File: Games Then and Now.swf-(6.25 MB, 640x360, Other)
[_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)09:02:14 No.3185665
luckily i got to experience the playstation 1 era (and earlier)
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)09:57:38 No.3185672
sometimes I think they even regret enabling backwards compatibility back in the day
it's like it shouldn't even happen
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)10:18:25 No.3185674
Notice that in 13 years, they still haven't made it so that the guy in the wheelchair didn't get
an upgrade which was worthwhile while the fat guy managed to downgrade in 13 years as his
eyesight went to shit and needed to get glasses to see properly.
Meanwhile the douchebag with the blonde hair just stayed a douchebag.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)11:43:13 No.3185688
>>3185674
so close to perfection but now the video's just pointless
>>3185672
you can pinpoint the moment when things went to shit. playstation 3 actually had backwards
compability with playstation 2 at first. and you could run linux on it.
then sony made a new version for no reason that didn't have backwards compability and then they
patched out support for linux a bit later.
internet-play was 100% free on PS3 and then on PS4 they followed in the horrible footsteps of xbox
guess being good to customers isnt important. people are stupid enough to pay a second time for
using their internet so why not? and it's better to sell the games again later in some online
digital retro version than having people enjoy the copies they already bought once at full price
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)12:16:01 No.3185691
why is the guy in a wheelchair? did i miss something
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)12:41:59 No.3185694
>>3185691
it's just that some people are in a wheelchair
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)12:45:47 No.3185695
>>3185691
Cheap seating
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)12:48:58 No.3185696
>>3185688
oh yeah I remember them saying PS3 is not backward compatible because PS2 market was still going
stronk so they didn't want to compete with themselves
10 years later it's still not enabled because online store turned out to be a succesful business
so why doing it for free right?
I still have my hard copy of MGS1 and FFVII both platinum edition
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)13:20:34 No.3185705
this video sucks, they didnt have wheelchairs back then
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)13:28:57 No.3185706
I taste that
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)13:50:16 No.3185708
It seems like the whole video game industry is coasting on the passion inspired by the original
NES. They made games that people really cared about. Of course SNES, Playstation, and even XBox
and later systems also created some great games, but more and more the industry is mindlessly
pushing to maximize sales from enfranchised players while minimizing risk and effort. They are
burning away passion instead of creating it.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)13:55:31 No.3185711
>>3185691
pretty much everything in the 90's added a cripple to promote diversity
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)13:56:01 No.3185712
>>3185688
>then sony made a new version for no reason
It's because the emulation sucked dick, and the emotion chip or whatever that ran the PS2 games
natively cost them something like $100 extra.
And then they never added it back because why bother?
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)14:03:46 No.3185715
>>3185708
You need to realize that you (25+) are not their main focus anymore but the newer generation is
They are grown to believe that this current standart is the highest standart they can get, and
it's gonna go down from here because these megacorporations like EA, Ubisoft and Konami are
taking the game industry as a fucking business, and in such a business the main objective is to
have maximum profit.
That's why you see franchises turning into mindless games because they're cheap to do and
obviously, by taking a peek at the sales, they're succesful because their aim is not longer you
but the 10-15 year old kids
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)15:20:32 No.3185728
>2006
PC gaming is dead. Console is the only market to make games for.
>2016
PC master race. Steam take my money. Who cares about consoles anymore.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)15:30:12 No.3185730
>>3185728
2004
oh cool Armour games posted something cool on newgrounds for free.
2013
Flappy Bird crap on apstores for howevermuchitcost
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)15:42:13 No.3185735
>>3185712
>It's because the emulation sucked dick
bull, i have a PS3 that can play PS2 games and i havent been able to find a single flaw in any
PS2 game
the price thing is also nonsense, think about it. how much would a little chip cost, that was
already ancient technology by then? especially for sony, who could place an order to buy a
million of them in bulk. any kind of development cost to engineer the schematics can be discarded
since they already had an existing model supporting backwards compability out there.
both of those reasons are invalid. they just had to give SOME kind of reason when people asked
why they gimped the console, if they were honest the negative publicity would have been too great.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)15:46:36 No.3185736
>>3185730
>Flappy Bird crap on apstores for howevermuchitcost
it cost nothing, it was free to download
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)15:55:11 No.3185740
>>3185735
You misread what he said.
Your's has the chip, that's why it runs it so well. Had they tried to emulate it instead, it
would of ran like shit.
And he just TOLD you how much a "little chip" would cost. An extra $100 back then. By now, yes,
it'd probably cost like $10 to manufacture, but not then.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)15:55:34 No.3185741
>>3185736
that's besides the point, in the 2000s we got free flash games and in the 2010s we get the same
games as apps. either they cost money, has ridiculous in-app-purchases or show a bunch more ads
that those flash games ever did
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)15:58:58 No.3185742
>>3185715
Yeah no. 10-15 year old kids don't have money.
EA and big name companies most certainly are targetting the 25+, it's why you're getting so many
rehashes, playin' on nostalgia. You think Nintendo was targetting kids with their NES remake that
his this holiday season? Fuck no. It's targetting adults who want their kids to have the same
experience they had, and an excuse to buy one.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)16:03:52 No.3185743
>>3185740
okay, i misinterpreted the emulation thing.
but yes he TOLD me how much it cost, and sony might have TOLD some news article what it cost. but
it's not true. if the console magically dropped 100 USD without the chip i might come around a
bit, but cause is not always effect. maybe they planned that price drop anyway? probably not
relevant anyway since i don't remember the price dropping that much anyway
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)16:08:03 No.3185746
>>3185742
so in the end a 15 year old ends up playing the game
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)16:09:12 No.3185747
>>3185741
oh yeah, that's of course how it is and I have a better example
2002
oh look at these 4096 colours this bad boy with 1 and a half inches has, just fucking look at
these 3 whole games I can control with all these 12 buttons I have to press one at a time
2012
oh shit I can't decide which one out of millions shitty rip offs I want to play on my 5 inches
sreen with 16M color palette
seriously there are like 3 games I fully enjoyed playing on a smartphone and one of them was that
balancing ball using a gyroscope
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)16:09:29 No.3185748
>>3185742
>Yeah no. 10-15 year old kids don't have money.
that doesn't hold any weight. i didn't have much money when i was that age but i played games on
consoles anyway. i wonder why?
answer's christmas and birthday. plus what little money i did have went into games since i didn't
pay for rent or food
there's also that "free time" thing. most adults simply dont have time to play games. but kids do
and will pester their parents to buy stuff. so of course they target kids first
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)16:11:03 No.3185750
>>3185742
I'm pretty sure that little kids have their parents
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)16:28:07 No.3185755
at first I bothered my parents to buy new games which cost a fucking lot now when I remember it
but later I had my ps1 and 2 chipped and after that I hadn't bothered my parents to buy me new
games ever since. I was buying pirated stuff for I believe it was something around 5 dollars each
from a guy who worked at a local shop who had access to the internet, he even gave me a discount
for buying 5+ games lol
basically I was saving money from birthdays, namedays (for those who don't know what a nameday is
it's basically something like a second birthday but it's your name that gets celebrated because
each day celebrates different names), and so on
before I chipped my ps1 every game me and my brother had, we had a rule to play through the end
before we begged our parents to buy us a new game. It was cool until we bought FF7.
Boy, oh boy, did we screw ourselves back then
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)16:38:14 No.3185759
>>3185743
>2016
>Not understanding a single thing about economics.
Vidcons
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)16:38:28 No.3185760
>>3185755
are you swedish too? (the nameday thing)
thinking back it was crazy how much i spent on games in the 90s before i disovered piracy. a PSX
game cost 600 SEK per copy in those days (dunno how many USD that was in the 90s but that comes
to around 65 USD today).
but the feeling of biking to a store right when they opened and buying a physical copy of that
game you've read all about with your own birthday money and then playing it all day... it felt so
damn good.
PC master race in all its glory, digital-only games suck. you don't even truly own it nowadays,
you only have a licence to play it.
i never understood how the games didn't get much cheaper either with the "digital revolution". no
physical disk, no manual, no box, no shipping to stores, no storage... yet it's still 60 bucks?
sometimes it's still CHEAPER to buy a physical copy online than what they want on steam for
digital-only. and that includes shipping! i dont understand.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)16:42:56 No.3185763
>>3185759
nice brainpower, you're pretty good at this whole typing-on-a-keyboard thing. you'll probably be
able to form some kind of understandable post within a year instead of typical vague
semi-slander. throwing the word "economics" in there was a master stroke, really showed me that
you are someone whos opinion are to be reckoned with.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)16:49:48 No.3185764
>>3185735
>how much would a little chip cost, that was already ancient technology by then? especially for
sony, who could place an order to buy a million of them in bulk. any kind of development cost to
engineer the schematics can be discarded since they already had an existing model supporting
backwards compability out there.
You have to remember that when the PS3 was made, it was 1) using a bunch of weird as fuck
hardware, and 2) was selling at a loss, and one of the big issues with that was backwards
compatibility. In order to make the PS3 backwards compatible, they basically had to put the
entirety of a PS2 inside of it, plus the hardware and firmware required to get it to work with
the cell processor and bluray and all of that.
But, because of the high cost of the console, they were hardly moving any product (the US/JP
markets for PS3 sucked shit at launch because they had no idea what they were doing). So they
released a $400 new version that supplimented the decreasing costs of the hardware by removing
everything that was unnecessary, including backwards compatibility. So now, they selling a $500
console for $400, instead of an $800 console for $600.
By cutting out compatibly, they were able to shave a shitload of money off of the price, and even
then they were still selling the consoles for a loss. And by the time hardware became cheap
enough that it wasn't the case, they no longer had any reason to add in backwards compatibility
because it wouldn't change any market value.
On that note, the reason why the PS4 isn't backwards compatible is because of how fucking stupid
Sony is when it comes to hardware. Simply put, the PS4's hardware doesn't overlap with the PS3's
at all, and to keep the console cost reasonable at launch they had no desire to include it.
PS1 backwards compatibility is standard simply because the PS1 is nothing but an advanced CD
player.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)16:52:59 No.3185765
>>3185760
>you don't even truly own it nowadays, you only have a licence to play it.
Technically, that's how it always has been. Same with movies. You remember that FBI warning
before movies (maybe not, since you aren't American, but still) that says that it's illegal to
copy the film? It's because when you buy a movie or game physically, all you own is the physical
disk and the license to play the data on it. The difference is that it would require physically
taking the disk from you to enforce the law, and now since the license and game are digital they
can digitally revoke it.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)17:03:34 No.3185769
>>3185764
hm maybe that was so, still have a hard time believing it. i do remember reading it "sold with a
loss" though.
>PS1 backwards compatibility is standard simply because the PS1 is nothing but an advanced CD
player.
what do you mean by "standard", it was only PS2 that had backwards compatibility right?
>>3185765
even if it was the same on paper the real difference is huge. you owned the disk and could lend
it to friends or sell it to someone. if i died my kids would inherit it.
i don't even know what happens to my steam account now when i die, it probably just sits there
and eventually gets pruned from the database.
we're losing things with this digital-only era and it's not even reducing prices for us. sure its
convenient though.
one of the reasons i always pick GOG over steam is because you get a downloadable self-contained
installer. something to keep around, no dependencies, it's mine. even if it's digital it doesn't
feel like just a stream of data from some server like it does with steam. i can put that sucker
on a USB stick and lend it to a friend any day of the week (naturally id have to not play the
game myself while the stick is away)
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)17:10:10 No.3185771
>>3185760
naah, slovak here, I remember some games cost 2400 slovak crowns and the average sallary was like
10 -12000 a month after tax if not even less
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)17:12:41 No.3185773
>>3185747
you haven't tried '2048'
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)17:13:29 No.3185774
>>3185769
>what do you mean by "standard", it was only PS2 that had backwards compatibility right?
PS3, even the later models, can still run PS1 games. I don't own a PS4, but it wouldn't surprise
me if you could play PS1 games on them still.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)17:15:23 No.3185776
>>3185773
are you shitting me? the highest I've got was 256 after like 10 tries.
I'm more of a sudoku player
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)17:22:02 No.3185778
>>3185774
oh cool, i never tried with PSX games, i have a old PS2 machine to play those. really nice to
hear than i got PSX, PS2 and PS3 all covered with one machine
unfortunately PS4 doesn't support PSX games according to this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g_skW_0V9c
another thing with backwards compatibility, it would extend the library of the console greatly
and add so much value to the thing. imagine if PS5 launched today and you could play every single
playstation game ever on it. if they also dropped the stupid fee for playing online i would buy
it on launch.
you'd think that extra value of a huge game library was worth the extra hardware cost to make
backwards compatibility work. they should do it for the next console, PSX & PS2 cost would be
peanuts, PS3 hardware cheap and PS4 probably won't need any extra hardware since consoles these
days are gimped PCs under the hood
if they add (optional) upscaling and filters for improved experiences of old games I'd buy two
PS5 consoles, one for home and one for the cottage
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)17:22:36 No.3185779
>>3185688
NO. Sony had a very good reason for removing the Backwards compatibility. It was because all the
extra hardware meant that the PS3 cost $600 fucking dollars, almost twice what an Xbox 360 cost,
and Sony were getting their clocks cleaned in sales.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)17:31:53 No.3185782
>>3185779
people keep saying PS3s price all had to do with the backwards compatibility but i just dont buy
it. sure it added some cost but i doubt it was the heaviest flaw. if it was they wouldn't have
stuck it in there to begin with. that bluray probably went for more than the chip and we don't
know what else were in there that cost money, maybe they made really poor decisions on RAM or
cooling or power supply or CPU or whatever else. unless i see a really well-done comparison of
parts done by someone that has a head on his shoulders, going through everything in detail, then
i won't drop my belief that sony just did a fatcat move and sacrificed backwards compatibility
for just a fraction of construction cost, the real reason being that they wanted to also still
sell PS2 consoles or keep the games in limbo until future notice when they can sell them again.
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)17:43:31 No.3185785
well it sure wasn't over-priced for a blu-ray drive since that in my fat 80gigs version died
right before my 2 year warranty run out
So I sent it back and they sent me a brand new PS3 of the same version and in that the blu-ray
drive died 6 years after not playing on it as much as I did on my ps1/2 (I played on them every
fucking day which I cannot say about ps3)
you may remember me from this thread
http://swfchan.net/34/E5N76NJ.shtml
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)17:52:35 No.3185790
>>3185778
>just put the disk on top the ps4 instead of in a case
Disgusting
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)17:52:42 No.3185791
>>3185785
>you may remember me from this thread
hadn't seen that thread but nascence.swf was nice
i guess not dealing with failing disc drives are one of the hidden benefits of digital-download
games. though ive never had a problem with any of my disc drives myself, ever
>> [_] Anonymous 12/06/16(Tue)17:53:44 No.3185792
>>3185790
didn't notice, that's some gore right there
