Changing lead platforms for the first time since 1998.

[DonFerrari]

MrWayne said:

DonFerrari said:

And you can still play your games on the original console, I keep my consoles since NES gen, but rarely I play them. They are certainly classics and good to play from time to time, but on the broader view they are neglible on making listing war.

PC gaming is the most curious thing ever, I know to many people that put more than 1k USD in a rig to play DoTA. For me that is asinine use of money but they want some over 200fps even if the graphics will keep being terrible.

But that's my point, those PC-games aren't negligible, they are as important for PC-gaming as new releases like GoW, Spider Man or RDR2 are for Playstation.

Those are a less than a dozen games against regular releases. It doesn't really show any logic in counting the full catalog of PC games from the 80's until today as relevant. Let me ask this way but in percentage how many PC owners upgrade their grid to play a 90's game? People keep changing their consoles or updating their PC to play what is new not what is old, so pad list with ancient stuff is pointless. You may say you have a very big library all you want, but you won't even have the time or wish to play those games. I keep a lot of old consoles, but since there are new games releasing all the time I rarely go back to play old games.

DonFerrari said:

Nope it isn't kinda true. Digital Rights Management of the physical media is the part that can prevent you from pirating it, not the part that prevent you from using on a different console. Unless you want to call DRM the fact a cobol program can't run in access as is or that someone that reads english only can't read a document in swedish.

You have to look at it from the PC gamers perspective.
If a game needs the DVD in the drive to run, it prevents you from running the game on 10 pc's at the same time. that's clearly DRM because it means you and your friends have to buy more then more copy of the game..

This was obviously never a thing in the console space because games were not installed on consoles.

I don't have to look at anyone perspective. I'm looking at the ridiculous way Pema have tried to define DRM.

And I'm still to find any console game DRM that gave anyone any nuisance while playing legitimate, the most I can remember is the pass on some PS3 games if you wanted to play online you had to use the key that were in the game or buy a new one if you had the game second hand/shared. And on some games the keys put as bonus for pre-order. So nope, trying to push a narrative that the console is DRM because you have to buy a disc is ridiculous. This is on the level of "Sony is the devil because they don't let me pirate or play on my PC", business aren't charities.

 

flashfire926 said:

DonFerrari said:

PS3 had BC last gen until Sony saw that the extra cost didn't brought extra revenue and cut it out. So that pretty much show that listing BC games to pad list war is laughable. You may love some or even all of the previous gen games, but a very very very small number of people would buy new consoles for the intent of playing old games they already had console to play it on.

 

Not to take any sides, but the PS3 never really fully got rid of back compat. Every PS3 (even the slims) can play all PS1 disks.  And to make up for PS2 BC removed they released several game collections like ratchet and god of war.

Even during late last gen Playstation/Sony still valued their old games greatly.

Not say you are wrong, because you aren't, and I bought several collections/remasters as they were improved versions, with platinum of games I didn't play before. But considering how much they sold and how many PS1 CDs people played I would say it still wasn't the most relevant of things for PS3 or PS4. But ludicrous tried to portray that as hypocrisy from Sony fans even when he so much swear he doesn't do console war.