Jimquisition: Why The PS4 Is Kicking Xbox One's Arse

[DragonDai]

-snip-

You do realise just how difficult backwards compatibility between completely different hardware is right? The only way to get it to function properly is to have previous gen hardware in the same box. That means buying two consoles in one, and bumping up the price quite a bit.

I generally just lurk, but I had to comment on this. And all I can say is PC! My PC with all new parts when it was bought 2 years ago runs games that are just now coming out at max settings at 1080p resolution with 60+ FPS, while also playing games from 1995 with little to no hassle (usually no hassle, as in, I install them, they work), and games even older than that with some to little hassle (dosbox is about as "hassle-full" as it gets and really, once you've take the 10-30 mins to figure out how it works the first time you use it, it's never a hassle after that).

So yeah. The only reason the consoles don't have backwards compatibility is because the people making the consoles don't want you to have it. It's as simple as that.

It's definitely not as simple as that.

PCs have been running the same processor type (x86) since the early 90s, possibly before. We had the 186 through to the 486, then Pentium 1 (586), and even the latest Pentiums (and AMD chips) are still using the same core architecture. That, plus a few emulators for software that isn't used any more (DOSbox mainly) is why you can play older PC games on your newer PC.

Consoles, on the other hand, have a tendency to use their own chips, or what ever is cheapest/fastest/different enough to make them stand out. It is not as simple as writing a few lines of code, or configuring a few settings. Games will be expecting chipset features that either don't exist, or have changed their function over the years.

Think of it this way. In order to emulate a PS3 game on a PS4, it would be the equivalent of trying to give a speech in English that was written in Ancient Sumerian on the fly, without loosing any of the original meaning and intent of the speech. Oh, and you aren't allowed to pause and look up things, and the first time you saw this speech was just before you started. It has to be a seamless translation. Think you can handle that?

~tl;dr~

It's a hardware issue, not a software issue. Change all the settings you wish, but it won't make a difference.

So what you're saying is that the people who made the consoles made a choice that made backwards compatibility super impractical at best, and down right impossible at worst? An active decision, which they could have made differently, to allow much easier backwards compatibility?

To me, and forgive me, but, that sounds like the people who make consoles CHOOSE to make them not backwards compatible ON PURPOSE. As in, they knew the decisions they were making would make the consoles NOT backwards compatible, but they made those decisions anyway.

I don't see how that is any sort of "free ride" for consoles, nor do I see how that invalidates the argument, "If the devs of consoles wanted them to be backwards compatible, they would be."

 

[DragonDai]

Is not a matter from "better than", is more like "less wrong", both consoles still doesn't have backward compatibility.

You do realise just how difficult backwards compatibility between completely different hardware is right? The only way to get it to function properly is to have previous gen hardware in the same box. That means buying two consoles in one, and bumping up the price quite a bit.

I generally just lurk, but I had to comment on this. And all I can say is PC! My PC with all new parts when it was bought 2 years ago runs games that are just now coming out at max settings at 1080p resolution with 60+ FPS, while also playing games from 1995 with little to no hassle (usually no hassle, as in, I install them, they work), and games even older than that with some to little hassle (dosbox is about as "hassle-full" as it gets and really, once you've take the 10-30 mins to figure out how it works the first time you use it, it's never a hassle after that).

So yeah. The only reason the consoles don't have backwards compatibility is because the people making the consoles don't want you to have it. It's as simple as that.

As a fellow PC gamer I'm going to put a massive CITATION NEEDED on your post.

Comparing a PC emulating or using DOSbox to the PS3's CELL processor is a fallacy, most PC emulation is bruteforcing the simulation of the entire console's hardware. This is the main reason why the few (if any) 360 and PS3 emulators require monster specs, combined this with the PC for the most part remaining constant and only increasing in power (and going X86 which isn't much compared to the shift that the consoles did going from 7th to 8th generation) while any sort of backwards compatible PS4 would require a CELL processor if not an entire PS3 inside the new console. Which is what they did to produce the BC PS2.

Here, you mistake me. I never said that the way PC and the way consoles allow backwards compatibility is the same. What I said was, IF the devs of consoles wanted to make them backwards compatible, they could have. And your quote proves it.

Further, and I've mentioned this before, but if a PC made at the same time as a PS4 or an XBONE or whatever can be backwards compatible, than the XBONE or PS4 COULD have been backwards compatible too. Yes, it might have cost more, yes, it might not have been as practical. But it IS feasible. And someone, somewhere made a decision to not make it so.

That, very simply, means that the people making the consoles decided to not allow backwards compatibility, on purpose. I believe that was the main premise of my last post, but it's pretty irrefutable.

Again, I am not saying that it would be easy, but I am saying that someone, somewhere had the power to make it so, but didn't. And they ALSO had the power to make it easier on future consoles, but also choose not to.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Is not a matter from "better than", is more like "less wrong", both consoles still doesn't have backward compatibility.

You do realise just how difficult backwards compatibility between completely different hardware is right? The only way to get it to function properly is to have previous gen hardware in the same box. That means buying two consoles in one, and bumping up the price quite a bit.

I generally just lurk, but I had to comment on this. And all I can say is PC! My PC with all new parts when it was bought 2 years ago runs games that are just now coming out at max settings at 1080p resolution with 60+ FPS, while also playing games from 1995 with little to no hassle (usually no hassle, as in, I install them, they work), and games even older than that with some to little hassle (dosbox is about as "hassle-full" as it gets and really, once you've take the 10-30 mins to figure out how it works the first time you use it, it's never a hassle after that).

So yeah. The only reason the consoles don't have backwards compatibility is because the people making the consoles don't want you to have it. It's as simple as that.

As a fellow PC gamer I'm going to put a massive CITATION NEEDED on your post.

Comparing a PC emulating or using DOSbox to the PS3's CELL processor is a fallacy, most PC emulation is bruteforcing the simulation of the entire console's hardware. This is the main reason why the few (if any) 360 and PS3 emulators require monster specs, combined this with the PC for the most part remaining constant and only increasing in power (and going X86 which isn't much compared to the shift that the consoles did going from 7th to 8th generation) while any sort of backwards compatible PS4 would require a CELL processor if not an entire PS3 inside the new console. Which is what they did to produce the BC PS2.

Here, you mistake me. I never said that the way PC and the way consoles allow backwards compatibility is the same. What I said was, IF the devs of consoles wanted to make them backwards compatible, they could have. And your quote proves it.

Further, and I've mentioned this before, but if a PC made at the same time as a PS4 or an XBONE or whatever can be backwards compatible, than the XBONE or PS4 COULD have been backwards compatible too. Yes, it might have cost more, yes, it might not have been as practical. But it IS feasible. And someone, somewhere made a decision to not make it so.

That, very simply, means that the people making the consoles decided to not allow backwards compatibility, on purpose. I believe that was the main premise of my last post, but it's pretty irrefutable.

Again, I am not saying that it would be easy, but I am saying that someone, somewhere had the power to make it so, but didn't. And they ALSO had the power to make it easier on future consoles, but also choose not to.

Your logic is fine until you hit the cold facts of reality, sure they could have made a BC console in the same way the US could solve world hunger or the EU intervene in Syria, but it doesn't happen. Mainly due to doing so would have pushed the PS4's pricing into the upper atmosphere for a bullet-point which didn't save the PS3 from becoming the 360's ***** early last generation.

So yes, they could have by shoving in another console into it, putting the pricing higher than the original PS3 launch.

I don't know if you remember the rage generated by that little episode, but Sony certainly did.

And don't get me started on the vagaries of CELL and Sony's decision with that.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

To me, and forgive me, but, that sounds like the people who make consoles CHOOSE to make them not backwards compatible ON PURPOSE. As in, they knew the decisions they were making would make the consoles NOT backwards compatible, but they made those decisions anyway.

I very much doubt that they made major system architecture decisions for the purpose of blocking backwards compatibility. That just doesn't make any sense. They likely chose the system architecture they did for price and performance reasons. I think one particular reason for choosing the RISC architectures they did in the last generation was for power efficiency and heat dissipation reasons when building a small enclosure with minimal cooling. Since then, x86 has made big improvements in energy efficiency, hence the switch back to x86 this generation.

Hardware architecture is a major business and engineering decision, one they are stuck with for years. It would be ridiculous to make such a big decision on the basis of something so trivial. If they don't want to support backward-compatibility, there's a much easier and cheaper way to do it - simply by not supporting backward compatibility even if the hardware architecture did remain the same. That doesn't cost anything at all.

That, very simply, means that the people making the consoles decided to not allow backwards compatibility, on purpose. I believe that was the main premise of my last post, but it's pretty irrefutable.

No, it's easily refutable.

 

[Ronin1325]

Actually, the lack of backwards compatibility is a simple issue. Sony, Microsoft & Nintendo do not want you spending your time playing games you have already paid for. That does not generate revenue. They want you to buy new games, or re-buy those old games updated for the new consoles. Or best yet (in their minds), have a service where you can rent the games but never actually own them.

This actually, is part of a larger issue, that of software companies wanting to change from selling you a product, to selling you a *service*. This is why 'The Cloud' is being pushed so hard by everyone. Essentially, most companies want to take us back to the late 1960's->1970's, where we had terminals, but not full computers, that logged into servers & paid a fee to temporarily run applications. Look at Adobe's recent behavior for an indication of where the market wants to go. Also this-

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/03/tech/web/bruce-willis-itunes/

All those Steam games you 'bought'? You. Own. Nothing. Merely rented.

 

[TheDoctor455]

Hmm... good episode. Quite frankly, I don't get the whole accusing critics of being paid fanboys of this or that company. Even on the off-off-off-off-off chance that you're right... what's the use?

And besides, 97% of the time, you are dead wrong.

Also... isn't "paid fanboy" a bit of an oxymoron anyway?

Good episode at any rate, Mr. Sterling.

Also... the ad has me curious...

anyone know what Psycho Pass is? Some anime, I know... but anyone know if its any good? Or roughly what its about?

Psycho Pass is a story centered around a police officer in the near future. Crime fighting has adopted a technology by which crime is fought before it happens, by reading the 'psycho pass' of citizens through scanners, much the way CCTV monitors citizens today. The psycho pass is your psychological makeup and emotional state, it's a measurement of probability that you're going to commit a crime. For example in that world, people who encounter criminal behavior would become upset by it, increasing distress, which results in emotional instability and the potential for committing an act of violence. If their psycho pass reamins high and doesn't lower, they would be prosecuted, even though they haven't done anything wrong.

It's like a manga take on orwell/huxely. Quite a good series all in all. It presents this horrific, mental scanning and pre-crime punishment in a 'by the by' sort of way. It's normal for the characters and they try to make it seem normal to the viewer, which is genius because it really creeps you out when you realise what's going on. I really like the series but my GF isn't keen, simply because the ideas it presents, the control the normalisation of indescriminate observation of every citizen, creep her out too much.

As for the Jimquisition this week, also very clever. I really like the double-bluff approach this episode takes. Thank god for Jim!

Huh. Thanks. Sounds pretty good. I'll have to take a look at it sometime.

Sounds like what Minority Report should have been like.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

I'm an Xbox One owner and I have to say you made some really compelling points. I chose the Xbox 360 because Sony had a habit of being totally user unfriendly and I went with the Xbone because it has more exclusives I like. That said, the future this gen clearly belongs to the PS4 and if I had the money I'd go out and buy one so I could have the best of both worlds.

Can Microsoft turn it around, yeah, but considering it took an entire generation for Sony to do it (and how!) I wouldn't be looking for that to happen any time in the next decade.

 

[Deathlyphil]

-snip-

So what you're saying is that the people who made the consoles made a choice that made backwards compatibility super impractical at best, and down right impossible at worst? An active decision, which they could have made differently, to allow much easier backwards compatibility?

To me, and forgive me, but, that sounds like the people who make consoles CHOOSE to make them not backwards compatible ON PURPOSE. As in, they knew the decisions they were making would make the consoles NOT backwards compatible, but they made those decisions anyway.

I don't see how that is any sort of "free ride" for consoles, nor do I see how that invalidates the argument, "If the devs of consoles wanted them to be backwards compatible, they would be."

You are correct. While I could argue that it was an "activate" choice to make them incompatible, you have to remember that each generation is between 5 and 7 years apart. They were (and still are) trying to build the best console at the best price. Adding in hardware that the customer can easily buy elsewhere for themselves is just bumping costs.

Also, do you realise that backwards-compatibility was only introduced with the PS2? Every, and I do mean every single console prior to that was standalone. You want to upgrade? That means dumping your current library and building a new one. Yes it's a shitty situation, but it has 30 years of precedence.

So, you want full backwards compatibility? Don't sell your old console. Or, as you have already done, get a PC. They are intrinsically designed to be backwards compatible.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Or, as you have already done, get a PC. They are intrinsically designed to be backwards compatible.

No, they aren't. That's just a happy coincidence. It's not intrinsic to their design.

 

[theApoc]

Believe whatever you want.Change for the sake of change is never good especially when it's bad.

Read the news reports from Microsoft before and after the XBONE reveal instead of the PR articles made after the backpedaling.

Whiny journalists and hysteria?Pfft hahahaha!You know..... I'm going to be fair minded and not assume you're one of those people who drunk Microsoft's kool-ade because that statement is plain ridiculus.

Kinect being talored made for the user??Oh please....nobody wanted it and the only reason Microsoft shoved it down everyone's throats is so they can collect personal info for ad companies.

Bottom line is no matter how much you and the other people who were for Microsoft's 'vision of the future' deny it the majority did'nt like what they were seeing.

We live in an age where everyone assumes the worst. That is exactly what happened with XBOX One. And Sony, who is honestly no better in terms of how they treat their consumers did the only thing they could do, nothing. They let speculation run rampant, they quietly adjusted whatever business strategies they had as to not make waves and they let MS have to back off of what would have actually been a positive change.

No one balks at the proprietary nature of cell phones, tablets, TV's, etc. The fact that you are constantly connected for full functionality. That your media is device locked, that your device is in constant connection with its source. People don't think twice about it. And the main reason is that it is unobtrusive. Updates happen behind the scenes, or with a simple click/press. Services adapt to your location and media is available in multiple places. You don't decry updates to the interface, or voice recognition as pointless.

Yet when MS attempted to integrate these systems into the XBOX, all of the sudden they were anti- consumer. A big evil company out to steal your souls.

Yeah, ok...

No one cares that sites like this one get more information from you than kinect ever could. That FB, itunes, google... All take waaaaaay more of your information and make a lot more money off your back than MS could from an XBOX. Sure MS does it too, but again, to claim them some evil entity, seems silly.

 

[Denamic]

Or, as you have already done, get a PC. They are intrinsically designed to be backwards compatible.

No, they aren't. That's just a happy coincidence. It's not intrinsic to their design.

That explains why, when x64 CPUs came out, all software designed for x86 was incompatible.

 

[Thanatos2k]

This would have been circa........1992. Windows 3.11. With such classic hits as "Jill of the Jungle"!

Wow. What an incredibly bizarre choice. You want to buy a computer just for gaming in 1992 - and you choose an expensive business machine with a small library of low-quality games, when there are several other systems available that are much cheaper, have a bigger and better games library, and you can even hook them up to your TV?

Again, your experience is very much an outlier. Almost nobody did this, and it wasn't people like your family who were driving IBM-compatible PC sales.

Multiple friends did it. What you really mean to say is that is wasn't YOUR experience, and thus that is the clearly the experience shared by everyone else, because you said so.

Low quality games? I don't think you remember how magical any game was back then. Applying today's standards would be nonsense.

Since when weren't we talking about mobile? We were talking about games. There are heaps of games on mobile systems. It's a huge part of the games market. You can't just exclude mobile games from the gaming market just because you don't like them or something.

Have you even seen modern mobile games? There are plenty of them that have fancy 3D graphics and accelerometer-driven interaction, etc., that are definitely in the ballpark of PC and console games. There definitely exist mobile games that are more sophisticated graphically and gameplay-wise than some PC games.

When someone makes a good game built on mobile for mobile that approaches the quality of a console or PC game, let me know. The controls alone cripple the experience.

I'm well aware that there has been an increase in Mac gaming due to Steam and whatnot. What I said was the Mac isn't known for gaming. In that games and Macs aren't exactly synonymous. When somebody mentions a Mac, most people don't immediately think of games. While it has grown, it's going to share the same fate as PC gaming.

Not talking only about Mac. You said "Desktop gaming is not doing well." I provided proof that that is not the case at all.

Right. And this illustrates my point quite well, I think. PCs have gone from general consumer items to very specialised roles. Gaming is one of those specialised roles that will last a while longer. But Steam's growth on PCs is going to plateau eventually as a niche market. If Steam wants to grow beyond that, it's going to have to get into mobile or consoles (which it is attempting with Steam Box, but seems pretty weak).

Well that has been my point all along - that Microsoft is not focusing on this group at all, and have inexplicably spurned them to focus on consoles. You act like console gaming is never going to plateau either. (Some reports indicate it already has, thanks to casuals going to mobile) Long term, there's more money in Microsoft keeping the PC as the best gaming device out there, and keeping their OS on all of those machines.

Right. So Steam's success is basically taking customers from the existing gaming market. I don't think they are actually growing the market itself.

Hard to speculate on this without hard numbers, and those would be difficult to separate.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

[
Low quality games? I don't think you remember how magical any game was back then. Applying today's standards would be nonsense.

I'm not applying today's standards. At the time, the games were much better on The Amiga, Atari ST, hell even Commodore 64 and Apple II.

When someone makes a good game built on mobile for mobile that approaches the quality of a console or PC game, let me know. The controls alone cripple the experience.

It's been happening for years. And for some kinds of games, the touch or accelerometer interface is better than traditional controls.

Not talking only about Mac. You said "Desktop gaming is not doing well." I provided proof that that is not the case at all.

No you didn't. You only showed that Steam is doing well. Thaty doesn't mean the overall market segment is.

Well that has been my point all along - that Microsoft is not focusing on this group at all, and have inexplicably spurned them to focus on consoles.

Buy it's not inexplicable. It does't make sense for Microsoft to waste its time and resources on PC gaming.

You act like console gaming is never going to plateau either.

No I don't. When did I say that?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

That explains why, when x64 CPUs came out, all software designed for x86 was incompatible.

Just because they have been backward-compatible, doesn't mean they always will be.

You argue that it's "intrinsic" to the design. It is not. Can you explain what it is about the design that gives it intrinsic backward-compatibility? When they designed the first 8086 processor, they weren't thinking about backwards-compatibility, and there is nothing about its design that made it more backwards-compatibile than any other chip design.

 

[Denamic]

You argue that it's "intrinsic" to the design. It is not. Can you explain what it is about the design that gives it intrinsic backward-compatibility?

Firstly, I did not argue about anything being "intrinsic." Secondly, I can easily explain why they're backwards compatible. It's because they're backwards compatible.

 

[LordDPS]

I still dont understand why indi games cant be system sellers...
Some of them are flat out better (subject to personal subjective opinion) then AAA games. Or last longer. Or have better storylines...

From a pure logistical standpoint, they do not have the marketing money to become identified with a system the way Titanfall or Uncharted can. Furthermore, their digital exclusivity means they can't really occupy shelf space in a world where physical media is still a massive influence and will obviously attract the attention from window shoppers when they're at a store looking at consoles.

It's nothing to do with their quality or superiority over AAA games. I think many indie games are as legit, if not moreso, than major publisher games. But the vast majority of console buyers are going to see them after the bigger, more widespread, physically available games get their attention.

Simple facts, nothing to do with one's opinion on whether or not indie games are good/better.

Jim you...you....you!
Stop having a different opinion to me you fiend. Stop presenting your facts in a logical and concise way you many genitled deviant! How dare you not think the things I think. Meh to you devil! Meh to you!

 

[Lapin Logic]

ever since xbox live launched, it left a bad taste in my mouth, so much so that i have supported them as little as i could without depriving myself of the games i wanted to play, as a result i have never connected my 360 to the internet and have only turned it on for probably 100 hours. i very much doubt i will purchase a one. but sony who gives, and only asks you indulge what and when you want has my whole support.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

You argue that it's "intrinsic" to the design. It is not. Can you explain what it is about the design that gives it intrinsic backward-compatibility?

Firstly, I did not argue about anything being "intrinsic." Secondly, I can easily explain why they're backwards compatible. It's because they're backwards compatible.

You were responding to a rebuttal of an argument that PCs were intrinsically backwards-compatible. And you responded with pretty weak argument that two recent chipsets happened to be compatible with recent versions of Windows.

Also, you're wrong. If PCs are backwards-compatible, then go take a 2014 model PC, and install PC DOS v1.0 on it.

Of course, this gets into a bunch of other arguments, such as what defines a "PC." At its most basic level, a PC is a Personal Computer. There are currently shipping models of Personal Computer that are incompatible with one another, let alone older models. You could narrow that to the IBM PC, but that no longer exists.

I guess you could say it only applies to machines running Windows (which wouldn't make any sense) - but in that case there are still incompatibilities, as Windows for Power PC and Windows for ARM processors aren't compatible at all with x86-based PCs.

In any case, no matter how you define it, there are plenty of examples of broken backwards-compatibility on the PC.

 

[Denamic]

You argue that it's "intrinsic" to the design. It is not. Can you explain what it is about the design that gives it intrinsic backward-compatibility?

Firstly, I did not argue about anything being "intrinsic." Secondly, I can easily explain why they're backwards compatible. It's because they're backwards compatible.

You were responding to a rebuttal of an argument that PCs were intrinsically backwards-compatible. And you responded with pretty weak argument that two recent chipsets happened to be compatible with recent versions of Windows.

Also, you're wrong. If PCs are backwards-compatible, then go take a 2014 model PC, and install PC DOS v1.0 on it.

Of course, this gets into a bunch of other arguments, such as what defines a "PC." At its most basic level, a PC is a Personal Computer. There are currently shipping models of Personal Computer that are incompatible with one another, let alone older models. You could narrow that to the IBM PC, but that no longer exists.

I guess you could say it only applies to machines running Windows (which wouldn't make any sense) - but in that case there are still incompatibilities, as Windows for Power PC and Windows for ARM processors aren't compatible at all with x86-based PCs.

In any case, no matter how you define it, there are plenty of examples of broken backwards-compatibility on the PC.

Backwards compatibility does not mean it has to be compatible with everything. 16 bit software is no longer directly compatible with on 64 bit architecture, that is true, but you can still run them through a VM.

Additionally, why the hell are you talking about PowerPC CPUs? PowerPCs are completely different from x64 and x86. PowerPC vs x86 and x64 would be about cross-compatibility, not backwards compatibility.