zero129 said:
Long before an emulator can be made the original console must be hacked. So this means long before a playable emulator is released people can buy the original console (For much less then the PC that would be needed to run an emu) and play their pirated games. Now lets take the case of RPCS3 here. PS3's have been hacked for years, you can pick up a hacked PS3 for less then 100 euro in a lot of cases, The original PS3 plays all its games better (At this point in time) then RPCS3 does. Like another user pointed out, RPCS3 has none of the features that make emus great yet such as upscaling etc, it runs its games all slower then a real PS3 and to come close to a real PS3 in many cases you will need a very powerful CPU, Something many people dont have as many people dont build their systems around emulation. So what do you think a pirate is more likely to do?. 1. Go buy an original hacked PS3 for cheap and play every game perfect. or 2. Go build a powerful PC around emulation that will cost a lot more then a PS3 just to play PS3 games looking worse then on the actual console?. I follow the path of "Exclusives are anti consumer" . I fully believe that if giving the option most developers would love to have their game on as many platforms as possible being played by as many people as possible. Exclusives are just something fans like to brag about as a dick sizing contest. |
Ah, so you're talking about people buying consoles long after they are last gen, and jailbreaking them for piracy. I thought you were trying to say that there were millions of jailbroken PS4's out there. Makes much more sense now. But we can still blame PC gamers for the piracy as a whole. It wasn't the PS3 community that worked to jailbreak the system. It was the online piracy community, and guess what? Those are largely PC gamers. One out of three PC gamers pirates games. http://www.pcgamer.com/pc-piracy-survey-results-35-percent-of-pc-gamers-pirate/
What exactly makes exclusives anti-consumer?
