Playstation 4

[greensoulreaper]

Originally Posted by Velsy

Question I have to ask. Can PS3 games be played on PS4 ?

Nope.

They've been talking about emulation and Playstation Now which may be the alternative for that. I don't really believe in streaming because of latency issues. I think one benefit that can come out of emulation is better resolution for the old games I guess. Personally, the best thing I think you should do is keep your PS3 and your PS3 library. I keep mine to continue playing those JRPG exclusives that seem to be coming out like crazy this year and last year.

[iceyfw]

Originally Posted by Velsy

Question I have to ask. Can PS3 games be played on PS4 ?

nope. any physical or any PSN digital downloaded ps3 games won't be playable on the ps4. sony is working on cloud streaming servers titled "PlayStation Now" to work around the PS3 game issue. it's currently in beta last thing i read about it. the kicker is the consumer has to pay extra cash for the PS Now fee AND pay $$$ again to buy the game available on the PS Now service. it doesn't matter if you have a physical or digital (PSN) copy of the ps3 game. i might end up buying another PS3 when sony announces they will no longer make it.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Velsy

Question I have to ask. Can PS3 games be played on PS4 ?

Technology that allow affordable emulation of the Cell processor, does not yet exist. Not even Sony is able to write an emulation for it.

In fact, they were forced to create mini-PS3 Cell processors for their PS Now service. Essentially they cram eight PS3 hardware into one chip, and then use that to run the PS3 game streaming service. Only PS3 hardware can run PS3 games.

[Chaos2Frozen]

Trailer for FFXIV on the PS4

[Velsy]

I see :/

I dont really get how Sony can make a mess of that, but if thats how it is.

[Nightengale]

Cell was difficult to programme for, and because it's a niche component that's barely used outside of PS3, it had poor economies of scale and difficult to push down in cost.

If Sony made PS4 with the same Cell technology for backward compatibility, they'd be sacrificing a lot of things. They may have to price PS4 higher, yet have less power and is difficult to be cost-competitive.

For what it's worth, PS4 was a painful and neccesary architectural reset for Sony. The benefit of things is that the competitor also pressed the reset button, so both companies sacrificed backward compatibility.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

To be fair, "Cell" was only considered a clear mistake with the power of hindsight.

Historically, it was not unusual to design unique processors, or otherwise create entirely specialised components, for a gaming console. Nintendo and Sega both did this in their heyday, with their respective machines that squeeze the maximum power out of what they can dream up. Back then, "exclusive" games were literally exclusives not because of contractual obligations, but because the games were only able to be played PROPERLY in a machine designed to run them. Porting between consoles were difficult because they used custom parts.

But sometime before PS3 was conceived, things changed. PC hardware jumped so far ahead of game consoles, that the only way for Sony to make something uniquely powerful, was to create something entirely alien. They succeeded in making a powerful processor; it was just so complicated that third party developers couldn't use them properly. And the costs of the processor had long reaching consequences on sales price, adoption rates, profitability, game quality, and of course, backwards compatibility.

In the end I just want to say that Sony wasn't crazy when they designed PS3. They were simply following a philosophy that had worked in the past. It just doesn't work any-more, and as such both MS and Sony realised the mistake and both decided to follow PC architecture this Gen.

[Chaos2Frozen]

New TV ad for Japan Launch.

[HayashiTakara]

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

New TV ad for Japan Launch.

Terrible commercial showing virtually no gameplay, although i can understand why as the games out on the PS4 right now only appeal to white... I mean the western market

[felix]

Originally Posted by HayashiTakara

Terrible commercial showing virtually no gameplay, although i can understand why as the games out on the PS4 right now only appeal to white... I mean the western market

I think it's a fine commercial. It's a piece of hardware after all, not a game. It's more important marketing wise to portray a sense of social acceptance with it then anything else. Even if with games playing the people who don't care still wouldn't care, and also you can't for example demonstrate something like high fidelity or such because well it being a commercial you can't prove superior quality on a inferior distribution system (ie. the TV channel it airs on ).

[Chaos2Frozen]

Bound by Flame PS4 reveal trailer.

"It might help that you are being possessed by a flame demon."

[felix]

That's a pretty "direct" trailer. I like it if for nothing else how blunt it is.

Who knows this may well be just a spiritual successor to dragon age; seems like that's what they're going for anyway.

[Chaos2Frozen]

Actually, I'm thinking more along the lines of Amalur...

[felix]

Originally Posted by Chaos2Frozen

Actually, I'm thinking more along the lines of Amalur...

Why? I have nothing against Amalur but was it actually commercially successful? I really don't see the similarity either.

[Chaos2Frozen]

Well for one thing it's only a single character RPG (I don't know if there's a more official term) as oppose to a party based like Dragon Age. Then there's also the "Become any class" element to it.

[felix]

Is it really single character? It sounded like you do form a party.

[greensoulreaper]

Originally Posted by felix

Is it really single character? It sounded like you do form a party.

Yeah I was wondering that too. Didn't they mention meeting other characters?

[Chaos2Frozen]

Meeting other characters not necessarily mean a party, I could be wrong but the entire trailer seems focus solely on your character.

[Benoit]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

In the end I just want to say that Sony wasn't crazy when they designed PS3. They were simply following a philosophy that had worked in the past. It just doesn't work any-more, and as such both MS and Sony realised the mistake and both decided to follow PC architecture this Gen.

You explain the mistake with the PS3's architecture, but how was the Xbox 360's architecture a mistake?

If you ask me, following PC architecture is a mistake because x86 is fairly crappy. It only survives because of its momentum.

[Dextro]

Originally Posted by Benoit

You explain the mistake with the PS3's architecture, but how was the Xbox 360's architecture a mistake?

If you ask me, following PC architecture is a mistake because x86 is fairly crappy. It only survives because of its momentum.

x86 was fairly crappy but, from what I could gather, the 64 bits instruction set cleans up most of the issues and it's a fairly decent instruction set.

But it's not like it matters that much, the advantage of choosing a known architecture has more to due with code and knowledge re-usage than the assembly code. Games are so complex these days that there aren't that many developers coding directly to the metal.