| fatslob-:O said: Sony modifying PS3 binaries of the games to the same extent that Microsoft did wouldn't have necessarily netted the same results, the games could've still came out with major bugs unlike Microsoft's scenario ... |
Well. Sony doesn't have the software engineering resources that Microsoft has for starters.
Not saying they couldn't do it, but it would certainly be more difficult for Sony to do.
| fatslob-:O said: @Bold That doesn't mean these benefits would've translated in the case of PS4 attempting BC with the PS3 ... |
We will probably never know for certain at this point. Only thing we can do is make educated hypothetical's.
| fatslob-:O said: Besides there's still the sticky issue where Microsoft had to face litigation from Nvidia and they decided to settle out of court instead with Microsoft paying royalties to Nvidia for every 360 sold ... (pray to god that if Nintendo ever decides to leave Nvidia for another supplier that they've designed Switch games to work around these circumstances of potential IP issues LOL) |
Well. Today is a little different to back then.
nVidia is still a tight arse though.
| fatslob-:O said: Paying more to get close to the original hardware like Microsoft did and then paying mare for royalties to Nvidia only to end up with a worse result than your competitor means that Microsoft's approach for Sony didn't make a whole lot of sense anymore ... (it would've been a better to port every PS3/console exclusive to PS4 and then leave the rest to a cheap PC from today like a Raven Ridge system to handle last gen multiplats) |
Unfortunately porting isn't possible in every scenario as source code can be lost.
It's actually been a common issue with remasters, Homeworld Cataclysm being a prime example.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
