←back to thread

361 points ashitlerferad | 3 comments | | HN request time: 1.933s | source
Show context
dmonitor ◴[] No.42063608[source]
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Nintendo has had a trend for the past couple decades of releasing "sequel" consoles that are essentially a modernized version of the old one with extra features, compatible with everything that released on the predecessor.

With all three major console manufacturers prioritizing backwards compatibility, and the rise in PC gaming (universally backwards compatible), people are starting to catch on to the fact that old games don't "expire" after 10 years. I wouldn't be surprised if backwards compatibility just becomes the standard for all gaming consoles going forward.

Tangential, but I'm also interested in seeing how games that released on old consoles and are continued to be played, like Fortnite, will support aging hardware. I don't like that Epic can one day announce the game just no longer works on that console, rendering your purchases null and void until you upgrade your hardware, but I can't expect them to update that version of the game forever.

replies(12): >>42063816 #>>42064395 #>>42064760 #>>42065199 #>>42065211 #>>42065278 #>>42067231 #>>42067586 #>>42067644 #>>42070675 #>>42075845 #>>42078588 #
jerf ◴[] No.42064395[source]
Games don't have the generational differences they used to. They're mature now. Tech is rarely the blocker anymore. The Switch was "underpowered" at release and is even more underpowered now but the space of "games that would run well on the Switch" is still fairly unexplored, not because anybody is bad but because the space is so big now.

That hardware can no longer compete with platforms that don't throw away their entire library on every release is probably one of the first impacts of games finally maturing. My "next console" was a Steam Deck for partially this very reason, the fact that it came preloaded with years of previous acquisitions.

We're also just seeing the leading edge of the game industry having to deal with the fact that it now has to compete against itself. There's been a number of articles about how $NEW_GAME never even reached a peak player count of something like Skyrim. I think that's currently being written as a sort of a "ha ha, that's sorta funny", but it represents a real problem. It is not unsolvable; Hollywood has always faced this issue and it has historically managed to make money anyhow. But I think AAA gaming is only just beginning to reckon with the fact that they aren't going to get a "free reset" on every console generation. $NEW_GAME really is is competition with Skyrim now, along with a lot of other things. It's not a joke, it's an emerging reality the industry is going to have to grapple with.

replies(9): >>42065253 #>>42067346 #>>42067525 #>>42067617 #>>42069518 #>>42070357 #>>42071209 #>>42071809 #>>42072828 #
spwa4 ◴[] No.42065253[source]
Either that, or you've gotten older. The young always want to play that one specific NEW game. Currently that usually means PS5, either Fortnite or Call Of Duty (and yes that one specific version). PS5 only has PS4 backward compatibility, and it isn't going to be emulated any time soon.
replies(7): >>42065689 #>>42065884 #>>42065946 #>>42066043 #>>42066252 #>>42066406 #>>42066528 #
fmbb ◴[] No.42066043[source]
> PS5 only has PS4 backward compatibility, and it isn't going to be emulated any time soon.

But that compatibility is not achieved with emulation, right?

The PS6 can hopefully keep compatibility with PS5 and PS4 in a similar way. Unless we are nearing some sort of ARM horizon for consoles, that is.

replies(2): >>42066118 #>>42070622 #
1. hajile ◴[] No.42070622[source]
RISC-V makes the most sense. It means they wouldn't be locked into one CPU supplier. Requiring a GPU based on RISC-V (or a separate open GPU ISA) could further insulate them from the current AMD lock-in.
replies(1): >>42075042 #
2. spwa4 ◴[] No.42075042[source]
I think you'll find it's a business decision, not technical limitations. Consoles are sold at a loss, so Sony needs people to buy games. Preventing old games from running helps with that.
replies(1): >>42077833 #
3. hajile ◴[] No.42077833[source]
Keeping old games running on new hardware is ESSENTIAL for continued profits. Let's do the math.

PSN had 123M subscriptions in 2023. Supposedly, 70% were essential, 13% were extra, and 17% were premium. Let's get the highest (per month) and lowest (per year) costs for each tier to give us a PSN income range.

Essential $6.9B to $10.3B

Extra $2.2B to $2.9B

Premium $3.3B to $4.5B

That gives a range between $12.4B to $17.7B or an average of almost exactly $15B.

Sony Playstation generated $30B total revenue in 2023.

HALF of their revenue is from PSN. The big selling point of the Extra/Premium subscriptions is game access. If these users switched back down to Essential because the PSN game service doesn't work, that would represent a $2.5B to $3B drop in revenue or around 10%.

Sony supposedly makes around 30% of the asking price for new games. Making up $3B in lost revenue would require selling an extra $9B in games. Average video game prices in the US are $70 which means they'd have to sell almost 130M more games than they currently project they will sell.

There are around 62M PS5 consoles meaning they'd have to sell an average of 2 more AAA games than projected every single year. I simply don't think that is possible.