setsunatenshi said:
1- on the speculation itself, we have to assume a more likely situation, there is only so much cost the console manufacturers are willing to take. My point still stands, keeping the esram is a mistake and the sooner they ditch it, the better for them. Judging by the rumors that they are going to have a 5.5 TFLOPS console, they can't have their cake and eat it too. 2- it's irrelevant for my point if the best hardware is the one being targeted first, I agree that it won't actually since the news are that the games will run both on the vanilla and Neo PS4s. it stands to reason that the game must be playable well on the vanilla system first and foremost. my hypothesis is that they have an opening to mantain the same architecture for a future PS5 (keeping R&D costs low, getting cheaper parts, no exotic hardware in it) and then be able to give a reason for people to upgrade, knowing they will have 100% backwards compatibility with their older titles. 3- i'm well aware of the differences between the console and PC ecosystems. what i'm saying is that starting with this generation there is very little seperating the 2, other than the OS the machines are running. the reason why games need to be patched and tweaked around sometimes to work is mostly because of the OS itself. If I try to play half life 1, probably what I would need to do would be to use compatibility mode for win xp and the game will work just fine. Notice that when the game came there was no such thing as a PCI-e port, SSDs or GDDR5 graphics cards, and still the game will work through brute force. The same think should be valid of a future PS5 in which keeping the same architecture as the PS4 but with much better performing hardware, all previous games should work with little effort.
In the end I guess we can agree there's several variables at play here and we don't have the full information yet. Perhaps in a few months it will become more clear what paths both companies will take. I doubt that specs will be given next week at E3, but who knows, maybe a mid-long term vision could be discussed by both Sony and MS, and we'll have some more data to speculate on. |
I agree with you that if they keep most of the architeture the same (even if special features are changed/lost) it wouldn't be that hard to see a SW emulation.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







