Ars Technica? BBC? The PS3 issues were BluRay related. We all know that, not because the internet is full of lies but because it was reported by the information networks from the executives at Sony. RSX was never blamed for delays and your suggestion is the first I've ever heard.
And then you don't need to connect the XB1 anymore once you "converted" all your games? That method would risk open piracy, you could resell your disc used. Or if there's some invalidation happening, a used game wouldn't work if the seller already activated it. So this is a choice between DRM hell and piracy. A true hardware BC with a drive doesn't have this problem.
And then you don't need to connect the XB1 anymore once you "converted" all your games? That method would risk open piracy, you could resell your disc used. Or if there's some invalidation happening, a used game wouldn't work if the seller already activated it. So this is a choice between DRM hell and piracy. A true hardware BC with a drive doesn't have this problem.
BTW, how does the BC on XB1 avoid this? I suppose the user have to insert the 360 disc to play the downloaded XB1 version?
Food for toughts, current gen console game sales are only 25% digital. IHS research firm expects it will grow to 34% digital in 2017 (for PS4/XB1). So most gamers next gen who want BC will want to use the discs they purchased. Those who live in SF, LA and Seattle will be fine with full digital I guess.
and this off topic is now done on my part.I have yet to insert any physical disc media into an xbox one too, so yea BC is overrated.
The basic OS also existed years before the PS3 existed. Sony was testing the XMB on their PSX console which was a released product. I am pretty sure Sony didnt meet deadlines for many things but most likely they would have preferred to release in 2006 regardless and fix things through firmware updates. The BR being the primary cause is a more likely explanation considering the extra delay of the European release.Actually I never believed the spring 2006 launch was real. It is true that they didn't have a lot ready for that and it's a very odd time to do a WW launch. I personally believe that date was little more than to make it seem it's coming near after the 360, sorry don't have a official link of that. Just my opinion. Maybe someone at some point at Sony believed that spring launch was possible, who knows... The fact is that at the end of the day, they had trouble launching it in late 2006 because of Blu-ray issues and had to further postpone the European launch, these issues would have been even worse at spring.
Console launches are often a chaotic and many things aren't ready. Final silicon very often comes at the latest possible stage. RSX was the least of their problems and that Eurogamer link states nothing to back you up. 360 launched with a bleeding edge 90nm process with new advanced GPU architecture a year before the PS3 and the dev kits only got the final silicon 2-3 months before the launch. http://www.gamezone.com/originals/final-360-developers-kit-arrives (the original source is dead) The conservative design of the RSX a year later was easy in comparison. nVidia already launched their more advanced next gen architecture the same time PS3 launched in 2006. In the end your RSX angle just doesn't hold any water, Blu-ray was the largest problem Sony faced and they were very committed to it
Cool story....
The aspect of the GS that makes it challenging to emulate is the 2,560-bit internal bus. I'm sure I've told this story before but I'll tell it again. Back in 1998/99 I was on a secondment to the UK's Department of Trade & Industry (the Government Department that deals with commerce issues) which was home to the Export Control Organisation (ECO). The ECO is a regulator that controls the export of strategic goods (like military equipment), dual-use goods (like advanced manufacturing equipment) and advanced technology (like high-grade cryptography and supercomputers). Some things need licence before they can be exported (or indeed now, traded between overseas countries) because of their inherent opportunity for mis-use.
We received an enquiry for Sony Europe about this new supercomputer technology they had and wanted to come and talk to us about so they could work how they could manage exports of a new product between EU Member States. They came in and told us the product was the "successor to the PlayStation" and they believed it was classified as supercomputer under EU Dual-Use regulations (the EU's law). Bear in mind, this was before Sony had announced PlayStation 2. We were sceptical of course but the Sony guys explained that the internal bus was 2,560 bits wide and operated at whatever frequency and the EU had a definition on supercomputers that includes a threshold for data throughput of about half that the bandwidth of the GS. We some spent time on this and eventually concludes that it wasn't a supercomputer because the bandwidth was not user addressable - i.e. it was high bandwidth but limited in use case scenarios.
I assume Sony had similar discussions with other regulators and I recall the press story that was carried in many places that Iraq's Suddam Hussein was planning to build a super computer comprised of networked PS2s.
As a PlayStation owner it was utterly cool to know that PS2 was coming but awful that I couldn't tell anybody about it. My most relevant claim to non-fame thanks to the Official Secrets Act. Thanks, Government
...
