Gamecube and/or PS3

gabriel1980

I recently bought myself a PS4 after saving up for a few months. Well worth it, enjoying Arkham Knight immensely. However, I do miss playing some older games like the older Arkham Games and older GTAs, so I was thinking about picking up a PS3. They seem to be quite a lot cheaper now, but is it stupid to have both? Are older games going to get re-released on the PS4. Or what about backwards-compatibility? Is that ever going to work on the PS4?


Also, I think I've played Super Mario Kart to death on my retro SNES. Don't really like Mario Kart 64 and the only one I haven't played is Mario Kart Double Dash as never had a Gamecube. Anyone played it and have opinions they'd like to share? Gamecubes seem to go for around a tenner on Ebay!

motorguy

If you really want to play them, the older consoles are v cheap.

bluenoseam

Arkham Asylum & Arkham City are slated for a re-release on "next gen" (Arkham Origins was a different dev & as such isn't being re-issued).

Sony came out after E3 & reiterated their stance on backwards compatibility, they don't feel the need to do so - although it's all dependent on the impact it has on Xbox One come Christmas. Their statement on it to me smacked of arrogance, something Sony have a track record of & it's not uncommon for it to bite them.

As for Mario Kart Double Dash, decent wee game so if you can pick up a Cube relatively cheaply then I'd do so, but wouldn't go out of my way to do it.

PenguinJim

bluenoseam wrote: »

Sony came out after E3 & reiterated their stance on backwards compatibility, they don't feel the need to do so - although it's all dependent on the impact it has on Xbox One come Christmas.

No, that's not what it depends on. The Cell architecture of the PS3 cannot be emulated on a !!!!-poor AMD CPU like the one in the PS4. It's "all dependent" on whether or not Sony can feasibly include the PS3 Cell CPU inside PS4 units, which for obvious reasons is flagrantly not going to happen. No PS3 emulation on the PS4, ever.

bluenoseam

PenguinJim wrote: »

No, that's not what it depends on. The Cell architecture of the PS3 cannot be emulated on a !!!!-poor AMD CPU like the one in the PS4. It's "all dependent" on whether or not Sony can feasibly include the PS3 Cell CPU inside PS4 units, which for obvious reasons is flagrantly not going to happen. No PS3 emulation on the PS4, ever.

More than one way to skin a cat & with their R&D departments it wouldn't surprise me to hear they're already invested in technology based off system. (I may be getting way ahead of myself in terms of what's technologically possible - in these heady days of hololens, morpheus & the wheel anything is possible!)

Still on topic I have to say that you should be able to pick up a PS3 on say Gumtree or ebay for sub £80 these days maybe with some games.

mustang121

The Xbox One is releasing a backwards compatibility later this summer to essentially turn it in to a Xbox 360 emulator and keep all the gimmicks of the Xbox one (Kinect voice commands for taking screenshots and video)


Knowing how companies like to copy one another I wouldn't be surprised if PlayStation follows suit.

szam_

mustang121 wrote: »

The Xbox One is releasing a backwards compatibility later this summer to essentially turn it in to a Xbox 360 emulator and keep all the gimmicks of the Xbox one (Kinect voice commands for taking screenshots and video)


Knowing how companies like to copy one another I wouldn't be surprised if PlayStation follows suit.

I have it on the preview program and got some of my old arcade games back to play. Enjoying Banjo & Kazooie again.

I was more angry at MS for pretty much saying they would never do it, and so got rid of my old 360 games, only to do this, and I'm not the only one of my friends to have done the same.

Sony will probably do it, the last thing they will want is a decline in the "console wars" between them and MS - I would find it hard to believe by E3 next year there is some sort of rumor or announcement regarding emulation on the PS4.

"For the gamers" remember. Or at least that's what Sony claim, which is a funny motto when one thing a lot of gamers want is Backwards Compatibility and have done since the PS2 era and Xbox 360 era respectively, at least MS listened to its users and worked around it.

Time will tell.

mustang121

szam_ wrote: »

I have it on the preview program and got some of my old arcade games back to play. Enjoying Banjo & Kazooie again.

I was more angry at MS for pretty much saying they would never do it, and so got rid of my old 360 games, only to do this, and I'm not the only one of my friends to have done the same.

Sony will probably do it, the last thing they will want is a decline in the "console wars" between them and MS - I would find it hard to believe by E3 next year there is some sort of rumor or announcement regarding emulation on the PS4.

"For the gamers" remember. Or at least that's what Sony claim, which is a funny motto when one thing a lot of gamers want is Backwards Compatibility and have done since the PS2 era and Xbox 360 era respectively, at least MS listened to its users and worked around it.

Time will tell.

I have mixed feels on backwards compatibility. I hate clutter and tend to only own one or two discs at any one time before trading them in. That said, I did really enjoy the Mass Effect trilogy, so that would be the only 360 game I would buy. Bit gutted that Bioware never released a re-mastered version though as ME 1 would be ace with updated graphics. Can't wait for Mass Effect: Andromeda.


Microsoft are impressive with listening to their customers. I remember reading that the Xbox One was doing away with physical discs and opting for download only (or something like) which mean that trade in's wouldn't be possible. I for one would not have bought the Xbox One if they didn't allow games to be traded, fortunately they realised and did a U-Turn. Probably for fear of losing customer more than loyalty.

PenguinJim

szam_ wrote: »

Sony will probably do it, the last thing they will want is a decline in the "console wars" between them and MS - I would find it hard to believe by E3 next year there is some sort of rumor or announcement regarding emulation on the PS4.

They've been trialling that streaming service, Now, but it's still full of holes, and a £15/month subscription next to a £70 PS3 is no contest - it'll only sucker in those same sheeple who think they'll be able to keep their PS+ games after their subscription lapses. But PS3 emulation on the PS4? No person with even the most basic technical understanding is expecting this. It won't happen. It's not possible without some sort of software/hardware singularity that would have such dramatic implications upon both the human race and all digital technology as to render the hobby of playing PS3-level video games entirely obsolete anyway. :silenced:

mustang121 wrote: »

Bit gutted that Bioware never released a re-mastered version though as ME 1 would be ace with updated graphics.

There are plenty of fan-made hi-res texture packs for ME1 - there are straightforward guides here and here. (Personally, I prefer the ME series with shoddy graphics and a low frame rate! I think it adds to the aesthetic they were going for with their cheesy pulp sci-fi setup.)

mustang121 wrote: »

Microsoft are impressive with listening to their customers. I remember reading that the Xbox One was doing away with physical discs and opting for download only (or something like) which mean that trade in's wouldn't be possible. I for one would not have bought the Xbox One if they didn't allow games to be traded, fortunately they realised and did a U-Turn. Probably for fear of losing customer more than loyalty.

It's so, so sad that your reaction to their plan was normal. In fact, what Microsoft revealed was a download service where you COULD trade in your games, but for some reason the average punter (and even a few paid games bloggers *cringe*) heard "download" and decided to fill in the blank instead of letting Microsoft finish their sentence. Imagine: the benefits of download games, plus the cheaper prices through retail competition (think boxed Steam games - yes, you can still order boxed games from Amazon, Game etc, you wouldn't be restricted to the Xbox Marketplace - and looking at this week's "Ultimate" sale, that's a !!!!ing good thing), PLUS the ability to sell games you never want to play again! BUT you'd need to log in every 24 hours.

They lost me there. Not that I've been 24 hours without Internet at any time in the past five years (you didn't even need to keep your One hooked up - it could have used WiFi to sign in through your phone's 3G, just for a few seconds, every 24 hours), but 24 hours was just ridiculous - not everyone has all-you-can-eat Internet like me, so I wouldn't have supported their exclusion. (24 days might have been fine.)

Although I still wish they'd gone for it with the 24 hours, anyway, even if I wouldn't have bought one. It would have been interesting to see two different consoles on the market, trying slightly different things. Instead we've got the One and the PS4 - homogeneous, gimped, underpowered, overpriced PCs serving the most expensive, lowest-quality games to the undiscerning, mathematically-challenged mass market, with the only tangible difference being that one has Bloodborne and the other plays 360 games.

Lumstorm

The PS4 is not powerful enough to emulate a PS3 so backward compatibility isn't going to happen. MY PS3 can play PS2 games but it has the PS2 processor and graphics chip to do so.

Microsoft had to do a 380 on the Xbone otherwise they would have bombed with the negative publicity from them wanting to lock discs to one console and forcing you to connect to the internet every 24 hours or your machine becomes a brick unable to play games.

I think some in the the industry including Microsoft are hoping the consumers warm to the idea of asking permission every time we want to use their console, and the pricey digital release's. People often say digital will mean lower prices if so how can I buy a physical PS4 game for around £20 cheaper than the digital release.

PenguinJim

Lumstorm wrote: »

Microsoft had to do a 380 on the Xbone otherwise they would have bombed with the negative publicity from them wanting to lock discs to one console...

No, that's not true. A game you bought would not have been locked to one console. It would have been locked to you (unless you sold it).

Lumstorm wrote: »

I think some in the the industry including Microsoft are hoping the consumers warm to the idea of asking permission every time we want to use their console, and the pricey digital release's. People often say digital will mean lower prices if so how can I buy a physical PS4 game for around £20 cheaper than the digital release.

You say "ask permission" like you don't already "ask permission" every time you check your email, or check your bank balance online, or post on MoneySavingExpert (and I know you already "ask permission" to do at least one of those things ). What an emotive way to describe a user login!

But on to your question. First of all, let's fix your definition of "digital" - because games on disc are digital, too. All "digital" means is that it breaks down to 0s and 1s. In other words, any video game is a digital game. Why do you think DVDs are called Digital Versatile Discs? It's because they store digital information, like digital games, or digital movies, or digital photos, etc. We say "digital games" to separate them from "analogue games" - for example, board games, or card games, or sports like tennis.

Assuming by "digital" you mean "download", then, yes, moving the Xbox One to a download service (or account-based service, if you prefer) would have meant cheaper games. You point to the existing download/disc hybrid system as proof that a pure download service would be more expensive, but that doesn't work, because the PSN game prices are necessarily kept higher than the retail prices. If Sony/Microsoft allowed their download prices to stay below disc prices, then all of that beautiful Sony/Microsoft advertising you see on Amazon and Zavvi and in Game and Tesco would disappear - why would retailers devote space to games they can't sell because everyone's buying the download version? Using a hybrid disc/download system means keeping the disc sellers happy.

But, if Sony (for example) move to a pure "download" service, you'd still be buying your boxed games from Amazon, Zavvi, Game, Tesco, and PSN - but they'd all be the download version. And we'd have the same pricing competition for the download version that we currently have for the disc version (except with one more source of competition - PSN).

Would that have dropped the game prices even further than disc prices today? Perhaps. If retailers preferred the download model - if they started selling game "cards" instead of a DVD-style case with a card in it, for example, they may find the small improvement in their warehousing and distribution setup enough to be able to cut prices further. They may find they are selling more game keys online than boxed copies in-store, and are able to discount appropriately. But we can't say for sure - which is why it would have been nice to see MS or Sony try such a system, and see if it had improved console gaming in a similar way to Steam improving PC gaming.

Which is, in itself, the biggest indicator that the download model would have worked. MS were essentially proposing Console Steam, but with the ability to sell your games, and a 24-hour login. And you can't have failed to notice that Steam games are much, much, much, much, much cheaper than PS4 games, can you?