6 ms·

A few things, and I am likely forgetting others: Backwards compatibility: It was a mess on the PS3 with different launch models having different levels of comp

A few things, and I am likely forgetting others: Backwards compatibility: It was a mess on the PS3 with different launch models having different levels of compatibility. They later removed this functionality completely on the PS3. The PS4 had no backwards compatibility for PS3 instead you had to purchase (or subscribe) to play games in the cloud, games you may already own. Compared to Xbox which the Xbox One did not launch with backwards compatibility once the leadership was changed they started a project to bring backwards compatibility to Xbox 360 and OG Xbox games (admittedly on a limited basis but you could stick in your original disks and it worked, no extra charge). This carried over to the Series consoles. Related to this Sony has re-released their games many times and been able to thanks to the lack of proper backwards compatibility. The price of the PS3. The cell processor of the PS3, Sony thinking that devs would bend over backwards to support their architecture. Paying developers either for exclusive content or for exclusive third party games. The content is the one that really drives me insane because if you buy a game on another platform you are getting less content for the same money. Blocking cross play with other consoles for a long time and then only allowing it in certain situations (I don't actually know if this has improved yet or not). There are likely a few others that I can't remember right now but I am about to hop into a meeting. But has Microsoft done some of these things? yes, but before Phil Spensor came in and changed Xbox.

manuelabeledo 3y ago
Most of these grievances are more about changes in the architectural direction than anything else. I don't see how using the Cell processor could be considered "anti-consumer". After all, we are talking about a time when consoles didn't generally use "off the self" processors - Nintendo had a customized PowerPC, too. Using more generic architectures is a quite recent development. > Paying developers either for exclusive content or for exclusive third party games. Both Microsoft and Nintendo do this, in different ways. Let's not forget that some of Microsoft exclusives came from Rare and Bungie, studios with a relatively long independent history. > There are likely a few others that I can't remember right now but I am about to hop into a meeting. But has Microsoft done some of these things? yes, but before Phil Spensor came in and changed Xbox. Spencer was the GM all the way back to 2014, so I don't think that's true. On the other hand, I honestly cannot believe that we are discussing if Microsoft is more anti-consumer, or more monopolistic, than Sony.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  Maybe the cell processor was not anti-consumer but I also mentioned Sony being cocky which it very much was. As far as Bungie, they were bought by Microsoft by the time Halo was made exclusive. I am not remembering any exclusive games from Rare before being bought by Microsoft? You are right that Phil Spensor was the GM in 2014. That is a year after the Xbox One release ate, after many of the past mistakes were made. I don't know of examples of Microsoft engaging in many of these behaviors and in fact doing the opposite since he came in (existing contracts that was made before him being an exception). If I am wrong I would love examples, but I am not aware of them. I am not necessarily saying that Microsoft is more or less anti consumer as a whole. But their gaming devision has done things (often in direct counter to what Sony is doing) that are more consumer friendly behaviors. At the end of the day. It is Sony vs Microsoft here. The chance of us getting another serious contender in the gaming space is basically zero due to the cost, risk, and long term planning required.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    > Maybe the cell processor was not anti-consumer but I also mentioned Sony being cocky which it very much was. What does cocky even mean? These are corporations! > I am not remembering any exclusive games from Rare before being bought by Microsoft? You need to go back to the Super Nintendo and Nintendo 64 era, then. Golden Eye, Donkey Kong Country, Killer Instinct, Banjo-Kazooie, among others. > I am not necessarily saying that Microsoft is more or less anti consumer as a whole. But their gaming devision has done things (often in direct counter to what Sony is doing) that are more consumer friendly behaviors. Right, but where are those examples? I'm of the opinion that Sony Entertainment paying for exclusivity deals with Square-Enix, is not remotely comparable to Microsoft buying a massive studio (Bethesda Softworks), with incredibly popular franchises (Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Doom), and locking them to their platforms barely three years after. I'm also old enough to remember how Microsoft essentially killed any chances of open standards in videogames with their DirectX API, a move with massive consequences to other platforms, so much so that even nowadays, your best chance to run games on Linux is to use a DirectX translator.
    - 3y ago
lapetitejort 3y ago
Backwards compatibility was a luxury, and not the standard, until recently. The first Nintendo backwards compatible home console was the Wii in 2005. Rapidly changing architecture differences made playing older games difficult. The GBA, DS, PS2, and PS3 all had custom hardware needed to play older games. The fact that the PS3 could play PS1 games in any way should be lauded, not labeled as anti-consumer.
- Nullabillity 3y ago
  Backwards compatibility has been standard on PC since pretty much the start. This is absolute bare minimum stuff.
  - Talanes 3y ago
    Tautologically impossible for something to be an absolute bare minimum if it wasn't common in the industry for decades.
jonhohle 3y ago
I’m not sure what you mean by backwards compatibility of launch PS3s. At launch the PS3 had PS2 hardware backwards compatibility in both models (20GB and 60GB). The launch PS3 is the ultimate backwards compatibility console (imho). Later revisions removed that hardware but provided software emulation for PS2 (except it seems like they removed that at some later date). A launch PS3 and PS5, both unmodded, will allow you to effectively play every PS console game (not portable) made since 1995. I have several Xbox games that have to be played on original hardware and are not supported by backwards compatibility, and Nintendo only ever supported previous systems when they did offer backwards compatibility. You missed Sony removing Other OS, SACD playback, and other on the box features from the PS3. I still have no idea how they got away with that.
jwells89 3y ago
I’m not sure there would’ve been any way Sony could’ve managed backwards compatibility with the PS3 on the PS4, short of building a PS3 into the PS4, given the vast architectural differences between the two. It’s only been in the past few years that x86 PCs have become powerful enough to emulate the PS3 well, and I have serious doubts that the Jaguar APU in the PS4 had anywhere near the raw horsepower required to emulate a PS3. By contrast the Xbox 360 was built with a relatively simple tri-core PPC G5 which mapped to the hardware of the hardware of the Xbox One much better. The OG Xbox was just a Pentium III PC which no doubt made backwards compatibility with it much simpler (just need to virtualize an Xbox). Microsoft has also had its own share of consumer unfriendliness, like the ridiculously expensive WiFi dongle for the 360 or how the current gen Xbox uses a proprietary expansion card slot for storage upgrades (contrasted with the PS5 which just needs a mid-to-high spec NVMe SSD like you’d put in a PC).

manuelabeledo 3y ago

Most of these grievances are more about changes in the architectural direction than anything else. I don't see how using the Cell processor could be considered "anti-consumer". After all, we are talking about a time when consoles didn't generally use "off the self" processors - Nintendo had a customized PowerPC, too. Using more generic architectures is a quite recent development. > Paying developers either for exclusive content or for exclusive third party games. Both Microsoft and Nintendo do this, in different ways. Let's not forget that some of Microsoft exclusives came from Rare and Bungie, studios with a relatively long independent history. > There are likely a few others that I can't remember right now but I am about to hop into a meeting. But has Microsoft done some of these things? yes, but before Phil Spensor came in and changed Xbox. Spencer was the GM all the way back to 2014, so I don't think that's true. On the other hand, I honestly cannot believe that we are discussing if Microsoft is more anti-consumer, or more monopolistic, than Sony.

nerdjon 3y ago
Maybe the cell processor was not anti-consumer but I also mentioned Sony being cocky which it very much was. As far as Bungie, they were bought by Microsoft by the time Halo was made exclusive. I am not remembering any exclusive games from Rare before being bought by Microsoft? You are right that Phil Spensor was the GM in 2014. That is a year after the Xbox One release ate, after many of the past mistakes were made. I don't know of examples of Microsoft engaging in many of these behaviors and in fact doing the opposite since he came in (existing contracts that was made before him being an exception). If I am wrong I would love examples, but I am not aware of them. I am not necessarily saying that Microsoft is more or less anti consumer as a whole. But their gaming devision has done things (often in direct counter to what Sony is doing) that are more consumer friendly behaviors. At the end of the day. It is Sony vs Microsoft here. The chance of us getting another serious contender in the gaming space is basically zero due to the cost, risk, and long term planning required.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > Maybe the cell processor was not anti-consumer but I also mentioned Sony being cocky which it very much was. What does cocky even mean? These are corporations! > I am not remembering any exclusive games from Rare before being bought by Microsoft? You need to go back to the Super Nintendo and Nintendo 64 era, then. Golden Eye, Donkey Kong Country, Killer Instinct, Banjo-Kazooie, among others. > I am not necessarily saying that Microsoft is more or less anti consumer as a whole. But their gaming devision has done things (often in direct counter to what Sony is doing) that are more consumer friendly behaviors. Right, but where are those examples? I'm of the opinion that Sony Entertainment paying for exclusivity deals with Square-Enix, is not remotely comparable to Microsoft buying a massive studio (Bethesda Softworks), with incredibly popular franchises (Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Doom), and locking them to their platforms barely three years after. I'm also old enough to remember how Microsoft essentially killed any chances of open standards in videogames with their DirectX API, a move with massive consequences to other platforms, so much so that even nowadays, your best chance to run games on Linux is to use a DirectX translator.
  - 3y ago

lapetitejort 3y ago

Backwards compatibility was a luxury, and not the standard, until recently. The first Nintendo backwards compatible home console was the Wii in 2005. Rapidly changing architecture differences made playing older games difficult. The GBA, DS, PS2, and PS3 all had custom hardware needed to play older games. The fact that the PS3 could play PS1 games in any way should be lauded, not labeled as anti-consumer.

Nullabillity 3y ago
Backwards compatibility has been standard on PC since pretty much the start. This is absolute bare minimum stuff.
- Talanes 3y ago
  Tautologically impossible for something to be an absolute bare minimum if it wasn't common in the industry for decades.

jonhohle 3y ago

I’m not sure what you mean by backwards compatibility of launch PS3s. At launch the PS3 had PS2 hardware backwards compatibility in both models (20GB and 60GB). The launch PS3 is the ultimate backwards compatibility console (imho). Later revisions removed that hardware but provided software emulation for PS2 (except it seems like they removed that at some later date). A launch PS3 and PS5, both unmodded, will allow you to effectively play every PS console game (not portable) made since 1995. I have several Xbox games that have to be played on original hardware and are not supported by backwards compatibility, and Nintendo only ever supported previous systems when they did offer backwards compatibility. You missed Sony removing Other OS, SACD playback, and other on the box features from the PS3. I still have no idea how they got away with that.

jwells89 3y ago

I’m not sure there would’ve been any way Sony could’ve managed backwards compatibility with the PS3 on the PS4, short of building a PS3 into the PS4, given the vast architectural differences between the two. It’s only been in the past few years that x86 PCs have become powerful enough to emulate the PS3 well, and I have serious doubts that the Jaguar APU in the PS4 had anywhere near the raw horsepower required to emulate a PS3. By contrast the Xbox 360 was built with a relatively simple tri-core PPC G5 which mapped to the hardware of the hardware of the Xbox One much better. The OG Xbox was just a Pentium III PC which no doubt made backwards compatibility with it much simpler (just need to virtualize an Xbox). Microsoft has also had its own share of consumer unfriendliness, like the ridiculously expensive WiFi dongle for the 360 or how the current gen Xbox uses a proprietary expansion card slot for storage upgrades (contrasted with the PS5 which just needs a mid-to-high spec NVMe SSD like you’d put in a PC).