How much extra would a BC version cost?

  • Page

    of 3 First / Last

    Previous
  • DodgyPast 21 Feb 2013 23:59:37 8,533 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Quite curious since it seems like a reasonable solution. Would the additional design and effort in maintaining firmware support cost too much to make it financially viable?

    Would Sony have done a lot better if they'd released both a cheaper non - BC PS3 at the same time as the premium BC version they started with?

    I'd definitely be more interested in investing earlier if this was an option. Extra devices means more controllers, more faff before you can be playing. This time around I feel a lot more invested in my current console... Lots of digital content that I love being able to dip into or chuck on when friends are around.
  • Deleted user 22 February 2013 00:02:36
    Presume you're talking about a PS4, in which case, the answer would be "lots". They can't fall back on software emulation for any part of the PS3, so would have to literally include the entire hardware inside the PS4.
  • DodgyPast 22 Feb 2013 00:25:11 8,533 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    meme wrote:
    Presume you're talking about a PS4, in which case, the answer would be "lots". They can't fall back on software emulation for any part of the PS3, so would have to literally include the entire hardware inside the PS4.
    Actually both PS4 and the next XBox.

    How much would people be prepared to pay, I'd easily pay 150 extra, possibly more.

    I'd have thought chucking in the extra hardware into a larger box while inelegant would be far cheaper from a design, development and support point of view anyway so it'd probably be a similar process for both of them.

    Edited by DodgyPast at 00:26:06 22-02-2013
  • Dirtbox 22 Feb 2013 00:27:17 79,176 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    It's not a reasonable solution, hence them not doing it. They want to sell cheap to produce consoles, not go bust trying to manufacture two consoles in one box and by less than half way through this generation, no one will give a fuck about BC.

    Edited by Dirtbox at 00:28:36 22-02-2013

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • ecu 22 Feb 2013 00:27:27 77,310 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I'm sure an $800 PS4 with backwards compatibility would just fly off the shelves. Because if you care about PS3 backwards compatibility then you more than likely already have a PS3.
  • Deleted user 22 February 2013 00:32:27
    Wouldn't be much cheaper from a design perspective, at least for the PS4. You'd run into all sorts of problems with heating etc, because you'd basically have two systems in one box. Unlike previous gens where they managed to shrink shit down (I'm pretty sure by the time the PS2 rolled around, they had the PS1 hardware down to a single chip).

    I dunno, I could be speaking rubbish to be honest. But the moment they said PS4 would be X86 architecture, it became stupidly unrealistic that BC would be in there.

    Dunno about Xbox 3 or whatever it's being called. Could be a different story.
  • Jazzy_Geoff 22 Feb 2013 00:41:57 7,782 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I'd pay for an add on.
  • ecu 22 Feb 2013 00:42:20 77,310 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I really don't understand why backwards compatibility has become such an issue. If you want to play PS3 games, buy a PS3. Or keep the one you already have. I don't remember people getting upset that their N64 couldn't play SNES games. This is one gaming issue that I just do not get at all.
  • Psychotext 22 Feb 2013 00:42:33 55,032 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    360 is single chip already and the PS3 was due to be that way by the end of the year (if it's not already).

    That said, it would likely be a pain in software and more than that would stop them selling their super HD remakes... so there's really no advantage to it for them. That said, it flies in the face of something their (now CEO) said 7 years ago.


    I think you’re doing the consumers and the gamers a huge disservice, when you come out with a new console only to say, it only plays PlayStation 3 games.
    ...and that's more true than ever now in the age of persistent digital catalogues. For what it's worth though, I think Microsoft will go the same way. Cunts.

    Edited by Psychotext at 00:42:56 22-02-2013
  • Deleted user 22 February 2013 00:46:49
    Blame optical media. I remember retards who thought that, because the PS2 could play PS1 games it meant the PS1 could play PS2 games.
  • Deleted user 22 February 2013 00:50:19
    @DodgyPast

    Don't believe the bullshit. The PS3's Cell could be emulated on an APU processor with enough cores clocking above 3.2GHz. The easier and cheaper solution would have been to do a new Cell Be processor ' 3.2GHz with two (2-way)PPU cores(with out-of-order Execution) and 7 SPU Cores, that would provide more performance than the 8 core AMD @1.6Ghz and provide perfect backwards compatibility.

    The reason they've downclocked the AMD chip is to easily communicate that backwards compatibility is out, and monetised cloud b/c is in. Or buying Fifa 14 is your only option to play a footy game.
  • Razz 22 Feb 2013 00:51:38 61,653 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    ecureuil wrote:
    I don't remember people getting upset that their N64 couldn't play SNES games.
    Not much upset, but you could always buy a Tri-star if you wanted to play NES and SNES games.



    Edited by Razz at 00:53:39 22-02-2013

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Steam/PSN/XBOX: Razztafarai | 3DS: 1246-9674-8856
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

  • Jazzy_Geoff 22 Feb 2013 00:51:56 7,782 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    ecureuil wrote:
    I really don't understand why backwards compatibility has become such an issue. If you want to play PS3 games, buy a PS3. Or keep the one you already have. I don't remember people getting upset that their N64 couldn't play SNES games. This is one gaming issue that I just do not get at all.
    Because I don't have room under the telly for both and I dislike having extra shite knocking around the gaff
  • Sid-Nice 22 Feb 2013 01:01:57 15,851 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I still have my 60GB PS3 launch model and the only occasion I used the backward compatibility was for SingStar during my daughters’ birthday party; I think my son did boot up GTA a few times, other than that, the PS3 BC has been a white elephant for me.

    Nintendo spent a lot of time and money customising the Wii U hardware for backward compatibility with Wii games; yet I would have preferred a more powerful less compatible console and HD remakes of Wii classics.

    NNID Sid-Nice

  • Syrette 22 Feb 2013 01:02:47 44,208 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago

  • richardiox 22 Feb 2013 01:02:51 5,732 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    vizzini wrote:
    @DodgyPast

    Don't believe the bullshit. The PS3's Cell could be emulated on an APU processor with enough cores clocking above 3.2GHz. The easier and cheaper solution would have been to do a new Cell Be processor ' 3.2GHz with two (2-way)PPU cores(with out-of-order Execution) and 7 SPU Cores, that would provide more performance than the 8 core AMD @1.6Ghz and provide perfect backwards compatibility.

    The reason they've downclocked the AMD chip is to easily communicate that backwards compatibility is out, and monetised cloud b/c is in. Or buying Fifa 14 is your only option to play a footy game.
    Yet again, you know better than Sony's R&D teams. Congrats for being amazing.

    Also, Sony officially and publicly killed the Cell last night - live, on stage, in front of millions. Did you not see it? They put a bullet in it's head and apologised to the worlds development community for their obvious mistake.

    I'm sure today has been a hard for you. Especially after so you've been so passionate about telling everyone how there was no way PS4 wouldn't have Cell powering it - chopping people down if they disagreed.
  • Deleted user 22 February 2013 01:11:23
    Why not just keep a PS3?
  • Deleted user 22 February 2013 01:12:13
    @richardiox

    Your uneducated flaming of Sony's Cell BE technology since 2006 has worked. You've killed it, congratulations, and with it just given the parasite publishing suits more means to erode gaming and monetise it to shit.

    Hurrah, giving consumers great subsidized hardware is over, retaining b/c is over, gaming is cross platform sequel shit. Don't you feel like a real winner now?
  • Deleted user 22 February 2013 01:13:06
    BC's a bit of a holdback, anyway. "we've launched this new console, though it doesn't have any games yet. But you can play your old games whilst you wait!"

    Willing to bet the Wii-Us are currently used more for Wii games than they are Wii-U ones.

    Edited by meme at 01:13:15 22-02-2013
  • ecu 22 Feb 2013 01:16:01 77,310 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Jazzy_Geoff wrote:
    ecureuil wrote:
    I really don't understand why backwards compatibility has become such an issue. If you want to play PS3 games, buy a PS3. Or keep the one you already have. I don't remember people getting upset that their N64 couldn't play SNES games. This is one gaming issue that I just do not get at all.
    Because I don't have room under the telly for both and I dislike having extra shite knocking around the gaff
    If backwards compatibility is so important, you'll make room. When the PS3 inevitably goes unused for 6 months after you get PS4, then you know you can box it up and put it in your attic.
  • Deleted user 22 February 2013 01:24:23
    @ecureuil

    It is about preserving the past, exactly as is, like other forms of art, as much as consumer trust and consumer choice.

    Miyamoto spoke about the issue and highlighted the real problems for games being lost from history. It isn't whether I want to play the game or games now or 20years from now. But the importance of preserving the past, for future developers(consumers) to learn from, whether or not the IP owner goes out of business in the meantime.
  • Psychotext 22 Feb 2013 01:28:25 55,032 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    HairyArse wrote:
    Why not just keep a PS3?
    I will be, but this means I wont be buying a next gen console for a good couple of years. They could have had my money earlier if I could have moved my PS3 games over.

    It also means that I'll be far less likely to buy digital titles going forward, which is a shame because this gen I bought over a hundred of them.

    As for "not using" the old console. I think some of you need to remember that we're not all ultra ravenous gamers. Some of us have a considerable pile of games that we're playing through and aren't buying every title the second they come out. Nor are we playing games that have a limited shelf life (virtually all the games I play don't have any multiplayer modes).

    Edited by Psychotext at 01:31:14 22-02-2013
  • DodgyPast 22 Feb 2013 01:28:34 8,533 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    ecureuil wrote:
    I really don't understand why backwards compatibility has become such an issue. If you want to play PS3 games, buy a PS3. Or keep the one you already have. I don't remember people getting upset that their N64 couldn't play SNES games. This is one gaming issue that I just do not get at all.
    This gen seems to have created a lot more games that I'd like to keep playing than prior generations, plus when I gave up my SNES I continued to play some games through emulation... Not something I'm expecting to be able to do with this generation.
  • Dirtbox 22 Feb 2013 02:49:40 79,176 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    vizzini wrote:
    @richardiox

    Your uneducated flaming of Sony's Cell BE technology since 2006 has worked. You've killed it, congratulations, and with it just given the parasite publishing suits more means to erode gaming and monetise it to shit.

    Hurrah, giving consumers great subsidized hardware is over, retaining b/c is over, gaming is cross platform sequel shit. Don't you feel like a real winner now?
    So why is it that every developer has said the Cell was horrific to work with, increased development time and resources and in some cases, lost Sony some titles.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • Jmog 22 Feb 2013 02:51:16 407 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    The Xbox 360 had limited BC. Quite a few of my old Xbox games worked on it though I gotta say the only ones I played on the 360 was Halo 1 and 2.

    Not at all bothered by the extremely expected lack of BC.

    I'd rather have the console be as cheap as possible with the most powerful hardware they can squeeze in and selling well. The more it sells the more games will be made for it. And PS3 BC would increase sales in numbers insignificant compared to sales lost by increasing cost.
  • DodgyPast 22 Feb 2013 03:18:26 8,533 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Jmog wrote:
    The Xbox 360 had limited BC. Quite a few of my old Xbox games worked on it though I gotta say the only ones I played on the 360 was Halo 1 and 2.

    Not at all bothered by the extremely expected lack of BC.

    I'd rather have the console be as cheap as possible with the most powerful hardware they can squeeze in and selling well. The more it sells the more games will be made for it. And PS3 BC would increase sales in numbers insignificant compared to sales lost by increasing cost.
    The point I was trying to make was why not have 2 SKUs, with and without BC.

    But I guess they don't think it's either good business or viable. Does go to highlight why I try to buy as much content on the PC as possible.
  • Jmog 22 Feb 2013 06:20:13 407 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    It would be quite expensive to have two separate production lines. Essentially they would need separate factories for the two models. Also it would be a gamle when projecting how many units with and without BC should be produced.

    And imagine the media backlash when the regular model is sold out and people HAVE to buy the more expensive version.
  • Murbs 22 Feb 2013 07:10:15 22,579 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    HairyArse wrote:
    Why not just keep a PS3?
    This.

    Or buy a PS3 if you don't have one. Probably cheaper than the £150 you're talking about being willing to pay. HDMI isn't changing with the system.
  • Spunkweazle 22 Feb 2013 07:41:48 470 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    shouldnt a new console render the previous one obsolete? I want to replace my PS3, not stick another box next to it.
    It seems all that is being offered to maintain brand loyalty for the jump to next gen is your trophies/ achievements

    http://www.scottyslittlesoldiers.co.uk/
    dedicated to supporting the children of men and women killed while serving with the British Armed Forces.

  • THFourteen 22 Feb 2013 07:50:10 34,463 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    what is this bloody obsession with back compatibility

    if you buy a cd player you cant put a tape in it.

    move on already!
  • Page

    of 3 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply