Is this like a Spartacus thing?
Is this like a Spartacus thing?
I R RANDY DICKSON 2!
I think you'd need to change your avatar for it to work.
Jeez have you even seen Spasticus?
I meant in this context r-tard.
Well that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
MGS2 had some great bird shits.
also, golden showers
I don't think I have much to say on this, aside from the that any platform that isn't backward compatible - especially where this generation's digital content is concerned - can rot. I don't care about the "reasons' why its impossible as Nintendo, Apple and Valve seem to find ways to make it possible.
Yup. If my digital downloads aren't going to be compatible, my interest in the next gen systems goes way, way down.
It's either put a Cell Processor in the PS4 and drive up the price (like they did with the Emotion Engine in earlier PS3s), or have people hold on to their PS3s.
As a business, which is the more rational route? Yeah, it blows to not be able to play PS3 games on a PS4, but let's be realistic: It's better to sell the console for a cheaper price and leave out the Cell Processor in favor of a chip that's easier to program for.
I buy a new Nintendo handheld or console, I'm guaranteed compatibility with most of the prior generation of software. I buy a new iphone or iPad and the effort is made to keep as many apps and games as compatible as possible. I build a new PC and all my Steam games are still an option.
PS4 and Next Xbox show up and their attitude is "tough shit, clutter up your living space with more consoles?"
At the very least, it won't make me regret my decision to just have a Wii U, Steam, handhelds and never look back. Sony and MS's IPs don't hold that much sway over me. Watching the Team Ico die and The Last Guardian remain vaporware pretty much killed any hope I had for Sony IPs. 343 Studios is cool, but I look forward to the inevitable Halo PC ports. They'll happen eventually.
I'd worry about Atlus, but its eeems they're favoring Nintendo and handhelds of late, so I'm actually not worried.
I have to take issue with the EE chip in the PS3 and its price, though. Everyone is saying this, and Wikipedia is even cites god damn speculation regarding this. It's just not true.
The PS3's motherboard was built to support both the PS2's EE and GPU. Both of those chips were 6.5+ years into full scale production, meaning no additional manufacturing processes related to those chips had to be implemented other than their installation. Since those chips were continuously in production until just last month, the cost to Sony for keeping them inside PS3s would only be that of the materials. Changing a manufacturing process costs millions of dollars, which is why the PS3 Slim still has traces on its motherboard to implement those two chips; they just were kept out of the machines.
SCE America's CEO, Jack Tretton, admitted to the Wall Street Journal that the manufacturing costs saved by removing BC was insignificant! He went on to spout garbage about how it was to 'encourage PS3 software sales', but I am 100% sure that it was removed to increase sales of the dirt-cheap-to-make PS2s. The only software sales it encouraged were that of PSN PS2 games and HD Remakes.
That said, the Cell is a PPE/8xSPE combo, so I really don't think they'd put that into the PS4 - they'd be more likely to use an advanced version of the PPE/SPE combination with higher clock speeds and bandwidth than combine an old Cell with a new CPU/GPU combination.
Last edited by Arttemis; 02-10-2013 at 11:33 AM.
Also, I'm sure that it's easy to implement backwards compatibility on your consoles when you're just now displaying games in 720p in 2012.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1192...apl=y&r=416878Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal
He stated that the cost reduction wasn't dramatic, not that it was insignificant (though he was being paraphrased, so we don't know what his exact statement was). Am I splitting hairs here? A little, but I think that it's an important distinction. It could very well have been in between those two poles, but there's no way for any of us to know that. Obviously, there was more than one motivation for its removal (as is stated), but that doesn't mean that cost wasn't an added motivation to bring the system's bloated price down.
Additionally, the CEO of SCE Australia, Mr. Tretton's counterpart, did state that cost reduction was a factor for the Emotion Engine's removal.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/ps3-bac...costs-6166394?Originally Posted by GameSpot
Of course, that software emulation did not come into fruition quite as he had imagined (though anyone who has spent any time emulating PS2 games on a PC can tell you how difficult of an endeavor that is).
EDIT: Here's some food for thought on the cost of materials:
http://www.semperthree.com/backwards-compatibility.htmlOriginally Posted by SemperThree
Last edited by Revuhlooshun; 02-10-2013 at 04:52 PM.
Hell, some later Wii models don't even play Gamecube games either.
That's a lot of conjecture and corporate talk. Of course Jack wouldn't say it was "insignificant", but if the CEO admits that removing the chips "along with a few other features, isn't dramatically reducing Sony's cost of manufacturing the console" should speak volumes. The switch from the EE to the software BC was an attempt at grasping at straws between die-shrinks to deflate the $800+ initial manufacturing costs, and at the time of production, the EE+GS chips were $27.
In late 2007, Sony finalized their PS2 hardware revisions with (I believe it was) the third process die shrink that reduced materials, heat, and power consumption to the point that they could jam the power brick into the slim console. That console was sold at $99 for a profit. Instead of implementing the newest, coolest, cheapest chips into the system, they dropped it altogether to encourage the sales of the newest, now-hugely-profitable PS2. The cost of those chips, if following typical hardware revision trends, would likely be $14-17 per two-in-one chip. They could have easily slapped a $50 premium on one SKU.
Regarding that last source you linked, I almost want to disregard it completely, as it's just so uninformed. The 'architecture' for those chips was never removed from the later PS3 revisions. The PS3 slim has all the traces on its motherboard to support the installation of the two-in-one chips, but the socket was removed and filled in as solid PCB. The EE+GPU had their own, dedicated RDRAM on the same board, with its own logic chips already created. The cost to combine the two was not an on-going fee aside from the material costs; it was a decision made at the R&D stage.
Well, no, it doesn't speak volumes -- it just says that the costs saved were not dramatic. You're taking "not dramatic" as "insignificant." It's like me saying, "This game is not incredibly difficult," and then somebody taking that and morphing it into "Rev said that this game is the easiest game in existence." It's not the same. Additionally, cutting costs in a business usually isn't done in a way where there are dramatic savings from one individual action: You shave some costs here, you shave some costs there, and you shave around the margins until you get a nice pile of savings without taking too much from any one area (unless some aspect of the operation is flat-out untenable and needs to get the axe).
The $27 dollars for those chips amounts to 11% of the console's $241 deficit cited in that article. Multiply that $27 by the millions of consoles that Sony has sold since the introduction of the Slim models, and you wind up with a lot of money. $27 doesn't seem like a lot, but that adds up over time and it's a sizable chunk of the amount that they were losing.
Look at this way: It had to be worth the money for Sony to piss off its customers by removing the feature.
Also, you have another regional CEO of the same company saying that cost was a factor (which Tretton never denied either, but simply qualified it as not dramatic to make sure that people weren't blowing its cost out of proportion). It's not just internet conjecture.
Yeah, I ended up rewriting the majority of this blog after discovering those two links that show the EE+GS were costing $27 as I was writing that post, but evidently left a lot of the hyperbolic comments. That's more than three times the cost of what I expected, especially considering it's just as much as the Wii's processing costs, but literally only half the silicon and a fraction of the transistors. I'm really wondering how that's possible, or if it's truly accurate.
Why can't Sony do the same? Take the PS3 innards, which are ancient by now, pare them down to their essentials, then actually integrate them inside the circuitry of the PS4. Sure, the PS3 is more complicated than the Wii, but it's still ancient hardware, and Sony should be able to streamline such old tech to be able to fit as part of the hardware of the PS4. Again, if silly old Nintendo can do it, I see no reason why Sony could not.
an easy way around the whole "B/C drives up the costs" thing would be to create two models, one with B/C and one without it.
I know I'd sell my PS2 and PS3 and use that money towards buying a B/C PS4