Games released before PS4 are no longer appearing in search on PlayStation.com

Post by nix23 » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 3:44 PM UTC

piva00 wrote: post #130

nix23 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah amazing (me playing a DOS game on a FreeBSD PowerPC machine), Thanks anyway Microsoft ;)

Playing one DOS game. Not supporting a whole platform and the software developed for it with a multitude of stakeholders (consumers, game developers, game publishers), lots of contracts and responsibilities to be held against those contracts. Verifying if each game runs properly on the emulation layer or if there will be unforeseen bugs later in the game progression due to some weird combination of programming voodoo…

Post by ascagnel_ » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

mnd999 wrote: post #107

csharptwdec19 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a challenge game companies have had for a long time. Sometimes, being bold means trying new architectures... But the important thing is making sure they are easy to adopt. That's the irony of the 'lesson' of the PS3 being hard to develop for; Sega learned that one the hard way with the Saturn.

I guess that’s my question, was the Cell fundamentally bad or was it just too new, different and hard to adopt? If it’s the latter then building the PS4 on the cell as well should have been fine as by that point it’s a well-known and well-understood architecture.

Post by ascagnel_ » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 3:55 PM UTC

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #115

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Malware on a large scale on computers, be them PCs, Macs or Linux hasn't been a problem for years unless you as a user engage in downloading shady stuff from dodgy sources. The reason consoles are safer is that you can't do any dodgy downloads on them beyond the manufacturer's walled garden, similar to how mobile devices work, not because they have magic security pixie dust making them invulnerable to malware, especi…

> The reason consoles are safer is that you can't do any dodgy downloads on them beyond the manufacturer's walled garden, similar to how mobile devices work, not because they have magic security pixie dust making them invulnerable to malware, especially since they share the same X86 hardware as PCs. That's not the whole story. The Xbox takes sandboxing very seriously, and provides isolation way beyond a typical PC. S…

Post by claudiawerner » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 4:05 PM UTC

egypturnash wrote: post #76

vultour wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think I’ll ever understand people that buy consoles, especially for FPS games. The controls are terrible, the FPS is terrible, the display is probably terrible if they’re using a TV, and the number one reason I will never understand: paying money if you want to play multiplayer. So you’ve already paid money for the console, you paid an exorbitant price for a game that is rarely on sale, and now you have to pa…

Costs less, lets you kick back on a couch, setup and maintenance is a couple orders of less magnitude less complicated, much smaller attack surface for malware. Oh yeah, and the internet subscription also tends to come with a constant stream of free games. Every month there’s a couple new things to play that cost more than your month’s subscription.

Post by dmonitor » Wed, Nov 18, 2020, 4:33 PM UTC

nix23 wrote: post #131

piva00 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playing one DOS game. Not supporting a whole platform and the software developed for it with a multitude of stakeholders (consumers, game developers, game publishers), lots of contracts and responsibilities to be held against those contracts. Verifying if each game runs properly on the emulation layer or if there will be unforeseen bugs later in the game progression due to some weird combination of programming voodoo…

>Playing one DOS game. ?? No with dos-box you can nearly play all of them. It's just one emulator but then you have also NES SNES GB SGB Saturn Wii PS1/2/3 PSP Wine Atari Commodore etc...