PS4 Impressions

hazabaza1

Want Skyrim. Want. Do want.
Nov 26, 2008
9,612
0
0
TechTim said:
Awesome! can't wait for the XBOX 1 impressions
It's just going to be 20 panels of people looking at Erin and violently vomiting blood.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
CaptainMarvelous said:
RJ 17 said:
And now it turns out the PS4 wasn't anything to write home about either and is having a slew of various problems and everyone starts remembering why the 360 won the last console war.
What's this 'won' business? Sony are still in business. Surely if we're talking winners of last gen it was Nintendo given how well the Wii did with a handicap, and to my knowledge the only 'loser' of the console wars was Sega
(
Never Forget...)
So in order for someone to "lose" their company has to wither and die all together? Eh, I suppose it depends on your definition of "lose" in that case.

Zachary Amaranth said:
RJ 17 said:
And now it turns out the PS4 wasn't anything to write home about either and is having a slew of various problems and everyone starts remembering why the 360 won the last console war.
Okay, no offense, but how in the bloody blue Hell is coming in third place in a three-console race "winning" the last console war?

Worse, when you consider it launched a year before either of the other consoles.
It's all a matter of perspective my friend, as this article points out:

http://www.geekwire.com/2013/xbox-360-wii-ps3-won-console-generation/

Technically there were no "losers" as each one out performed the others in certain areas. Just seemed to me that as far as online multiplayer is concerned - which was one of the primary focuses of this generation (Like it or not, it was. I love single player games more the multiplayer, but that doesn't change the fact that there was a clear focus on online multiplayer this generation) - the 360 seemed to be the more popular console.
 

xedobubble

New member
Apr 2, 2009
49
0
0
Legion said:
I was pretty late to this generation (although I guess that is now officially "last generation"), so how bad was it in comparison?
Well, the launch PS3 models could play PSone and PS2 games. So they had that. But the PS3 was incredibly hard to code for and cost an atrocious $600, so nobody bought it and nobody made good exclusives for it, for quite a while. That turned around, but it was 2-3 years into the generation. Rumor has it that the horrible architecture was on purpose, to lock exclusives in, but that the high price and initially weak following just meant it got them locked out of a lot of early titles.

The PS4 is apparently a lot easier on the devs, which is why they had to drop backwards compatibility. So the first year of the PS4 will hopefully do a lot better than the PS3.
 

otakon17

New member
Jun 21, 2010
1,338
0
0
Metalrocks said:
lol, wanst it the same thing with the ps3 that hardly any games were out for it?
And its the same with EVERY major console release since the Xbox and PS2. Lack of launch titles. The PS3 was especially bad to the point where they started pushing anything that even resembled a game(LAIR for example from the stories I've heard with Gamestop).

OT: Perfect. Simply perfect, also a nice big "F U!" for everyone with a library of PS3 games they still play. Now, do the Xbox One!
 

That Eeyore

New member
Aug 18, 2009
35
0
0
Kecunk said:
I still have a ps2 and ps3 that still run perfectly so I can honestly say I don't give a damn about backwards compatibility.

the whole thing is kinda silly if you ask me, I mean as far as I can remember the only home console to ever have any real backwards compatibility with no significant issues was the playstation 2, 1 console (not counting handhelds here) now people act like its some kind of industry standard that they're entitled to.

Im really sorry you can throw out all your old consoles now because the new one came out but im sure if you really care about the games you'll find some room for them.
Well, people don't want to have all those consoles cluttering their area, and may want to sell their old consoles. Plus, after the PS2 did it, it started to become the standard, and was kind of a good idea anyway, because of the reasons I mentioned and it gives your system a built in launch lineup of sorts.

EDIT: And with the universal switch to discs, it became a lot more practical
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
FFP2 said:
That was great. Dat last panel.

Smart people should only get new consoles 3-4 years after launch. Let the fanboys get suckered into beta testing it for us :p
Right, because without the fanboys buying the console day one you wouldn't HAVE any support of the system 3-4 years down the line because they company will deem the console dead in the water.

Perhaps people who say stuff like this should realize you don't have the choice to purchase "smart" when the only reason this outcome exists is because of the very people supporting the console day 1.
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 25, 2020
1,576
147
68
Country
US
That Eeyore said:
Gralin said:
That Eeyore said:
Gethsemani said:
Metalrocks said:
lol, wanst it the same thing with the ps3 that hardly any games were out for it?
But at least the PS3 allowed you backwards compatibility on most PS2 games (Soul Calibur 3 not included, which annoyed me and my friends greatly). The PS3 only dropped backwards compatibility when the slim version was released.
Actually, only with certain models. Mine cannot play PS2 games, even with the app downloaded.

Speaking of, does the PS4 have ANY back compatibility, or are you stuck with the PS4 library? Like, I know not with PS3, but with PS1 (which has been on all home console playstations) or PS2.
Right now, but they're going to make it able to run every game in the Playstation Store that PS3 can run, also they will get a game streaming system up for older games
Any idea what a "game streaming system" entails? Like, how it works?
Probably like OnLive, but hopefully less bad.

I'm just waiting to see what games come out for the damned things before I decide what to buy.
 

josemlopes

New member
Jun 9, 2008
3,950
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
LOLPS4

Love the catch 22 of console launches.

Absolutely fuck all games worth playing, but people have to buy the console for more games to get made.
Offer a founders deal where if you bought one during the first 4 months you get special discounts.

Shit, even offer a super special founder deal for launch day buyers with bigger discounts then the 4 month one.

(discounts ranging from 10%/20% more then the usual PSN+ discounts)


I think it would be a nice justification for getting one at launch since it can give a good deal for the loyal costumer and ties the costumer more to the brand while the publisher still gets money out of it.
 

QUINTIX

New member
May 16, 2008
153
0
0
As much I love them, AMD is to blame here. Funny because unlike the peculiar Power ISA used in the PS3 and 360, x86-64bit is designed to be backwards compatible with binaries going all the way back to the early 90's assuming real mode is not used. Sony (and Microsoft for that matter) could easily enable their machines to run much of the Good Old Games library natively in one fell swoop.
 

scorptatious

The Resident Team ICO Fanboy
May 14, 2009
7,405
0
0
As much of a Playstation fan I am, I'm definitely going to wait a while before getting a PS4.
 

Cenzton

New member
Nov 30, 2011
32
0
0
And next week we'll have the same comic except it'll say Xbox One and Five hundred dollars instead.

Not that any of this should come as a surprise. Everyone with an actual brain could've told you neither console will have much worth playing until next year since Watch Dogs got delayed.
 

Deathfish15

New member
Nov 7, 2006
579
0
0
Legion said:
I was pretty late to this generation (although I guess that is now officially "last generation"), so how bad was it in comparison?

That said, weren't we all aware of what the launch titles were for both new consoles? Why would anybody buy one if they didn't see a handful of games that they were interested in? Or is it just that the ones that seemed interesting turned out to be bad?

I suspect the same reaction will be had for the Xbox One though, I didn't see many decent games for either that were to be released the day they came out.

Last generation, when new systems came out, they sold out. Getting on a wait-list for 1-3 months kind of sucked for those who wanted to get one before Holiday Break [or for parents wanting to get their bratty children one for Christmas]. In those 1-3 months, a game or two actually worth playing can and will come out. So, being an early adapter is well worth it to actually have the system for holidays' sake.
 

evilengine

New member
Nov 20, 2009
306
0
0
for all this talk on having no backwards compatibility, I don't recall anyone whining when the N64 couldn't play SNES games...or the Sega Dreamcast not playing Saturn games... most consoles then you needed to buy an adaptor to play older games, like the Mega Drive's Master System Converter.

On the subject of older consoles, the Nintendo 64's US launch titles consisted entirely of Super Mario 64 and Pilot Wings 64, the Mega Drive's Japanese titles: Space Harrier II and Super Thunder Blade, and so on. So don't go whining you spoiled brats.
 

Tharwen

Ep. VI: Return of the turret
May 7, 2009
9,145
0
0
Metalrocks said:
lol, wanst it the same thing with the ps3 that hardly any games were out for it?
The PS3 was backwards-compatible at launch though.
 

CaptainMarvelous

New member
May 9, 2012
869
0
0
RJ 17 said:
So in order for someone to "lose" their company has to wither and die all together? Eh, I suppose it depends on your definition of "lose" in that case.
Well.. yeah. Why, how would you define it? Selling 3 million units rather than 3.1 million isn't what I'd call losing from my home on Money Mountain. I wouldn't say you've lost a war until either you surrender or get wiped out. Which happened to Sega. And unless I missed some memo (and all three companies were unable to compete in Round VI: Ivan Drago's Revenge) the last 'war' didn't have any major casualties. Except Banjo Kazooie.
 

mysecondlife

New member
Feb 24, 2011
2,142
0
0
Shame Knack isn't received well as I hope it would. Its the most overlooked game, so I hoped it would shine.
 

Arawn

New member
Dec 18, 2003
515
0
0
Let's be honest everyone: We wanted Watch_Dogs. That was a game I was very much looking forward to on PS4. On a scale of 1-5, it was a 5. The other games manage a weak 3. It's not that PS4 has no games, it's that there aren't any "OMGIWANTTHATNOW" games out for it. Alot of people feel that that one that are out, could have come out on PS3 without much problem. Therein lies the rub, we want new, but not too new. Wanting the system to play PS3 even though we want a "next gen" Can't let go of the past completely. My PS3 fat can play the older games, but I haven't even touched my PS2 or PS1 games in almost a year. Just the ability/option of playing my old games is reassuring. I think someone brought this up in a thread about Nintendo (I think Jim touched on it in that link posted earlier) People want change and new things, but not adventurous enough to take the plunge. I've pre-ordered 2 games for PS4: inFamous and Destiny. So even if I'm not among the first adopters I am more than waiting out the storm of the first wave. There will be problems with the system just like the phone releases that happen every other week. Course rather than a three inch electronic device failing and being bugg it's a little bigger. Don't think anyone likes a faulty product, but it's almost a given. I wonder if Xbox One will have a similar roll out. Time will tell. Regardless I congratulate those that managed to score a system now. I hope they're happy with their devices. I'm sure they're satisfied with their purchase and are well aware what they've gotten themselves into. The first wave is exciting. It's cool to think that they're helping to shape the system and work out any quirks. See you guys in 2014.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
RJ 17 said:
Technically there were no "losers" as each one out performed the others in certain areas.
You were the one claiming a victor, not me. I was pointing out that the claim was ridiculous. It is. It still is, even if you shift the goalposts to "from a certain perspective."

Even your article struggles to find a plus. Two years as a qualified success does not a winner make. the Wii and even PS4 had actual, noteworthy sales success. The 360? Not so much. The chart tells a very different story. Your own "source" undercuts you.

Just seemed to me that as far as online multiplayer is concerned - which was one of the primary focuses of this generation (Like it or not, it was. I love single player games more the multiplayer, but that doesn't change the fact that there was a clear focus on online multiplayer this generation) - the 360 seemed to be the more popular console.
Based on what? nothing you presented makes that argument at all compelling, either.