Quake3World

PS4 will lock out used games, and no PS3 game compatibility

http://www.gamespot.com/news/next-plays ... rt-6368582

PS4 no comment LOL

Sony lost my support a long time ago, so this doesn't surprise me.

good, no more playing with poor people.

Meh. I'll wait until that's official.

Who cares. Consoles are for kids.

"They" claimed the next XBox was going to do this as well, but that has been refuted as pure speculation. I'll see what happens. I've rarely bought used games so I don't think I'd be that bothered by it. What would bother me though is if this prevents me from sharing games with my brother, which we've done on a few occasions.

LawL wrote:Who cares. Consoles are for kids.

for once me and the dipshit agree...gg homo...

You're supposed to get a console to play new games, not old ones. Consoles are cheap cause they're sold at a loss which is covered by the licencing cost of games. Sony know what they're doing.

Backwards compatibility can be fun, but when the resolution of the screen is going to be higher, and the games weren't made with that in mind, what you need is updated conversions. If people are getting a new generation console and only playing old games on it, they're being skanks and they kill progress.

You'd be as sensible if you complained that your Blu-ray player doesn't have a VHS cassette drive

When consoles are first launched the majority sell at a loss. It takes a year to 18 months for things to be on an even keel. Noticeable exception being the Wii

Don Carlos wrote:When consoles are first launched the majority sell at a loss. It takes a year to 18 months for things to be on an even keel. Noticeable exception being the Wii

Notable exceptions being all of Nintendo's game devices

Memphis wrote:

DTS wrote:Consoles are cheap cause they're sold at a loss

Nice 20 year out-of-date factoid there grandad

Wikipedia wrote:In the current generation of consoles; both Sony and Microsoft have sold their consoles, the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360, respectively, at a loss and made up for it through game software and accessory profits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader#Examples

Moron.

Only the GameCube was different, which they made to be sold at "break-even or higher prices" - "BREAK EVEN" meaning NO profit - so they still were supposed to get their profit from game sales.

Don Carlos wrote:When consoles are first launched the majority sell at a loss. It takes a year to 18 months for things to be on an even keel. Noticeable exception being the Wii

When consoles are first launched is when they are at their highest price , cause they haven't gone into such massive mass production yet, to keep the costs down. (The more they make, the cheaper it is. That's mass market economics.)

The PS3 is £190 in Argos. How is that $800? Australian dollars?

Well they said the blue laser diodes* were very expensive ("Them blue lasers are expensives"), which made the price of the PS3 very high until they figured out a way to make the blue laser diodes cheaper.

*(for the Blu-ray drive)

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2 ... ys-pachter

GameStop could refuse to stock PlayStation Orbis, says Pachter

DTS wrote:You're supposed to get a console to play new games, not old ones. Consoles are cheap cause they're sold at a loss which is covered by the licencing cost of games. Sony know what they're doing.

Backwards compatibility can be fun, but when the resolution of the screen is going to be higher, and the games weren't made with that in mind, what you need is updated conversions. If people are getting a new generation console and only playing old games on it, they're being skanks and they kill progress.

You'd be as sensible if you complained that your Blu-ray player doesn't have a VHS cassette drive

People want freedom, they don't want to be treated like feedbags. Backward compatibility can mean a lot for those who care.

1. will give extra intensive to upgrade their system, sooner rather than later because they know that even though they will slowly build up a new game library, they will have their old games to content with, without having two systems set up all the time, while also enjoying some new game releases.
2. better performance means better loading times for old games (as well as performance), hence better experience.
3.why does the old games have to run in super high resolution? can't they just run at their own resolution? lol?
4. both systems are using bluray, so nobody is forcing them to fit in there two diff. formats, so your dvd/vhs argument is unfair, and idiotic.

I don't even own a console , but that kind of regression in this market is pretty much guaranteeing that I never will.

Tsakali wrote:3.why does the old games have to run in super high resolution? can't they just run at their own resolution?

Cause they would have borders.

obligatory "lol, consoles"

wat. no.

Eraser wrote:

Don Carlos wrote:When consoles are first launched the majority sell at a loss. It takes a year to 18 months for things to be on an even keel. Noticeable exception being the Wii

Notable exceptions being all of Nintendo's game devices

notable is that nintendo charges outrageous fees to publish for their platforms, and that they charge topdollar for all peripherals.

DTS, do you ever write anything factual?

Don't people want backward compatibility simply because there's limited space under a TV, and having three consoles under it might make you look like some kind of cunt?

DTS wrote:

Don Carlos wrote:When consoles are first launched the majority sell at a loss. It takes a year to 18 months for things to be on an even keel. Noticeable exception being the Wii

When consoles are first launched is when they are at their highest price , cause they haven't gone into such massive mass production yet, to keep the costs down. (The more they make, the cheaper it is. That's mass market economics.)

I am fully aware of mass market economics, but you are also missing out on the other side of production. Yeild become higher on the componants they use in the new systems. Take the PS3...the blu ray lazer diods had an attrocious yield rate when they were first made hence the £400+ price of the PS3. The 360 had a slightly more standard PC based system without blu-ray so was cheaper, but even still, it was expensive because the tech used was quite up to date.

Hey, Don Carlos, nice to see you're so knowledgeable on the subject (some of which I already stated in the thread, i.e. blue lasers) but I don't see what your point is.

LawL wrote:Who cares. Consoles are for kids.

but trix are for u