. I'm gonna get a hell of a lot more of a year or two of use out of it for the price. Even if it comes out later this year, it's not going to be, at a very minimum, winter 2015, probably not even until sometime 2016 before I look at buying the next-gen Xbox.
The reason why it was a loss for Sony for the PS3 was because of the costs to manufacture the Blu-ray players in the console. With the price of Blu-ray players being substantially lower than they were at the time of the PS3 release, Sony can afford to and will make the price point $349.99 and $399.99 just like Microsoft can and will.Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothPancakes
If either company goes above the $399.99 price point, they're asking for failure.