Waldorf and Statler Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Some people online are outright insulted that it is even considered an option that either of those is a PS4 exclusive over a PS3 exclusive. Understandable seeing how many bought the console for either of those but come one man. If we're this close into the announcement of the PS4 and still have heard nothing of these two it's for a reason. Suck it up, move on. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I'm disappointed, seeing that The Last Guardian is one of the reasons I bought a PS3 (I bought it in like Summer 2010 when The Last Guardian's release date was Fall 2010... or maybe it was 2011, but whatever), but I'm not like angry about it or anything. As far as dean's comment about getting rid of the old console goes, I think it's nice when a new console is BC with an old one because then I don't have to have both of them taking up room around the TV. I already have too much stuff there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCP Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I too bought a PS3 partly for both of those games, but even if they're both canceled and never released, there was more than enough great exclusives on PS3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I don't regret my purchase of a PS3. I wasn't interested in some of it's biggest exclusives (Japanese games and GoW), but I've played it enough, and combined with using it as a Bluray/media player it was definitely worth it. Honestly though, for me the only must-have exclusive on PS3 would have been The Last Guardian. Halo is the only one on Xbox, but it has the advantage of actually existing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 This is a pipe dream but this is one time I would be in favor of multiple SKUs for a console. One that only plays PS4 games and one that plays both PS4 and PS3 games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I get that backwards compatibility is a nice thing to have, but I don't see why it's such a rage point for people. Of all the consoles that have been released over the years so few have had the feature I don't know why people seem to expect and demand it. I mean, people were actually annoyed that the wii U wasn't able to play gamecube games. Seriously?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I suppose it's partly a result of moving from cartridges that physically do not fit the new device, to a metallic disc / download that is perceived as a universal media format, even though it isn't, and partly as people get used to buying a new PC / Laptop with the latest version of Windows and finding everything (mostly) works still. I think Sony actually played it quite well with PS3 with early models playing PS2 titles, giving early adopters a (artificially) larger library, then dropping it, thus saving costs and allowing a price drop as the PS3 catalogue grew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I'm fine if they do something similar with the PS4 with regards to BC. It gives folks a chance to transition. Wanting to be able to play games from two generations ago means that you're slower than Slowpoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCP Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 At this point, I don't want to play SD GCN games on my Wii U, same as I don't want to play SD PS2 games on my PS3. But PS3 games should hold up fairly well on the PS4, so BC would be a nice feature but if it removing it keeps the system in the 299-399 price range, I'm fine with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 The way the did it with the PS3 though was to basically jam a PS2 inside. A $600 console the size of a small desktop tower jamming in the guts of a DVD case sized console that retailed for $99 was something not too unreasonable, but doing the same with a PS3 in the PS4 would raise the price quite high, and I think they've probably ran the number to find that BC just isn't as huge a factor as some might make it to be, at least compared to keeping the cost of launch console down by $100. For anyone where B/C is a huge factor, as Thursday has kinda said there's always PC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) Having a PC doesn't help me play PS3 games though. B/C or lack thereof certainly isn't a dealbreaker, but it is a factor, like a lot of things. Edited February 19, 2013 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 What Ethan said. We only got a solid PS2 emulator around mid-late last year. A PS3 emulator got to be around 10 years down the road. (If I recall correctly, I could legally emulate a console if I have said console. About the SNES...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Well yeah, just saying if B/C is a big thing then go for a non-generational system (that has PS2 backwards compatibility too). The games for most folks will be the big factor though, same reason I own a PS3. edit: PCSX2 has been out for over a decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCP Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Apparently Sony is registering URLs for PlayStation Cloud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 edit: PCSX2 has been out for over a decade. Yes, but it has not worked well for anywhere close to that long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Well sure, but I was responding to MaliciousH post that PS2 emulator only just came out late last year. I've a PXOD post that exceeds even that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCP Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 He said a solid PS2 emulator. As in, an emulator that actually works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 As I said, I know it didn't spring out the door a decade ago all singing and dancing, it didn't only just pop up late last year though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Playstation Cloud? So streaming games and taking your game saves everywhere ala Steam? I approve. Though streaming games seems like I'd need a damn fast internet connection Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 As I said, I know it didn't spring out the door a decade ago all singing and dancing, it didn't only just pop up late last year though. He didn't say it popped up. He meant that when it started performing reliably is when 'we only got' a solid PS2 emulator. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Playstation Cloud? So streaming games and taking your game saves everywhere ala Steam? I approve. Though streaming games seems like I'd need a damn fast internet connection If you can stream Netflix then your internet connection should be fast enough for game streaming (assuming we're talking OnLive-style, rather than play-while-you-download), the real issue is latency. When I played OnLive the visual quality was comparable to consoles, but there was about a quarter-second delay in control inputs, making anything remotely fast completely unplayable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Yeah, which isn't late last year but years back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldorf and Statler Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I sometimes feel that a lot of the arguments on this forum stem from semantics. @Ethan: Really? I mean I can stream Netflix and HBO Go decently so if that's the case cool. Can't wait Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 You can install and use Onlive for free so you can see how well it works on your connection. As for semantics there's not to to be lost in semantics between a few months ago and a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Heart Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 You can install and use Onlive for free so you can see how well it works on your connection. As for semantics there's not to to be lost in semantics between a few months ago and a few years ago. That wasn't the semantics part, that is a point on which you are entitled to disagree. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.