Am*I really can't see them using an x86 CPU after the billions they spent on the Cell (and years of pushing it on developers). My bet is they're going to use a CPU based on the Cell/ARM architecture integrated with a AMD GPU and an APU-based design.

Also I'm still yet to hear anything on even PS2 backward compatibility, if PS4 doesn't at least have this, I will probably be skipping it, especially if they go ahead with the crappy "no-used games" DRM this article is implying, which if does happen, will make hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs that work in game stores and effectively kill competition on game pricing. I will certainly be skipping this console if this does happen, as I don't buy a single game at full price.

I see no reason for it not to be x86, it wouldn't require any extra r&d, and i believe it would be more familiar to code for. Plus, they could toss a cell processor into the chipset for backwards compatibility.

And i doubt ps2 backwards compatibility, they dumped it in the latter verions of the ps3 after all. DRM i doubt as that would kill a lot of jobs, sales, and marketing.

Am*Also I'm still yet to hear anything on even PS2 backward compatibility, if PS4 doesn't at least have this, I will probably be skipping it, especially if they go ahead with the crappy "no-used games" DRM this article is implying, which if does happen, will make hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs that work in game stores and effectively kill competition on game pricing for their console. I will certainly be skipping this console if this does happen, as I don't buy a single game at full price.

It cost Sony and arm and a leg to put it in the first few sku's of the PS3 so I doubt we'll see it in the PS4 (unless they find a VERY cheap way to emulate it).

And I really don't see Sony, or Microsoft for that matter, implementing an anti used-game DRM scheme. The outcry would be enormous, and just as you said, the economic outcome speaks for itself. If one of the 2 companies implemented it though, the other company would tout their console's ability to play used games as a "feature". That would make things very interesting.....

Dos101It cost Sony and arm and a leg to put it in the first few sku's of the PS3 so I doubt we'll see it in the PS4 (unless they find a VERY cheap way to emulate it).

And I really don't see Sony, or Microsoft for that matter, implementing an anti used-game DRM scheme. The outcry would be enormous, and just as you said, the economic outcome speaks for itself. If one of the 2 companies implemented it though, the other company would tout their console's ability to play used games as a "feature". That would make things very interesting.....

It would be funny for them to just put PCSX2 on there with a copy of a PS2 BIOS on board, with a menu icon saying "PS2"
Seeing as it is going to have an x86-64 CPU with a DX9 capable GPU.
I mean, they could always take advantage of an open source product, right?

I can hope at least :P

VulpesveritasIt would be funny for them to just put PCSX2 on there with a copy of a PS2 BIOS on board, with a menu icon saying "PS2"
Seeing as it is going to have an x86-64 CPU with a DX9 capable GPU.
I mean, they could always take advantage of an open source product, right?

I can hope at least :P

Haha that would make my day! :D

Am*I really can't see them using an x86 CPU after the billions they spent on the Cell (and years of pushing it on developers). My bet is they're going to use a CPU based on the Cell/ARM architecture integrated with a AMD GPU on-chip as an APU-based design.

Also I'm still yet to hear anything on even PS2 backward compatibility, if PS4 doesn't at least have this, I will probably be skipping it, especially if they go ahead with the crappy "no-used games" DRM this article is implying, which if does happen, will make hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs that work in game stores and effectively kill competition on game pricing for their console. I will certainly be skipping this console if this does happen, as I don't buy a single game at full price.

1) There's no economic reason for Sony to have backward compatibility built into the PS4. They want to sell new consoles, and they want to sell new games.
2) There are not "hundreds of thousands" of people employed in game stores; a few thousand across the globe would be extremely generous, making close to minimum wage, who can easily go and get another job for the same wage.
3) If you don't buy console games at full price, they don't care about you; it means you don't have enough money to buy-in to their systems in the way they want.

Inceptor1) There's no economic reason for Sony to have backward compatibility built into the PS4. They want to sell new consoles, and they want to sell new games.
2) There are not "hundreds of thousands" of people employed in game stores; a few thousand across the globe would be extremely generous, making close to minimum wage, who can easily go and get another job for the same wage.
3) If you don't buy console games at full price, they don't care about you; it means you don't have enough money to buy-in to their systems in the way they want.

1. true. Though a lot of people wold like it if they had backwards compatibility as it is a convenience and therefore would sell better.
2. there are 6627 gamestops, which much of their business is used games. Most gamestop stores hold 5-15 employees. That's gamestop alone. You'd see them lose a lot of business over time. I would say tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of jobs is realistic. And with the global economy the way it is now, it isn't easy to go get another job at any wagepoint - I've been trying to get a second part-time job for months now for example.
3. True for the most part, but over time the lower cost games get people to stick to a console for a longer period of time and buy more titles in the long run at full price.

Vulpesveritas2. there are 6627 gamestops, which much of their business is used games. Most gamestop stores hold 5-15 employees. That's gamestop alone. You'd see them lose a lot of business over time. I would say tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of jobs is realistic. And with the global economy the way it is now, it isn't easy to go get another job at any wagepoint - I've been trying to get a second part-time job for months now for example.

I did not know that. But I think that that would be the vast majority of the employees right there.
And I don't think it would mean all of them losing their jobs, but quite a few would.

Here's a link to an SEC archive filing made by Gamestop from 2009:

Link

And an excerpt:

Employees

We have approximately 17,000 full-time salaried and hourly employees and between 28,000 and 42,000 part-time hourly employees worldwide, depending on the time of year. Fluctuation in the number of part-time hourly employees is due to the seasonality of our business

So, 17000 full time, most will be hourly, it's retail, and a minimum of 28000 part time. Most of the part time would be axed, some of the full time might as well. But not all would lose their jobs.
Nearly all of those part time jobs are held by teenagers and students in their twenties, I can see a lot of people not caring. Sorry.

InceptorI did not know that. But I think that that would be the vast majority of the employees right there.
And I don't think it would mean all of them losing their jobs, but quite a few would.

Here's a link to an SEC archive filing made by Gamestop from 2009:

Link

And an excerpt:


So, 17000 full time, most will be hourly, it's retail, and a minimum of 28000 part time. Most of the part time would be axed, some of the full time might as well. But not all would lose their jobs.
Nearly all of those part time jobs are held by teenagers and students in their twenties, I can see a lot of people not caring. Sorry.

Some of us in our late teens / early twenties probably will care. But yes, most likely the part time employees will be the first to be cut.

Inceptor1) There's no economic reason for Sony to have backward compatibility built into the PS4. They want to sell new consoles, and they want to sell new games.
2) There are not "hundreds of thousands" of people employed in game stores; a few thousand across the globe would be extremely generous, making close to minimum wage, who can easily go and get another job for the same wage.
3) If you don't buy console games at full price, they don't care about you; it means you don't have enough money to buy-in to their systems in the way they want.

1. You're completely wrong. There is a pretty big reason to have backwards compatibility, as it prolongs the life of the previous gen console with an already established audience and a proven record while getting more people who never owned one, to buy the new one to have access (and buy software) to both. That in turn means they can make money from developers on board with their old AND new consoles instead of directly killing off their own income stream and 60+ million potential customers.
2. You obviously don't have a clue. There are between 10,000-20,000 employed in the UK alone, and around 60,000 at least in the US. Take into consideration the rest of the world and independent game stores and you easily have 100,000 employees, and if it was that easy to get better jobs for them, they'd have switched already.
3. Another clueless statement. Right now, the vast majority of their revenue comes from selling to distributors and retailers, so they only see a fraction of their game's retail value (10%-25% at best) because the rest goes to covering retailer's operating costs. If they're planning on making online distribution their main source of selling games, they can cut the price of their games by even 50%-75% and still see better returns than selling to retailers since it factors out shipping, manufacturing and the retailer's markup. Selling at a lower price would get far more people to buy the product -- simple as that. Take a look at Steam and how much games they sell at full price or at a discounted price during sales, it's pretty self-explanatory.

Inceptorwho can easily go and get another job for the same wage.

Yeaaahhh, that's what it's like with jobs these days. So much to chose from!

Am*I really can't see them using an x86 CPU after the billions they spent on the Cell (and years of pushing it on developers).

I don't think so, If something didn't work as well as they wanted to, they have to move on. Like Apple + Power PC.

I believe an APU is a great choice for a PS3 but maybe not the greatest. Who knows. What I belive is that you don't see Sony failing very often. Ps1, ps2 were successful, Ps3 well, it was far behind at first, but in the long run it proved to be succesful too.

Inceptor1) There's no economic reason for Sony to have backward compatibility built into the PS4. They want to sell new consoles, and they want to sell new games.

I agree it adds cost. While we have no evidence of "huge" backward compatibility in consoles, it is a good point for the user to have "some" backward compatibility. Xbox 360 was limited in this aspect but runs several Xbox games, nintendo wii is backward compatible with the gamecube. PS2 is backward compatible with PS1 and The first 2 nintendo DS (DS and DS lite) are compatible with the gameboy advance but not classic gameboy, while the gameboy advance was.

I see backward compatibility an important point in PC software only, PC would be dead if you couldn't run the same software from version to version. While sometimes may not be an smooth transition.

FrickYeaaahhh, that's what it's like with jobs these days. So much to chose from!

:( Ffff don't even remind me.... I'm having a hard time getting a job myself... why, polititians who rule the world, why. Why?? F!!! :shadedshu