3 ms·

> PS5 only has PS4 backward compatibility, and it isn't going to be emulated any time soon. But that compatibility is not achieved with emulation, right? The

by fmbb 2y ago

> PS5 only has PS4 backward compatibility, and it isn't going to be emulated any time soon. But that compatibility is not achieved with emulation, right? The PS6 can hopefully keep compatibility with PS5 and PS4 in a similar way. Unless we are nearing some sort of ARM horizon for consoles, that is.

jsheard 2y ago
> Unless we are nearing some sort of ARM horizon for consoles, that is. The documents accidentally leaked from the FTC vs. Microsoft trial revealed that Microsoft was at least considering switching to an ARM CPU with the next Xbox generation, but they hadn't decided yet at the time those documents were written. Either way they would still use an AMD GPU, so it would be AMD+AMD or ARM+AMD.
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  Microsoft has been working on perfecting x86 emulation on ATM so it's not far fetched to think they could still keep backwards compatibility.
  - ChocolateGod 2y ago
    ARM not ATM, not sure why Google Keyboard made that autocorrect.
hajile 2y ago
RISC-V makes the most sense. It means they wouldn't be locked into one CPU supplier. Requiring a GPU based on RISC-V (or a separate open GPU ISA) could further insulate them from the current AMD lock-in.
- spwa4 2y ago
  I think you'll find it's a business decision, not technical limitations. Consoles are sold at a loss, so Sony needs people to buy games. Preventing old games from running helps with that.
  - hajile 2y ago
    Keeping old games running on new hardware is ESSENTIAL for continued profits. Let's do the math. PSN had 123M subscriptions in 2023. Supposedly, 70% were essential, 13% were extra, and 17% were premium. Let's get the highest (per month) and lowest (per year) costs for each tier to give us a PSN income range. Essential $6.9B to $10.3B Extra $2.2B to $2.9B Premium $3.3B to $4.5B That gives a range between $12.4B to $17.7B or an average of almost exactly $15B. Sony Playstation generated $30B total revenue in 2023. HALF of their revenue is from PSN. The big selling point of the Extra/Premium subscriptions is game access. If these users switched back down to Essential because the PSN game service doesn't work, that would represent a $2.5B to $3B drop in revenue or around 10%. Sony supposedly makes around 30% of the asking price for new games. Making up $3B in lost revenue would require selling an extra $9B in games. Average video game prices in the US are $70 which means they'd have to sell almost 130M more games than they currently project they will sell. There are around 62M PS5 consoles meaning they'd have to sell an average of 2 more AAA games than projected every single year. I simply don't think that is possible.

by fmbb 2y ago

jsheard 2y ago

> Unless we are nearing some sort of ARM horizon for consoles, that is. The documents accidentally leaked from the FTC vs. Microsoft trial revealed that Microsoft was at least considering switching to an ARM CPU with the next Xbox generation, but they hadn't decided yet at the time those documents were written. Either way they would still use an AMD GPU, so it would be AMD+AMD or ARM+AMD.

ChocolateGod 2y ago
Microsoft has been working on perfecting x86 emulation on ATM so it's not far fetched to think they could still keep backwards compatibility.
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  ARM not ATM, not sure why Google Keyboard made that autocorrect.

hajile 2y ago

RISC-V makes the most sense. It means they wouldn't be locked into one CPU supplier. Requiring a GPU based on RISC-V (or a separate open GPU ISA) could further insulate them from the current AMD lock-in.

spwa4 2y ago
I think you'll find it's a business decision, not technical limitations. Consoles are sold at a loss, so Sony needs people to buy games. Preventing old games from running helps with that.
- hajile 2y ago
  Keeping old games running on new hardware is ESSENTIAL for continued profits. Let's do the math. PSN had 123M subscriptions in 2023. Supposedly, 70% were essential, 13% were extra, and 17% were premium. Let's get the highest (per month) and lowest (per year) costs for each tier to give us a PSN income range. Essential $6.9B to $10.3B Extra $2.2B to $2.9B Premium $3.3B to $4.5B That gives a range between $12.4B to $17.7B or an average of almost exactly $15B. Sony Playstation generated $30B total revenue in 2023. HALF of their revenue is from PSN. The big selling point of the Extra/Premium subscriptions is game access. If these users switched back down to Essential because the PSN game service doesn't work, that would represent a $2.5B to $3B drop in revenue or around 10%. Sony supposedly makes around 30% of the asking price for new games. Making up $3B in lost revenue would require selling an extra $9B in games. Average video game prices in the US are $70 which means they'd have to sell almost 130M more games than they currently project they will sell. There are around 62M PS5 consoles meaning they'd have to sell an average of 2 more AAA games than projected every single year. I simply don't think that is possible.