marc said:
People stuck with the ps3 at 1st so they could play ps2 games.
So that's what I mean, if you cannot play games you bought and games you downloaded you can stick with the ps3 and get the Xbox as your going to have to start again anyway.
I agree to a degree, but as I said on Facebook, I think that in reality it's a moot point. When you make the decision to buy the new console, you will naturally tail off playing your old games.
It's rare you have any games that you play religiously enough to put you off replacing the machine. In fact, if a game is so important to you, you'll simply keep you old console just for that game - PS3 trade in will be pennies by this time next year.
It's psychological barrier more than anything. That "they aren't supporting me" thing. When the 360 was released, it wasn't not being able to play on PS2 games which stopped me buying it, it was a lack of game I wanted to play on the system. I did consider it quite a while, but nothing emerged. I'd have still bought a PS3 without PS2 compatibility because it did what I wanted, with a platform I was comfortable with.
The lack of backwards compatibility really isn't such an issue when you actually get down to it, as long as the system offers enough to
you to compensate for it.
Marc said:
The new Xbox is expected to be true 64bit as well rather than the ps4 being a half bread.
You do have to be very careful when it comes to tech specs. The PS3 cell CPU is considerably more powerful than the 360 CPU. However, it has less RAM and is shared with the GPU, so it's much more difficult to get graphical clout out of the machine. Add on a difficult instruction set and the PS3 has lagged behind the 360 right through, even though technically the PS3 is the better machine "on paper".
You see a few games like the Uncharted series which push the console to its limits, but they're few and far between.
Likewise, the rumours "NextBox" spec has more cores (at full 64-bit), but lower GPU power and RAM. Apparently the more cores, the tougher it is to get more out of a system when it comes to games. They're great at set code, but not at dynamic code games require. You never know which part of the game is suddenly going to require to be on a different core to take up the slack. Add in the lower spec of the GPU, and the lack of full 64-bit isn't an issue. Both machines will run pretty roughly equally except...
ECG said:
The most important announcement to me, that was hammered home throughout the conference, is the ease of use for game developers/studios. For years all I've heard is how it's so much easier for development of games on the Xbox compared to the massive difficulties to do likewise on the PS3. It seemed like every developer they presented iterated time & again that ease of use (for them) was the PS4's greatest asset. We as gamers care greatly about the controller, the interface, multiplayer integration, backwards compatibility, social media integration, etc. but what good does all that do if games studios simply don't want to develop for the PS because of unnecessary difficulties? This was the PS3's greatest fault & to hear that Sony has alleviated the issues was the most significant message put forth.
Jerry is spot on and this is why Sony have done this. By using the X86 core, they have every coder from the PC and original XBox scene able to jump straight in and produce games.
As I say above, the lack of full 64-bit doesn't hurt much overall, but when it comes to getting the power out into the game, how well coders know it and how much in terms of time resources they need to through at the console is vital.
The complexity of the cell offered no advantage to the PS3, but disadvantaged it as the 360 was seen as a much better console due to the speed coders could get the most from the system, but when porting the PS3, they had constant technical difficulties which they just didn't bother to overcome. So games looked and ran better on the 360.
It's only very recently that the PS3 has become a lead machine for development, but even then, a lot of developers still swear a lot at the tight RAM overheads.
Going back, it's all about what a system offers to you on day one to entice you over. You don't buy a new console to play old games on it, you buy it to play new games. So you need as many high quality games available as possible to you when you migrate.
This doesn't mean the PS4 is a guaranteed success (or that I'll get one), but Sony are doing everything "right" that they Microsoft have done right previously. If MS can get the next XBox out before or simultaneously with the PS4, I can't see the PS4 doing well, but if Sony can grab the holiday sales and maybe 6 months of market before the next XBox, they have a fighting chance - they'll have the good looking games on the market, running well and with a solid line up before Microsoft will even have a launch selection in place. However, MS have a very loyal user base and "getting it right" for ten years gives people a lot of confidence in the brand. It'll be very interesting to see how it all pans out and I'm already putting a bit aside and waiting to see which one deserves my loyalty next...
). With the Playstation not only did I have several great party game titles but I could still play the ones I had purchased for the previous console. Why would I need to switch console? 
