RPCS3 emulator, the PS3 is seriously starting to be emulated!
- Thread starter Cyan
- Start date
That ps3 emulator is surprising considering the ps2 emulator needs really beefy hardware
But surely that triple resolution is just scaling
Well beefy hardware 7, 8 years ago. Nowadays PCSX2 runs on any low end machine. I've run it already on Atom based Pentium N3540 with no discrete GPU. Final Fantasy 10 ran quite well for the most part. And that is a 7.5W CPU.
phoenix_chipset
Regular
Killzone 2 was impressive because of the lighting, physics and effects. Not so much the textures ; it had quincunx AA and tons of post processing to cover them up.never thought those textures looked that good, ever. In fact the praised Killzone 2 looked to me like a brown and grey mess of pixels and never got the hype and drooling over it. The difference can be seen in the video above. It's the same game but they look like totally different games when played at 4k!Interesting tweet btw.
Haven't they got it wrong with pixel counting though? They say in the article that playing those games at "triple the resolution"... 4K -according to DF- is 4 1080p screens, so 4k is is like 9 720p screens
Performance wasn't good though.
Everyone has x hours of gaming time. If you spend those x hours playing your old library, you won't have time to play new games. There will definitely be a real financial impact of providing free BC to your existing library, and potentially depending on per-title profit margins selling old games.
It will barely have an impact. Publishers are not paid based on hours spent. They are paid on units sold and rarely a gamer wont buy that new great game because of an old game regardless if he will finish it or not. Also there are gaming priorities. People priotitize the games for which the console was bought for.
Like mobile hasnt impact other forms of gaming? (though we know it has) even though it generally gives an inferior form of gaming, shifty is right, anything that takes time will lessen sales
Maybe, maybe not. The point is, if you take away the choice entirely, then you don't have to deal with that possibility at all.
Speculation. We can't really say. The important point is it isn't a zero sum and there's theoretically reason to control what games gamers have access to.
And DLC bought. 8 hours spent playing the original Spyro is 8 hours not spending time in the latest pay-to-win extravaganza. That's 8 hours of dipping into SWBF2 and Shadow of War loot boxes lost.
Again, speculation. Certainly some people buy games without playing them. Others won't buy new games until their current one is properly put down (completed or abandoned). I doubt anyone has any idea what those numbers are.
Absolutely, and one reason why I've argued BC isn't important because the console is bought to play the next-gen games. But if no-one cares to play BC titles, it doesn't matter if they aren't supported. And if gamers want BC supported, then they'll be spending some time not playing the current games but playing BC games instead, unless there's reason to believe that their next-gen gaming time allocation isn't affected and their BC gaming time eats into some other part of their time budget, like giving up baking or reading or taking the kids to football in order to play Crash Team Racing instead... Realistically you can't have gamers playing BC games without that affecting time spent play current-gen games.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Keep in mind that BC has revenue generating potential as well. I'm sure both Microsoft and Activision were quite pleased with the sales of X360 COD: BO (forget which version) lighting up the NPD sales charts after BC was enabled for it on XBO.
Granted not many previous gen titles are going to do nearly so well. But any sort of residual sales are free. Especially in a digital marketplace with no physical media costs associated with it. At that point even 1 sale is just free money.
Regards,
SB
Similar threads
