PS4 or Xbox One?
- Thread starter Flint
- Start date
I am not a gamer and never have been. I honestly know nothing about these two consoles. I considered a PS3 just to use as a BD player, but never did.
I am awed by the amount of knowledge you guys have on these things. I didn't read every post in detail, but the fact that these things are not backwards compatible at all would absolutely prevent me from buying one.
That's complete bullshit and corporate greed at it's finest.
I am awed by the amount of knowledge you guys have on these things. I didn't read every post in detail, but the fact that these things are not backwards compatible at all would absolutely prevent me from buying one.
That's complete bullshit and corporate greed at it's finest.
The operating systems and architecture on the new machines is completely different than the previous generation. Regarding backward compatibility, IMHO it shouldn't be an issue. One would only be concerned if they already have a last gen console. That console doesn't quit working just because a new one is released.
Towen7 said:
True, but there's the possibility that one doesn't have room to just add a component or might be interested in offloading the current one to help cover the cost of the new one.
I'm just not sure why a software emulator couldn't have been developed to make such compatibility happen. It would sell a few more consoles than not having it.
I don't think the cost of developing and supporting virtual machine backward compatibility on consoles is justified. One thing Apple does well is drop support for old stuff and it hasn't hurt their business much at all. In fact, they doing very well without it. I think the expectation that a gaming console will remain backwards compatible with completely different older models is not realistic. Just the cost of testing every single game ever created for the old console would cost a fortune, and if just one popular old game had bugs the press and social media world would explode with hatred and attack language over the "absolute failure of the manufacturer to handle the most basic concept of backwards compatibility!!!!"
No, move forward, not back. Besides, if there is a game you love to play on the old console, just keep the old console.
Also, as the basic game play of all games is pretty much stagnate, game developers can revisit old titles and update the graphics to run on new consoles while maintaining the great gaming experience you had on the old system. It's a little like double dipping, but they can add graphics or sound enhancements to make the old game like new. That's a bonus for true fans.
No, move forward, not back. Besides, if there is a game you love to play on the old console, just keep the old console.
Also, as the basic game play of all games is pretty much stagnate, game developers can revisit old titles and update the graphics to run on new consoles while maintaining the great gaming experience you had on the old system. It's a little like double dipping, but they can add graphics or sound enhancements to make the old game like new. That's a bonus for true fans.
Flint said:
I'm not sure one can point to Apple to illustrate this point. They maintain backwards compatibility, just not indefinitely. Take the move from PowerPC to Intel... they kept the emulator for the next few versions of the OS. But yes, once the PPC platform Macs were a few years old (they hadn't made them in a while) they did dump that feature.
The 360 did have backwards compatibility to the original Xbox, and IIRC it still does. Is it needed in perpetuity? Maybe not, but it will ease a purchasing decision when the new console is still new. If one may not have the previous console then that compatibility expands the potential library from the launch titles to the entire library of the previous console.
If I were out buying a new one I'd be keeping my 360 and still able to play those games. But if I wanted to go PS4 I'd be limited to ONLY the launch titles for the PS4... a pretty meager collection. With PS3 compatibility all those would also be an option for someone who might have been interested in playing some of those games.
lulimet said:
It's not baffling to me. The target audience has no interest in physical media. My kids in their early 20s don't own a single CD, they don't have terabytes of videos on their hard drives. I'm sure we all know of exceptions to this but we old folks have to accept that the time that are a changing.
Towen7 said:
I can understand the CD part (although I don't see the cost savings of removing the feature). What I don't get is removing support for even mp3 playback. That is something a lot of people do use. DLNA is also a pretty popular feature with a lot of applications. Removing both eliminates a lot of flexibility. The PS3 was popular as a nearly universal playback device even among non-gamers. The PS4 has no such appeal, but the new XBox does. I doubt I will buy either console, but if I do, it will be an XBox One.
It just occurred to me what would make me want to buy into either of these consoles. My problem with dropping $400 or $500 on either is that it only works on one set in the house. Dish, DirecTV, and Uverse all have networkable STBs. Why can't game consoles? If either gaming platform allowed me to buy secondary "receivers" that connected to the main console through the network, and play games or access other content on remote sets... I'd be all over it.
Think of the multi-player possibilities. If I have a few friends over to the house, each could log in with their own credentials and we could play a multiplayer game without having to lug our consoles around with us.
I've owned as many as three 360s just so that I could play games, access Media Center, and use Xbox Live features at more than one spot in the house. I'm just not willing to go through that expense at $500 a pop.
Think of the multi-player possibilities. If I have a few friends over to the house, each could log in with their own credentials and we could play a multiplayer game without having to lug our consoles around with us.
I've owned as many as three 360s just so that I could play games, access Media Center, and use Xbox Live features at more than one spot in the house. I'm just not willing to go through that expense at $500 a pop.
Haywood said:
This is a big negative for me too. I really have become used to using my PS3 to listen to my music collection, look at recent pictures, watch slideshows at parties all from my NAS.
Towen7 said:
PS4 and PSVita allow you to play remotely...of course the Vita is a handheld mobile system. I'm guessing you were talking about playing on a complete other full size screen
Now Sony is saying they've sold over 2.1M PS4 consoles since launch setting records for console launches.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/new ... llion-ps4s
I find this amazing, especially since I am not seeing the press hype that accompanied the last launch. I do see both MS and Sony are advertising on TV like mad, but I noticed their ads share the same theme - regular people inserted into the games they are playing to promote a sense of realism and community to the gaming experience. It is funny to me they both chose the same core message for their advertising.
I haven't seen sales figures on the Xbox One yet.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/new ... llion-ps4s
I find this amazing, especially since I am not seeing the press hype that accompanied the last launch. I do see both MS and Sony are advertising on TV like mad, but I noticed their ads share the same theme - regular people inserted into the games they are playing to promote a sense of realism and community to the gaming experience. It is funny to me they both chose the same core message for their advertising.
I haven't seen sales figures on the Xbox One yet.