Why the PS4 Doesn't Do PS3 Games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

xpacerx:
I must have been the only one who heard when they said backwards compatibility for ps3 games was handled through the cloud.

They're looking at it - but promising nothing. They explicitly said they weren't guaranteeing anything about back compat and that it would not be present at launch (in an event with some other pretty wild promises).

I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see some re-releases further down the road like they do with the PS classics, or even some PS3 games through streaming, just don't expect that you will ever be able to play any old PS3 disk you have sitting around.

One more reason the Cell was a horrible idea: It's easy to forget now, but there were /years/ of no fantastic PS3 exclusives thanks to how hard the damn thing is to code for. PS3 owners (like me) would eagerly seize on any exclusive - 'This is the one, baby! Lair is going to have all you Xbots crying in your red rings!' 'Resistance: Fall of Man? This'll be the best shooter evar!'

There were definitely some good games (Uncharted 1), but you could smell the desperation for something fantastic. All thanks to the Cell. Or perhaps you can put half of the blame for Lair on that other dumb idea, SIXAXIS control for everything.

oldtaku:
PS3 owners (like me) would eagerly seize on any exclusive - 'This is the one, baby! Lair is going to have all you Xbots crying in your red rings!' 'Resistance: Fall of Man? This'll be the best shooter evar!'

"SOCOM: Confrontation is gonna be great!"

Man, that game was a waste of money. The best part of that purchase was using the packed-in headset to hear codec communications in MGS4 (now there's an exclusive that was actually good). SOCOM: Confrontation itself was some of the least fun I've ever had in a PS3 game.

P.S. Thanks

The easy solution is to keep your PS3 or skip the PS4 and buy an Xbox8 or whatever it's called. I'm guessing most of the complainers didn't drop $600 for a launch PS3 and were forced to deal with inferior models that were not backward compatible, so you should be use to it.

At some point, isn't it just easier to move on, instead of complaining?

The problem is the industry has a serious image problem with its user base. DRM, Day one / on disk DLC, microtransactions in everything, villification of the used game market, tactics to stop piracy that do more to make inconvienience legitimate buyers, and that's a short list of the more serious issues. So when sony comes out "here's the PS4, here's a lot of features you didn't want, the feature you might want isn't there, but here's our new streaming service," it's hard not to take the whole thing as Sony trying to cripple any market outside the immediate new releases, even if they have legitimate hardware reasons.

This was a time for humility, not dodging the issue while every forum poster ranted about system architechure or looked at us weird because we liked older games and didn't think the hardware would be supported forever. Even a simple statement such as "we will do all we can to keep the PS3 in circulation until some workaround can be done" or "we will offer credit for PS4 versions of PS3 games if they'd been bought digitally, or even if we find a patch for said game had been downloaded to your account" would go a long way to avoid making it look like the issue is legitimate, not a result of turning a dumb decision into a corporate cash grab.

I'm not sure how I feel about the article implying backwards compatibility was the end-all-be-all of brand loyalty. As if there aren't other (more significant) reasons for someone to stick with a console.

It's nice to have, yes. But it seriously isn't that important.

oldtaku:

xpacerx:
I must have been the only one who heard when they said backwards compatibility for ps3 games was handled through the cloud.

They're looking at it - but promising nothing. They explicitly said they weren't guaranteeing anything about back compat and that it would not be present at launch (in an event with some other pretty wild promises).

I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see some re-releases further down the road like they do with the PS classics, or even some PS3 games through streaming, just don't expect that you will ever be able to play any old PS3 disk you have sitting around.

They specifically mentioned the ps3 library is something they are focusing on bringing to the cloud and stated the network would release functionality in stages, its pretty much going to happen.

Meh its not that hard to do it via OSD and hardware layer(IE have most of the PS3 hardware there), sure it would cost more but you'd still be able to offer a new console that can play every PS brand game for under 500$. I'd rather have that than a 300$ POS of which we are getting and streaming BWC? How cute its not BWC since you are reburying the game in a different format...... If you want to go i this anti consumer and crap filled direction $ony then sell the damn hardware that only really palys new games for 100$ it would sell more than the WIIU if you did that.....

xpacerx:

oldtaku:

xpacerx:
I must have been the only one who heard when they said backwards compatibility for ps3 games was handled through the cloud.

They're looking at it - but promising nothing. They explicitly said they weren't guaranteeing anything about back compat and that it would not be present at launch (in an event with some other pretty wild promises).

I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see some re-releases further down the road like they do with the PS classics, or even some PS3 games through streaming, just don't expect that you will ever be able to play any old PS3 disk you have sitting around.

They specifically mentioned the ps3 library is something they are focusing on bringing to the cloud and stated the network would release functionality in stages, its pretty much going to happen.

As long as you rebuy every game you own.

Well, my basic attitude here is very simple. If they can't solve the problem, they shouldn't be releasing a new generation of hardware yet. The way the problem sounds is that it would be very difficult to work out emulation, but not entirely impossible. Difficult is something I expect them to handle with open arms when a company has gotten this kind of investment of time, effort, and money from me, and other gamers, in terms of a library.

To be honest while it's interesting to look at the problem, and how big it might be, at the end of the day I think the issue is simply that Sony has no motivation or desire to solve it. Given consumer behavior, they probably, and quite rightfully, think people will just buy the new product, which not only saves them the development time, but also allows them to exploit the existing pattern of consumers being will to pay again to buy copies of their old games when they are adapted to the new system. With the way a lot of games have been being ported to the PC and other systems like the X-box it would be relatively simple to work from that code as opposed to the Cell code in a worst case scenario. Looking at the people buying PSone classics, PS-2 games ported onto the PSP or made availible for digital downloads, and
everything else to create backwards compadibility would effectively close them off from exploiting this market.

In short, I get it's a big problem, but not an insurmountable one, nothing like this is with proper motivation. I just think that the motivation doesn't exist, so I stand by my basic attitudes about the PS-4 so far. Truthfully though I have not put down my foot in saying "I won't get it" simply because what console I wind up eventually going for is going to in part be dependant on what the competition does. Sony being a bunch of greedy jerks, doesn't mean that Microsoft won't be an even bigger group of greedy jerks for example.

You know it doesn't hurt to just have a PS4 and PS3 both hooked up at the same time. If you have a HDTV, you'll have enough HDMI ports to support the two. With the PS3 you have DVD player, PS4 can be your new Blu-ray player.

You'll literally have 4 cables, 2 HDMI and 2 Power cables...

This isnt the 90s or early 2000s where everything had 8579128364 cables (Aux, VGA, components, etc.) coming out of every piece of hardware hooked up to a CRT TV.

The trade in to get the new console for cheaper is a common practice, but if you have to do that, you shouldn't be buying a new console. (Its a luxury item you broke *******.)

Flameeater:
"I'm currently debating between the PS4 or moving to the PC gamer world. PC's are a bit daunting to get into though."

They are really not that bad. I have been a PC gamer for quite some time, grew up on the snes, and psx. Things with newer PCs are far more friendly for a person used to console gaming then ever before. I find it amazing that with games like the new Fallouts and Skyrim, my old "budget build" PC with an el-cheapo midrange video card still manages to eat my PS3 alive in terms of graphics and responsiveness (not to mention no 20min Loading times). You can now pretty much treat your PC as a console like I do. Plug in an HDMI cord to your TV or AV-Box, plug in a ps3 or xbox controller and you are all set, you will never know the difference (Aside from missing a few old pals, Jaggy and Pixie)

Indeed. Heck, these days if you buy a game through Steam or a boxed game that runs through Steam (such as Skyrim) you don't even have the hassle of patching like the old days, Steam can handle it all for you.

I was very much into consoles until I got my first PC ten years ago, now PC all the way. The main thing is the upfront cost for a PC tends to be more than a console but PC games tend to be cheaper so, over time, it balances out a bit imo.

I lol'd hard at 'fire hazard lurking behind the t.v.'.

Next-console purchases are strongly-oriented on backwards compatibility for this household, which contains 3 X Xbox 360s, and 2 X Playstation 2 (still used). Everyone passed on the PS3. If the PS4 ends up compatible with PS2 games? Maybe.

Therumancer:
Well, my basic attitude here is very simple. If they can't solve the problem, they shouldn't be releasing a new generation of hardware yet. The way the problem sounds is that it would be very difficult to work out emulation, but not entirely impossible. Difficult is something I expect them to handle with open arms when a company has gotten this kind of investment of time, effort, and money from me, and other gamers, in terms of a library.

To be honest while it's interesting to look at the problem, and how big it might be, at the end of the day I think the issue is simply that Sony has no motivation or desire to solve it. Given consumer behavior, they probably, and quite rightfully, think people will just buy the new product, which not only saves them the development time, but also allows them to exploit the existing pattern of consumers being will to pay again to buy copies of their old games when they are adapted to the new system. With the way a lot of games have been being ported to the PC and other systems like the X-box it would be relatively simple to work from that code as opposed to the Cell code in a worst case scenario. Looking at the people buying PSone classics, PS-2 games ported onto the PSP or made availible for digital downloads, and
everything else to create backwards compadibility would effectively close them off from exploiting this market.

In short, I get it's a big problem, but not an insurmountable one, nothing like this is with proper motivation. I just think that the motivation doesn't exist, so I stand by my basic attitudes about the PS-4 so far. Truthfully though I have not put down my foot in saying "I won't get it" simply because what console I wind up eventually going for is going to in part be dependant on what the competition does. Sony being a bunch of greedy jerks, doesn't mean that Microsoft won't be an even bigger group of greedy jerks for example.

I'm going to go on a limb and say that you don't know all that much about computer hardware and programming. What you are saying is, and I am going to use a technical term, insane.

If Sony wanted to maintain backwards compatibility they pretty much had to use the Cell architecture for the PS4. Problem is, that creates more problems than it solves. Cell didn't really catch on outside of a few specialized areas (and even then). While pretty much every programmer has experience with PPC (GameCube, Wii, Wii U, XBOX 360, old Macs, some *nix servers) or x86 / x64 / x86-64 (XBOX, PCs, newer Macs, a lot of the *nix boxes) you'll be hard pressed to find anyone with experience with Cell unless you are looking specifically at people that worked on PS3 tools.

The architecture is expensive, not as produced as x86/x64, everything is hard to port from any other platform, its hard to find qualified personnel. There was no reason for Sony to keep the Cell processor, and frankly, they shouldn't have used it on the PS3 in the first place. The architecture has potential, but it isn't something that ought to be used on home machines now: the cost benefit analysis just makes it completely insane.

Clearly, Sony should use a CPU other than Cell for the PS4. The problem here is that there is no way of emulating the PS3 on current (affordable) hardware, and that will likely be true for five to ten years, if not more. And even then, developing a PS3 emulator will require a considerable amount of time due to how different from everything else the Cell architecture is.

Essentially, it was either this, another PS3-style debacle of a console or waiting nearly a decade while Microsoft passes you by. As much as I am no fan of Sony, they made the right call.

Pink Apocalypse:
I lol'd hard at 'fire hazard lurking behind the t.v.'.

Next-console purchases are strongly-oriented on backwards compatibility for this household, which contains 3 X Xbox 360s, and 2 X Playstation 2 (still used). Everyone passed on the PS3. If the PS4 ends up compatible with PS2 games? Maybe.

If what you care about is BC, PC is your only good bet.

The only reason the PS3 has received as many exclusives as it has, is that after the PS3 became more affordable, it could finally flex its muscle over the 360, now that everyone knows how it was financially viable.

Sony went into the post-PS2 generation under the assumption that they were going to eventually beat Microsoft, and absolutely crush Nintendo; forcing them out of the hardware business. They were going to seize command of the market, and people would play it THEIR way.
An amazing amount of planning went into proprietary tech and DRM for the PS3 and the redesigned PSP, in anticipation of this.

They felt they had such confidence that they didn't even spend their time developing a console that could fully capitalize on one of the greatest game libraries in console history.

Sony went in headstrong and extreme arrogant in their position (I remember their press conferences leading up to the PS3's launch..holy shit was that embarassing) and then...the PS3 failed to dominate either.
It not only failed, it fell into last place for a solid 3 years.

And yet, it's in the lead again (narrowly) by virtue that the Wii and 360 are out of gas. It didn't help that multi-platform launches were quite common for this generation.
I don't think the loss of compatibility with PS3 exclusives are as big a factor for the PS4 as the loss of PS2 exclusives were for the PS3.

Though going forward, I have no idea why they didn't bother strapping the Emotion Engine chip to the PS4; they cannot possibly cost all that much now (being as old as my high school graphing calculator).

"Lolz just keep your old console."

Yeah I guarantee there won't be a single functioning 360 in the entire world in 10 years time.

I dont see what the big deal is

backward compatibility is convinient, and does help keep your PS3 libary relevant...but in the end all it is is a nice extra

Fox334:

If Sony wanted to maintain backwards compatibility they pretty much had to use the Cell architecture for the PS4. Problem is, that creates more problems than it solves. Cell didn't really catch on outside of a few specialized areas (and even then). While pretty much every programmer has experience with PPC (GameCube, Wii, Wii U, XBOX 360, old Macs, some *nix servers) or x86 / x64 / x86-64 (XBOX, PCs, newer Macs, a lot of the *nix boxes) you'll be hard pressed to find anyone with experience with Cell unless you are looking specifically at people that worked on PS3 tools.

The architecture is expensive, not as produced as x86/x64, everything is hard to port from any other platform, its hard to find qualified personnel. There was no reason for Sony to keep the Cell processor, and frankly, they shouldn't have used it on the PS3 in the first place. The architecture has potential, but it isn't something that ought to be used on home machines now: the cost benefit analysis just makes it completely insane.

Clearly, Sony should use a CPU other than Cell for the PS4. The problem here is that there is no way of emulating the PS3 on current (affordable) hardware, and that will likely be true for five to ten years, if not more. And even then, developing a PS3 emulator will require a considerable amount of time due to how different from everything else the Cell architecture is.

The PS3 is a 'Cell' Processor, and as such, if I'm allowed to simplify things a bit, it's just yet another very special RISC/PPC odd one out. It's meant to be different. It's meant to be the anti-PC. It's a half-billion stillbirth turd. To my best knowledge, Toshiba abandoned the idea of putting it in 'every' TV, Sony now follows Apple into more standardized and greener CPU pastures and IBM is still... doing whatever it is IBM is doing. The IBM Roadrunner is an impressive little - partly Cell-powered - beast but, alas, it's yet another 'one-of-a-kind'. So... farewell to Cell in the consumer market, methinks.

The PS4 would probably have less trouble emulating XBOX360/Xenon code. Then again, we're still playing around with that notion. Fun idea, no?

At the moment, we're still scrounging for possibly useful gear. I like the idea of a dedicated PS3 tower with 10TB storage and my whole PS3 collection on it - plus all PS2 and PSX titles, complete with scanline emulation and proper video filters that take the edge off that crap hat pixel perfection of our huge ass expensive LCD panels. PSX emulation on PS3 was... underwhelming, to say the least. And it had no soul, Emotion Engine or not.

In a perfect world, in a free world, Sony would allow for OtherOS/Linux and hardware hacking for the PS3 to go on after they go PS - so people actually had a proper incentive to go buy more PS3 units to, well, run PS3 games directly from 7200rpm hard drives. If you've ever seen that happen, you know what I am talking about.

It's absolutely possible to emulate the Cell and anything running on it. It's just not quite worth the hassle to do it for but a chosen few or even rare or unique freak machines. The PS3 Linux devkits aren't exactly finger-licking good powerhouses. And Intel 64 platforms would absolutely croak low level emulating the PS3.

Plus Sony WILL shut anything and everything down in no time. Seeing as how anæmic the PS3 is fitted hardware-wise besides that Cell abomination, there are really only three issues, in growing order of headache-inducing butthurt:

1) 'Cell' processor asshattery
2) DRM, encryption > decryption 'security' overhead
3) legal issues, DMCA, hungry hungry lawyers

So... now we're about to all be members of the splendid x86/x64/Intel 64 master race family, the sky's going to be the limit, right? No. I think the encryption shenanigans will only properly take off with this next 'Next Gen' console generation. Let's wait and see.

So their strategy of having a better, but harder to use processor system failed, and they can't run their old games on their new, developer-friendly console. Or something.

M'kay, pardon if this seems like a stupid question, but could they include the old processors just to play PS3 games, or have them as some optional plug-in?

DragonWright:

M'kay, pardon if this seems like a stupid question, but could they include the old processors just to play PS3 games, or have them as some optional plug-in?

They could, but it wouldn't be in their best interests. A reasonable pricing point will sell consoles far better than backwards compatibility would, and the hardware needed to achieve native backwards compatibility would raise the price of the PS4 a considerably amount. This is evident in the sales of the PS3; most of the PS3 units sold were done once the price of the system was cut, and removing backwards compatibility helped cut the price of the PS3 with the introduction of the slim. Not to mention that high-level industry executives have gone on record stating that a "very small percentage of people" even use the feature.

It's inconvenient, but it's a move Sony must make to try and rectify their poor strategy from last gen.

linforcer:
"WOULD" be a nightmare? Have you LOOKED at a PS2 emulator. Shit eats up resources.

Honestly, any semi-recent PC can run a ps2 emulator at full gas. No games lag anymore unless your PC is from like 2006. If the next gen console is on par with PC technology today (and it seems to be a bit ahead, actually, at least for now) it would have zero problems whatsoever even running freeware emulators like pcsx2. If Sony actually spent some time and effort making an emulator, it would probably be even more efficient/less resource guzzling.

Hardware is not holding emulation back anymore - PS2 is over a decade old now. PCs caught up with it in recent years, and consoles 2 gens past it should have no problems at all.

Even PS2 emulators are a lot of work to get working. PCSX2 is nothing short of a programming masterpiece when you understand how hard it can be to get all the time critical functionality of the PS2 working on another architecture.
From what I understand about PS2 emulation is it's most reliant on a high clock speed on one or two cores. Lower clocks don't work too well even with many cores. Sony would have to start from near scratch just to cater to a dead market. If you want to play PS2 games you should use your PC.

You can be sure as hell MS will jump on this if they have BC

matrix3509:
"Lolz just keep your old console."

Yeah I guarantee there won't be a single functioning 360 in the entire world in 10 years time.

No, but in 10 years time, nearly any halfway decent PC will be able to emulate any game from the 360/ps3 generation.

Hold on to your discs after your 360 dies, download an emulator and play on.

Sony do seem to like shooting themselves in the foot. To be honest the ps4 backwards compatibility thing isn't that big a deal but I'm pretty sure I'll never buy Sony again.

I have a ps2 and I love it dearly but the ps3 was a mess.
first it was backwards compatible but it was kinda shit then they removed it entirely, at least Microsoft gave it a really good try even if they did fail.
Then there was the whole linux thing. Yea way to betray your user base there Sony.
The psp go was the last straw for me. It really couldn't get any more insulting than that.

Sony as a company is in major trouble, doesn't take much searching to see how bad they need the Ps4 to take off. when this happened to Sega I was willing to gamble and bought a Dreamcast anyways (a decision I still don't regret, bloody love that thing)

Looking at how poor the Ps3 did I feel I was right to not get it and I see no reason to think the ps4 will fair any better. For me at least it feels too much like betting on the slow horse.

What I don't understand is why Sony isn't catering to the "hardcore" market. I realize they want to keep prices down so I wouldn't expect backwards compatibility to be free. Charge $5 for a PS1 or PS2 software emulator. A lot of people would buy it and they could add some extras instead of just the bare bones PS1 emulation the PS3 currently has.

Furthermore, they could design the PS4 with a slot where a card with the Cell processor (and whatever else is needed) could plug in. Charge $50 or $75 for it. Those who don't want PS3 compatibility then wouldn't have to pay for it.

Say what you want about Ken Kutaragi (the Father of the Playstation who left after the release of the PS3). He was arrogant and misguided (ie. the whole Cell processor thing) but at least he had some vision!

There is a fairly large group of people who want backwards compatibility. If you don't believe me compare the price a new PS3 sells for now with what an original model from 2006 sells for... (Spoiler Alert! The 2006 model is much more valuable.)

I'm willing to pay more for backwards compatibility and want Sony to at least GIVE ME THE OPTION!

(I have been a Playstation owner since the first one was released in 1995.)

Make 2 systems dammit! Make 1 that is cheap that only plays PS4 games and does the streaming crap. Make another that is more expensive and can play their entire library. I know that I'd pay for it.

Sony is essentially telling me not to buy their next system. Why would I even want to? Right now, I may as well switch over to Microsoft or Ouya even because I am not losing anything. I'd be "losing my library" in regards to being playable on whatever system I pickup, so why stick with one that is actively trying to nickel and dime me?

trooper6:

Yopaz:

I got a PS3 less than 3 months ago and I still haven't finished the games that made me buy it. Of course I am annoyed that I wont be able to play them if I choose to update, but I understand why. It's a sad, but it's probably better for the developers to be able to work with one kind of CPU. I don't love the idea and it will make me hold off a future purchase for a game I really want though.

Well, I'm sure I'm not the only one but, they are losing my potential money.
I'm an Xbox gamer--so I don't own any PS games. However, I've been very interested in a couple of the PS3 exclusives (Quantic Dream and Naughty Dog). However, it doesn't make much sense to me to buy a console that is on its way out for four games. So I was considering buying a PS4, thinking erroneously that it would be backwards compatible. But now that I learn that it won't be, There is very little chance I'm going to buy the PS4 or any of that PS3 back catalogue.

Did you read the same article I did? Games aren't made incompatible on a whim, but because the hardware is incompatible. Now why would they abandon their old kind of CPU? Maybe because that is the reason the PS3 had problems getting games for its first few years? That CPU was hard to work with according to what I have heard. Abandoning this might mean it gets easier for developers to make games in the future and it also means a bigger chance that the PS5 gets backwards compatibility.

As I said I bought a PS3 less than 3 months ago. Obviously this isn't ideal for me, but I understand why.

Don't get my hopes up, I would love PS2 backwards compatibility. It's the main reason I didn't bother getting a PS3 and went PC instead. Because I still have hundreds of PS2 games that I haven't been able to play for years because of the crappy quality of second hand PS2's which are like ducks teeth now.

As someone who is now a pure PC gamer, I'd seriously be tempted by that backwards compatibility. Like some of the exclusives so far look nice... I'd love to play Tekken again, there just needs to be that little push to bring me back.

RobfromtheGulag:
Rage only had 1 texture? That blows my mind.

First 6 core cpus, now DDR5 memory, Sony just likes these big tech numbers.

GDDR5. We're still on DDR3 as the standard for RAM.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248493-30-gddr

alphamalet:

They could, but it wouldn't be in their best interests. A reasonable pricing point will sell consoles far better than backwards compatibility would, and the hardware needed to achieve native backwards compatibility would raise the price of the PS4 a considerably amount. This is evident in the sales of the PS3; most of the PS3 units sold were done once the price of the system was cut, and removing backwards compatibility helped cut the price of the PS3 with the introduction of the slim. Not to mention that high-level industry executives have gone on record stating that a "very small percentage of people" even use the feature.

It's inconvenient, but it's a move Sony must make to try and rectify their poor strategy from last gen.

How expensive are those Cell processors to make. Some of my friends pointed out that they need to include a second processor in the thing anyway, if it's at all possible to make it one that improves backwards compatibility why not do it.

FloodOne:

matrix3509:
"Lolz just keep your old console."

Yeah I guarantee there won't be a single functioning 360 in the entire world in 10 years time.

No, but in 10 years time, nearly any halfway decent PC will be able to emulate any game from the 360/ps3 generation.

Hold on to your discs after your 360 dies, download an emulator and play on.

That's not the be all and end all, some games just don't work on emulators.

Try playing Rogue Squadron for the N64 via emulator.
and the Australian version of FF8 doesn't work quite right.

That explains quite a bit, quite cleanly even for the non-technically minded. Unfortunate to see the impressive processing potential laid low by architectural limitations.

Lord_Jaroh:
Make 2 systems dammit! Make 1 that is cheap that only plays PS4 games and does the streaming crap. Make another that is more expensive and can play their entire library. I know that I'd pay for it.

Sony is essentially telling me not to buy their next system. Why would I even want to? Right now, I may as well switch over to Microsoft or Ouya even because I am not losing anything. I'd be "losing my library" in regards to being playable on whatever system I pickup, so why stick with one that is actively trying to nickel and dime me?

Yeah making a "premium" PS4 would make the most sense but with full backwards compatibility PS1 to PS3 could easily see the price go up by two to three hundred dollars on a device that will probably cost between three to five hundred dollars at launch.

Meaning that the "premium" BC version could cost at a minimum five hundred dollars and at maximum (an extremely unlikely) 800 dollars. While 500 dollars seems reasonable it might not be worth it to Sony to make another version and have to deal with essentially selling two different machines which makes inventory planning and production just that much harder to properly estimate in a market that isn't growing as quickly as it once did in the past.

However 3 to 5 years from now if Sony decides to redesign the PS4 there should be nothing stopping them from just including the previous hardware at that point, because the price should be low enough that value added will out weigh the cost.

Interesting article. I'd just like to point out that consoles with multiple processors aren't exactly new, they were around long before the PS3. If I'm not mistaken, consoles as ancient as the Sega Genesis already had a muti-processor architecture (though granted, they were usually per task processors; i.e., one dedicated processor for sound, one for graphics, and so on).

It is also interesting to note that one of the reasons why the Sega Saturn failed was because of its bizarre, convoluted hardware, where the Playstation 1 was much easier (and cheaper) to develop for. Well, that and the fact that the Saturn put its bet on 2D, while the PS1 put its bet in fugly low poly games in a time when being "3D" was pretty much all a game needed to be sold. And then, with the PS3, Sony made the mistake that Sega made before, and that led its console to triumph in the first place...

Want to play your old games years from now (and games from other platforms)? Get a real gaming platform: a PC.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here