Actually it isn't expensive at all. It's software.
No, it often isn't. It certainly isn't when hardware architecture changes between generations.
Microsoft is a software company. They already have the software. They did it for the XBox.
Only for some titles, because to allow true backwards compatibility would have required adding hardware to the 360. Those titles that were backwards compatible had to be made backwards compatible, including compatibility testing.
If they are planning on running cloud, you can have it access that way. My Wii runs game cube games.
That's because the Wii and Gamecube both ran on iterations of the PowerCPU/ATI Graphics architecture. But it still required adding hardware to the system. Eventually, in order to lower the barrier to entry for new buyers, backwards compatibility was removed. My Wii, for instance, cannot run Gamecube games.
My XBox runs old XBox Games.
Your 360 runs some old Xbox games. See above.
GOG has emulators for Dos games that work fine.
That's because modern computers are capable of meeting the processing power requirements for accurate software emulation of that environment.
I call BS on that whole argument.
No one cares. Backwards compatibility is expensive. Take a look at this article for a brief examination of exactly how much is involved in ensuring accurate emulation of a previous generation's games.
We have a model for how a family grouping might look.
All the accounts had to be tied together in the billing process.
That will not be the same program. That is a solution for 360s, and is limited to 3 added family members. It might look similar, but I doubt it.
Dragon Age 3Has this been confirmed for current-gen? Given that BioWare are apparently going down the same open-world route CDProjekt are with WITCHER 3 (which has been 100% ruled out for PS3 and 360), I'd be very surprised if they massively limited the game by doing that.
Confirmed, but pushed back to 2014. And we will get Metal Gear 5. Sad to lose Witcher 3, though.
And I don't know what you mean by limiting it. The bone is still too new, most of the games releasing this year and the next started being programmed with the current generation in mind. And until the programmers have some time to test the real limits of the new gen the games released in the next couple years will be pretty similar to what could be done with the current gen but including whatever gimmicks they're forced to use. Witcher 3 having voice commands softens the blow of losing it to the next gen a lot.
Has this been confirmed for current-gen? Given that BioWare are apparently going down the same open-world route CDProjekt are with WITCHER 3 (which has been 100% ruled out for PS3 and 360), I'd be very surprised if they massively limited the game by doing that.
Dragon Age: Inquisition has been announced for both the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3, in addition to next-gen consoles.
I'm going to say it right now: Microsoft, EA, and Ubisoft had good conferences.
Sony had an absolutely incredible conference. Unless Nintendo brings a MONSTER conference to the table, Sony wins this PR round.
Oh, I may have spoken too soon.
It sounds like Playstation Plus membership will be required for online multiplayer with the PS4.
They still win, but by a bit less.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO Sony destroyed Microsoft with that conference. I'm sold on PS4. 100 bucks less then a xbox one, better hardware and no DRM/ used game BS to deal with.
So I have to pay to play online with PS4. Big deal, been doing it on xbox for years. Now Sony will get my money.
Yeah. Sony pretty much knocked it out of the ballpark. With the price tag on top.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sony has a video on how PS4 will handle used games
I think I laughed for a solid minute.
The short trailer for "The Order" looked awesome as heck, maybe we will finally get some good steampunk lurvin'.
Other than that, the games I like are all cross-platform. Destiny is high on my list of stuff.
The only Xbox exclusive I am miserable about (yes miserable about an Xbox exclusive for the first time) is "Sunset Overdrive" from Insomniac. That game looked downright awesome.
Guess I cant have everything.
That will not be the same program. That is a solution for 360s, and is limited to 3 added family members. It might look similar, but I doubt it.We have a model for how a family grouping might look.
All the accounts had to be tied together in the billing process.
Go ahead and link to your superior source of information.
I agree, that package doesn't exist any more. It DOES show us one method of how MS determines "family" though. Do you have relevant info that positively identifies another model that MS uses? Or are you just speculating?
Go ahead and link to your superior source of information.That will not be the same program. That is a solution for 360s, and is limited to 3 added family members. It might look similar, but I doubt it.We have a model for how a family grouping might look.
All the accounts had to be tied together in the billing process.
What source? I would have thought it was pretty clear that I was operating on the same information you are. In fact, that's why I find it so surprising that you're convinced that the current family plan is going to be the model for the new one.
This is the best E3 that I can remember for quite a few years back. Really solid all around. No disappointing conferences so far, which pretty much never happens.
EDIT: And Ubisoft has really had a dramatic rise to excellence. Watch_Dogs, The Crew, and The Division all look totally excellent.
I was starting to warm to the XBone but PS4 just wins now.
Kingdom Hearts 3 is officially a project, PS4 wins.
Sorry XBone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It must really suck to be working on the Xbox One team right now. They had a genuinely solid conference with lots of great projects that they clearly put a lot of effort into.
And then they get buried by a superbly on-point Sony conference. Content-wise, Sony was a little short, but their messaging was as good as it could possibly be.
Sony did exactly the right thing. They've undercut the Xbox everywhere but possibly exclusive games. The machine is more powerful, there policies are smarter and perhaps most of all in this climate, it's cheaper.
Microsoft have taken a massive pasting, and has got to be feeling the pressure to change some of the stuff they're trying to do. On the other hand, Sony needs to do well, with the rest of Sony being in fairly dire financial straits. This may be desperation, cutting the price and bowing to consumers like this.
What source? I would have thought it was pretty clear that I was operating on the same information you are. In fact, that's why I find it so surprising that you're convinced that the current family plan is going to be the model for the new one.Go ahead and link to your superior source of information.That will not be the same program. That is a solution for 360s, and is limited to 3 added family members. It might look similar, but I doubt it.We have a model for how a family grouping might look.
All the accounts had to be tied together in the billing process.
I'm operating on the information that this is how they have already done things. Why should I assume they'll do it differently?
Sony's biggest hurdle is their debt/income and debt/cash on hand ratio's. They're hurting, but if they pull out the lead in console sales they'll stay on solid ground for quite a while.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's because modern computers are capable of meeting the processing power requirements for accurate software emulation of that environment.
I love when you contradict yourself in the middle of a post.
Also, PS4 just won this round.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sony has a video on how PS4 will handle used gamesI think I laughed for a solid minute.
They get it. XBox messed up big...
|
Speaking purely on the games, neither console was that impressive. We got shooting robots, shooting generic arab/russian terrorists, shooting aliens, shooting mechs, shooting british fascists in space.. lots of shooting really. Some sports and driving too. The Indie focus from Sony was nice, but those games will all be coming out on the Xbone and PC. Honestly, nothing stood out until Ubisoft's and EA's conferences, when they revealed The Division and Mirror's Edge 2.
So as neither console has a killer game that you simply have to get, it comes down to other aspects. Sony, being £80 cheaper and being rather more supportive of consumer rights, are light years ahead in that regard.
Confirmed, but pushed back to 2014. And we will get Metal Gear 5. Sad to lose Witcher 3, though.
And I don't know what you mean by limiting it. The bone is still too new, most of the games releasing this year and the next started being programmed with the current generation in mind. And until the programmers have some time to test the real limits of the new gen the games released in the next couple years will be pretty similar to what could be done with the current gen but including whatever gimmicks they're forced to use. Witcher 3 having voice commands softens the blow of losing it to the next gen a lot.
The 360 and the PS3 both have pretty poor memory, which limits their technical ability to run big open-world games. The Gamebryo/Creation Engine has a rather crappy way of streaming the worlds even on 16GB PCs because they have to fit into the miniscule memory of the consoles. So any game coming out on current as well as next gen is going to have that same limitation. It's bearable and you can get around it, but it's not ideal.
However, it turns out it's not a problem for DRAGON AGE III. It's not actually an 'open world' game like SKYRIM, apparently it's more similar to the original BALDUR'S GATE with lots of 'areas' and these areas are individually quite big with quite a few more side-quests and things in them. It's just not one massive world like SKYRIM and WITCHER III.
Speaking purely on the games, neither console was that impressive. We got shooting robots, shooting generic arab/russian terrorists, shooting aliens, shooting mechs, shooting british fascists in space.. lots of shooting really. Some sports and driving too. The Indie focus from Sony was nice, but those games will all be coming out on the Xbone and PC. Honestly, nothing stood out until Ubisoft's and EA's conferences, when they revealed The Division and Mirror's Edge 2.
So as neither console has a killer game that you simply have to get, it comes down to other aspects. Sony, being £80 cheaper and being rather more supportive of consumer rights, are light years ahead in that regard.
There was quite a bit of same-old. WITCHER III looked very good and QUANTUM BREAK is very intriguing. I'm a huge fan of Remedy and they've always made really interesting games which benefit from a slightly offbeat approach. I'd try out anything from them, apart from the fact than BREAK is going to be XB1-only (for a while; I suspect they won't make the, "Never on PC! It's now on PC!" pig's ear they made of ALAN WAKE again).
Oh, I may have spoken too soon.
It sounds like Playstation Plus membership will be required for online multiplayer with the PS4.
They still win, but by a bit less.
Yeah, this was disappointing if not unexpected.
Hopefully, though, they keep up the same amount of value PS+ currently is giving on the PS3 and Vita...
(Though, that brings into question the gimpiness of the HDD... 500 GB just isn't enough in this big push to digital. Thankfully it's been confirmed that it's easily upgradeable just like the PS3, but still.)
|
|
There was quite a bit of same-old. WITCHER III looked very good and QUANTUM BREAK is very intriguing. I'm a huge fan of Remedy and they've always made really interesting games which benefit from a slightly offbeat approach. I'd try out anything from them, apart from the fact than BREAK is going to be XB1-only (for a while; I suspect they won't make the, "Never on PC! It's now on PC!" pig's ear they made of ALAN WAKE again).
Witcher III looked good, but we already knew that was coming out. Dark Souls II likewise. Quantum Break looks intriguing, yeah, and I enjoyed Alan Wake. Not sure quite what it is yet though, but it's certainly intriguing, though not anywhere close to a killer game for me.
I love when you contradict yourself in the middle of a post.
That's because modern computers are capable of meeting the processing power requirements for accurate software emulation of that environment.
You were talking about DOS. Do you believe that the processing power required for accurate emulation of DOS is the same as the processing power required for accurate emulation of the Xbox 360 architecture? I'd love an answer to that one.
Did you read that article, ciretose? Because it's very clear that you still have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm operating on the information that this is how they have already done things. Why should I assume they'll do it differently?What source? I would have thought it was pretty clear that I was operating on the same information you are. In fact, that's why I find it so surprising that you're convinced that the current family plan is going to be the model for the new one.Go ahead and link to your superior source of information.That will not be the same program. That is a solution for 360s, and is limited to 3 added family members. It might look similar, but I doubt it.We have a model for how a family grouping might look.
All the accounts had to be tied together in the billing process.
Because they've already provided a few details on the new "family" program that are dissimilar from the existing shared gold account program (ten people on the list rather than three, access to a "shared library", etc.), indicating that they're not the same program.
So as neither console has a killer game that you simply have to get,
I can only speak for myself, but I watched four conferences yesterday and every one of them featured games that I simply have to get.
Oh, I may have spoken too soon.
It sounds like Playstation Plus membership will be required for online multiplayer with the PS4.
They still win, but by a bit less.
Yeah, this was disappointing if not unexpected.
Hopefully, though, they keep up the same amount of value PS+ currently is giving on the PS3 and Vita...
(Though, that brings into question the gimpiness of the HDD... 500 GB just isn't enough in this big push to digital. Thankfully it's been confirmed that it's easily upgradeable just like the PS3, but still.)
Honestly, I think 500 gb is probably fine. That's enough room for at least 10 of the largest modern games I can think of, and if you buy digital titles and their licenses are tied to your account, you should be able to delete older titles you're no longer playing without worrying that you'll never be able to play them again.
Because they've already provided a few details on the new "family" program that are dissimilar from the existing shared gold account program (ten people on the list rather than three, access to a "shared library", etc.), indicating that they're not the same program.I'm operating on the information that this is how they have already done things. Why should I assume they'll do it differently?What source? I would have thought it was pretty clear that I was operating on the same information you are. In fact, that's why I find it so surprising that you're convinced that the current family plan is going to be the model for the new one.Go ahead and link to your superior source of information.That will not be the same program. That is a solution for 360s, and is limited to 3 added family members. It might look similar, but I doubt it.We have a model for how a family grouping might look.
All the accounts had to be tied together in the billing process.
The number 10 is new.
The sharing is possible because of how the system/cloud works now, not something independent to the family plan.I'm asking you, what information exactly are you look at to figure out how Microsoft is going to determine who is and is not family? That's the crucial piece of information that is missing that tells us whether this is a feature, or a hassle.
Their previous method of determining "family" was to have all the memberships on the same billing account. Do you have anything that actually counters this concept right now, or are you just hoping?
|
|
So as neither console has a killer game that you simply have to get,I can only speak for myself, but I watched four conferences yesterday and every one of them featured games that I simply have to get.
Sure, there were some good games on display. Many of which I want to play and will buy a next gen console to play. But in terms of killer games that are exclusive to one console or the other that would sway me into buying one console over the other one? They just weren't there. If there was an exclusive that you really found appealing, I'd love to hear what that was.
Honestly, I think 500 gb is probably fine. That's enough room for at least 10 of the largest modern games I can think of, and if you buy digital titles and their licenses are tied to your account, you should be able to delete older titles you're no longer playing without worrying that you'll never be able to play them again.(Though, that brings into question the gimpiness of the HDD... 500 GB just isn't enough in this big push to digital. Thankfully it's been confirmed that it's easily upgradeable just like the PS3, but still.)
Like I said, I've almost surpassed 320 GB without PS+ right now on the PS3, so it's highly likely that you're wrong (as usual). My direct experience shows otherwise. And there's ample evidence that people are pushing 1 TB into their PS3s.
Deleting is a pain if you or somebody in the household wants to play it again (as I've discovered as well).
Like I said, I've almost surpassed 320 GB without PS+ right now on the PS3, so it's highly likely that you're wrong (as usual).
Wrong about what?
Some of you guys need to clean your acts the hell up. If your reaction to civil disagreement is "You're wrong (as usual)," you probably don't belong in the discussion. Hell, if you're going to be immature, at least have the courtesy to pull something as hilarious as accusing me of being a shill for Sony, or Marthkus' "I don't think you're being legit."
The reality is that Sony did their market research and they know full well how many games your average PS3 owner purchased, and they know full well how much space your typical PS3 user has remaining on his or her hard drive.
I said that 500 gb is probably fine, and I think that's true. There will definitely be some power users who require more, and if you fall into that category you can go out and buy a new one.
Modern titles for PC tend to clock in at around 10 gb on average. You could install 50 of those on the PS4 before you start to worry about deleting an older game to make room.
My direct experience shows otherwise.
I don't think your direct (read: anecdotal) experience trumps Sony's customer data. Do you?
Deleting is a pain if you or somebody in the household wants to play it again (as I've discovered as well).
If you think there's a good chance you'll want to play the game again at some point in the near future, don't uninstall it. If you think there might be a chance you'll want to play it later, you can always re-download it (or reinstall if you have the disc). And if you're the sort of person who needs to have instant access to their entire games library, you can go out and buy a new hard drive. I hear they're pretty inexpensive nowadays.
Has Sony said that you have to install the games to the hard drive on the PS4?
I'm having a hard time finding a firm answer one way or the other, but indications seem to be that most (if not all) games will require an install, but that installing the game will happen in the background as you play from the disc (if you are using a disc), or that only the first "level" of the game will need to be downloaded/installed before you can start playing a downloaded title. Either way, it looks like the amount of time you'll have to wait before being able to play as the result of required installation will be pretty minimal.
Hey Scott!
Eat IT!
PS4 is $100 dollars cheaper coming in a $399 and 349 euros
PS4 has no often-online DRM
PS4 has no used game limitation for disc-based games (besides reedemable codes that publishers put in the box like they did for the PS3/360 generation)
PS4 does not require you to plug in a camera (This is also why they are $100 cheaper)
PS4 playstation plus is required to play multiplayer and comes with 'free' PS4, PS3, and vita games each month. Netflix and Hulu are not part of playstation plus. The MS deal for free games with LIVE is only for a few months after launch.
PS4 has better quality RAM
PS4 comes with 500GB HDD
Xbone has Halo. RIP Master Chief
Has Sony said that you have to install the games to the hard drive on the PS4?
Hey Scott!
Eat IT!
See? If you're going to be a blight on a discussion thread, the least you could do is emulate Marthkus.
Have to agree with Mr. Betts on this rare occasion. :) 500gb is plenty, IMHO <---- please note.
My recent PC build has a 480gb SSD, my former machine had a 7200rpm 1 TB HDD. I was worried about space with all these large installs.
Currently I'm at 169 Free from 446 actual total. I have a lot of games installed atm...
Rift
StarCraft
Diablo
Mass Effect 1-2-3 with all the DLCs
Dragon Age 1-2 with all DLCs
Borderlands 2 with all DLCs
Skyrim
Fallout 3 with all DLCs
Bioshock Infinite
Dawn of War 2 with Chaos Rising/Retribution expansions
Command and Conquer 3 and Kane's Wrath expansion
Along with Steam, Origin, Corel Photoimpact with Plug-ins, and a slew of the usual software including a crapton of huge patches, etc.
I also have the old PS3 that plays the PS2 games with a 300gb HDD that's not even 1/3 full since I swapped out the 80gb it came with, and I only did that for the heck of it (impulse buy of a bigger HDD). I never had space issues.
Rumor had it of a PS4 with 500gb drive for 500 and a one terabyte version for 599. We could get the normal 399 PS4, buy our own 1 TB HDD and all for less than 490 in most places. Still a dime under the proposed Xbox price.
Rumor had it of a PS4 with 500gb drive for 500 and a one terabyte version for 599. We could get the normal 399 PS4, buy our own 1 TB HDD and all for less than 490 in most places. Still a dime under the proposed Xbox price.
PS4 comes with a 500GB HDD at $399 or 349 euros
Has Sony said that you have to install the games to the hard drive on the PS4?
That doesn't answer the question. That isn't even the same topic.
Xbox One seems almost like it's a grand experiment to see just how much you can spit in customers' faces and still sell well through sheer brand identity.
I should probably just be happy that the two major console makers I like both seem to be not doing the same and thus I can continue to buy from them for the foreseeable future.
Rumor had it of a PS4 with 500gb drive for 500 and a one terabyte version for 599. We could get the normal 399 PS4, buy our own 1 TB HDD and all for less than 490 in most places. Still a dime under the proposed Xbox price.PS4 comes with a 500GB HDD at $399 or 349 euros
I know this, I should have clarified that was a rumor I read before yesterday.
My point is still sound though, a 1 TB HDD in a PS4 for less than an Xbox One (for those worried about HDD space).
That doesn't answer the question. That isn't even the same topic.Has Sony said that you have to install the games to the hard drive on the PS4?
Yes it does.
With this one of two things happen.
1. You play the game off of the disc.
or
2. You install the game, but the disc is required to play. Considering this would be a new thing for sony to do and they have stated that used games work EXACTLY like they did for the PS3 for all disc based games, you can make your own conclusion about whether or not games need to be installed.
Personally I am not a console brand loyalist. Whatever console has the games I want, and the hardware that fits how I play I go with. I've had Nintendo, Sega, Sony and MS be the manufactures of my primary console (depending on the generation). Heck this generation I have a 360, PS3 and a Wii.
I really disliked the DRM and used games thing MS is doing (reminds me of the DVD DIVX that was out about 10? years ago. Circuit City pushed them. A movie that you bought for a few bucks, and could watch it for a couple of days. If you wanted to see it again, you had to pay again, or buy it. It had to be connected to the internet once a day, and you couldn't lend it to a freind without them having to unlock it, and you couldn't sell it without them unlocking it (all at a fee). That was hated then.
There were rumours that Sony may do that same. I have no interest in a Wii-U. It was looking like for the first time since 1st generation games (I had a pong) there would be a console generation I was going to have to skip.
I was very relieved and happy about Sony's approach. And most games I am interested in are on it.
tl;dr. Thank you for being sane, Sony.
Rumor had it of a PS4 with 500gb drive for 500 and a one terabyte version for 599. We could get the normal 399 PS4, buy our own 1 TB HDD and all for less than 490 in most places. Still a dime under the proposed Xbox price.PS4 comes with a 500GB HDD at $399 or 349 euros
I know this, I should have clarified that was a rumor I read before yesterday.
My point is still sound though, a 1 TB HDD in a PS4 for less than an Xbox One (for those worried about HDD space).
Xbone is also 500GB and cannot be replace. If you want more space you have to plug in an external through a USB 3.0 port
point even more sound
Has anyone heard yet if any new consoles will support the new 4k and 8k televisions?
That doesn't answer the question. That isn't even the same topic.Has Sony said that you have to install the games to the hard drive on the PS4?Yes it does.
With this one of two things happen.
1. You play the game off of the disc.
or
2. You install the game, but the disc is required to play. Considering this would be a new thing for sony to do and they have stated that used games work EXACTLY like they did for the PS3 for all disc based games, you can make your own conclusion about whether or not games need to be installed.
From VG24/7:
According to Cerny, with PlayGo, PS4 owners will only have to download part of the game’s data in order to the play it. The rest of the title will continue to install on your system as PS4 copies data from the Blu-ray disc onto your hard drive. PlayGo is basically “two separate linked systems.”
“The concept is you download just a portion of the overall data and start your play session, and you continue your play session as the rest downloads in the background,” Cerny told Gamasutra.
“So, what we do as the game accesses the Blu-ray disc, is we take any data that was accessed and we put it on the hard drive. And if then if there is idle time, we go ahead and copy the remaining data to the hard drive. And what that means is after an hour or two, the game is on the hard drive, and you have access, you have dramatically quicker loading… And you have the ability to do some truly high-speed streaming.”
If you play the game from the disc, it will install in the background. But it appears that installation is required (if not for all games, then most).
Has anyone heard yet if any new consoles will support the new 4k and 8k televisions?
Both the Xbox One and PS4 appear to support HDMI output to 4K displays. Whether individual games will support that is probably up to publishers, but I doubt many will given the 4x increase in display area.
Looks like for video only, not games.Has anyone heard yet if any new consoles will support the new 4k and 8k televisions?