Games released before PS4 are no longer appearing in search on PlayStation.com
delistedgames.com
delistedgames.com
But in this case, it seems to me like it’s as likely to be a mistake as anything else, seeing as the old pages themselves are still there and haven’t been removed, and the search functionality has only been missing them for less than a day (according to the linked article)
To me, it seems more likely that some overenthusiastic webdev re-implemented the site’s search functionality and accidentally missed indexing a bunch of older documents in the CMS. I’d be inclined to report the issue to Sony and then maybe give it another couple days for the mistake to be noticed and fixed, before really sounding the alarm.
For reference, here’s the “Ape Escape” page for the original PlayStation game, referenced in the article’s header image: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/games/ape-escape-psone/
And here’s the PS3 remaster of the game: https://www.playstation.com/en-nz/games/ape-escape-ps3/
See a recent issue, jump to conclusions, publish article, then request comment from the person/organisation who caused the outrage
Profit $$$
I think you're being too generous here. It's not even journalism. This is a web site set up just for this, it's not a journalistic publication. It's one guy making money off of other people's outrage.
I'd call it blogspam, but this guy doesn't even have a blog.
Journalism is any public communication about the happenings of the world. This article is public and is about something that happened in the world, so it is journalism.
You linked to the NZ version.
Read the forums [0]. The post I linked is the most on point. Other conversations you'll see people saying "it's a bug, they'll put it back up any day"....
.... That was about 4 months ago. and indeed the "accepted answer" workaround mentioned by some amzn staff went away during that time too.
[0]https://www.amazonforum.com/s/question/0D54P00007aXUYjSAO/di...
At the same time, on PC I can play almost any game it has existed in PC history.
Modernretrogamer did quite an interesting Youtube piece on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLebZyha74o
Had the PS4 been a PS3 with a new GPU and a clocked up Cell with an extra PPE would that have been a bad thing?
Sometimes, being bold means trying new architectures... But the important thing is making sure they are easy to adopt.
That's the irony of the 'lesson' of the PS3 being hard to develop for; Sega learned that one the hard way with the Saturn.
If it’s the latter then building the PS4 on the cell as well should have been fine as by that point it’s a well-known and well-understood architecture.
Probably, if only because non-exclusive AAA games already cost tens of millions of $$$ to develop, and no other consoles or PC's show any similarity with the Cell architecture. So you would either end up with really crappy PS versions of multi-platform games, or they would not be made for PS at all.
One example is sound effects, if you're generating sound effects, you can't do a good job of that without the context of the environment and what is making the noise, so you necessarily have very deep data dependencies.
[1]: (at about 22 minutes onward) https://oxide.computer/podcast/on-the-metal-9-jonathan-blow/
Another factor is how the projects are maintained and managed. The maintainers of RPCS3 are more active and pull requests get feedback and merged relatively quickly.
On Xenia side, pull requests can remain open for months even though they should be merged, and this has caused multiple (potential) contributors to stop making pull requests.
Source: I'm a contributor on Xenia
The fact a 9 year old emulator with talented devs with successful patreon is doing great work at such a high pace doesn't invalidate the fact PS3 is a nightmare to emulate.
However, if you want to play blu ray movies, you need to connect it to the internet to download a license. Sadly.
Just once.
It raises big concerns for archival—we'll eventually have high quality emulators for all of these systems, but to properly archive the games requires also archiving patches, which is difficult from both a logistical and copyright standpoint.
Since it's different architectures there's a bit of work involved in making sure the compatibility layer works as expected. It's a technical achievement that they've been able to do it as good as this.
There's also OG Xbox games available with a compatibility layer as well.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-backwards-compatibil...
However, it doesn't appear to come for free in terms of effort: I don't believe there's a kind of universal emulation layer that supports every game. When you put in a game disc for a support Xbox or 360 game the console doesn't install the game direct from the disc but rather downloads a compatible version from Microsoft. The disc simply proves that you own the game (and you still have to insert it every time you want to play the game).
This has some advantages and disadvantages. The obvious advantage is that the downloaded version could include enhancements like better visuals, sound effects, bug fixes, etc., and plenty of games on the backwards compatibility list do include some level of enhancement.
The obvious disadvantage is that you can't just play any old game you might own. I don't know why Microsoft haven't implemented some sort of universal backwards compatibility directly into the consoles but obviously they have their reasons.
The fact that the games are downloaded rather than installed from disc throws up another issue: licensing. It will never be the case that all games are supported through backwards compatibility due to content licensing issues (effectively Microsoft are redistributing content because of the way compatibility works).
Similarly, some games ship with altered content due to licensing issues. One fairly well know example here is GTA: San Andreas, where the soundtrack differs quite significantly from the version on the disc. The best way to play GTA: San Andreas on a console if you want to experience it as originally intended still remains original PS2 or Xbox hardware or, if you have one that works still, earlier models of PS3 that included PS2 backwards compatibility (this was removed in later revisions).
- Paid developers to emulate a Pentium III (original xbox) on a PowerPC (360) in the first place
- Subsequently paid developers to do the effective opposite - emulate PowerPC (360) on x86 (one, series)
Also consider it's far easier to emulate an original xbox on a one/series than it was on a 360
I don't mean to say that given Microsoft's development power it's a massive achievement but it's an achievement and should be assessed objectively, not with snarky comments.
?? 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...
An example of this sort of thing can be well-observed emulating the Nintendo 64. The CPU is a plain-standard MIPS III, but emulating the console's graphics chip hasn't always been accurate for a long time. Disney-released games on the Nintendo Wii would toy with the write-back cache to prevent emulators from booting their games.[1]
I can imagine the largest amounts of difficulty are outside the CPU for a polished-enough project.
[1] https://dolphin-emu.org/blog/2017/02/01/dolphin-progress-rep...
This race condition allowed anyone spamming (3k+ req/sec) this one specific public API to eventually (2 minutes) take any unbanned inactive Xbox360 gamertag that hadn't been migrated to the XboxOne platform.
Xbox has no bug bounty program; ironically this means the finder of this exploit made 10x what Microsoft would had given him, even by a generous estimate.
Only thanks to emulation or the fact that modern hardware is still able to boot into some flavour of DOS.
Plenty of people buy their movies multiple times, Betamax, VHS, LaserDisc, CD-ROM, DVD, BlueRay, HiDef BluRay, streaming service,...
Or their music, tape, cassette, LP, CD, mini-disc, mp3, streaming,....
I bought a PS4 to play Crash Bandicoot when I wasn’t sure it will ever come out on PC (also fuck exclusives - a whole another debate), but since I bought it on Steam the console is a glorified HBO player. I don’t even use it for Netflix because using my fire TV stick is faster.
Total cost excluding games is £800 for 7 years of smooth gameplay.
An £800 PC wouldn’t even play current games smoothly, never mind releases in 7 years.
Why do people assume you need a million $ PC to play current games smoothly? Is it the tech youtubers/influencers like Linus to blame for this madness where everything needs to be run at 4k 300Hz ULTRA settings to count as PC gaming?
PC gaming hardware for a good experience is more affordable than people think.
A 850-900 Euro PC (for us over the channel) with an RTX 2060 will definitely play all AAA titles very smoothly. Sure, not in native 4K, but consoles games(even next gen) are also not native 4K/ultra settings but rendered in lower fidelity then upscaled to whatever your TV output is.
>never mind releases in 7 years.
That PC will most definitely play games 7 years from now but on lower settings which will still match the visual fidelity of the 7 year old console as the game developers will have to lower game details to make the game playable on the then outdated console hardware.
Also, if you added another $800 to your PC every 7 years it would still outperform a console.
Also a gaming PC is still a usable computer, a console is not. Therefore a home PC can pay for itself by letting you code on it or whatever it is you may do.
This is what worries me with younger generations.
Just the other day when google shut down google music a top comment was pretty much 'sorry boomers no one keeps mp3s anymore we all stream get lost dinosaurs'[1] as if that streaming service would always be there...in a thread about a huge music SAAS shutting down!
My PC cost that much 2 or 3 years ago and it barely turns the fans on playing most games even now
Because I buy it once and I can play each and every game in the next 5-7 years without spendig money on hardware upgrade.
> The controls are terrible
I'm ok with them, I'm not into hardcore competitive multi fps
>the FPS is terrible
you mean you cannot get 60 FPS for each and every game? Yeah sure, but I don't really need it.
>the display is probably terrible if they’re using a TV
why would it be?
> paying money if you want to play multiplayer
I usually buy ps+ when it is discounted, so I pay about $5 in a month and I usually get two free games for that price.
>you paid an exorbitant price for a game that is rarely on sale
You can buy ps4 games secondhand usually half price if you wait a month after the release, at least in the uk. Also, even AAA titles are heavily discounted during the summer sale on ps4.
So you probably payed much more for hardware upgrades than I payed for the console and for the games in the last 7 years since ps4 is out :)
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.
And much smaller blast radius too. I don't do home banking on my xbox.
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. See for instance [0]. Recent generations of Xbox and PlayStation have been based on AMD64, but I don't see that this is a major factor.
edit It's a pity they don't offer decent keyboard+mouse support. Being able to use a console as a serious desktop web browser would be a very useful feature.
Some games offer M+KB support, and I think the new Xboxes have some support at a system level. I’m not sure if that extends to the system UI, though.
You probably could do this, as the console includes the Edge browser, including a Private Browsing feature. (At least, the Xbox One includes a pre-Chromium version of Edge, I'm not sure about the new Series consoles.) It doesn't strike me as a particularly bad idea, other than in terms of the user experience, likely with no support for keyboard and mouse.
This ignores the realities of modern day explosives, or even what can be cobbled together from household items. Any discernable difference between a PC & console all but disappears if they're detonated with even a modest explosive.
Context matters as well: A PC is more likely to be in a clearer zone, at the very least for better ventilation. A console on the other hand is much more likely to be in an area that is more densely populated with other consumer electronics. The television alone is likely to be sufficiently large to make a more impressive field of debris than a PC.
Obviously this is just taking the typical setups into account. All bets are off when dealing with a PC that has some truly exotic cooling mechanisms. Detonation under those conditions should, at minimum, be accompanied with evacuation orders for neighbors within a 3 to 4 block radius of your home.
Not really, consoles are now fully fledged X86_X64 PCs with closed source, security through obscurity OSs, similar to Windows and MacOS but with much more DRM to prevent you from running anything not signed by the manufacturer(cough, pirated content, cough).
You could say they're about the same risk in theory but malware on PC land hasn't been an issue in many years unless, as a user, you intentionally visit, download and run unknown stuff off dodgy torrents/pirate/p0rn websites, then nothing can really protect you.
The reason why consoles are "safer" is there's not much you can do with them other than access the manufacturer's "app store" which is thoroughly vetted, not because they have some security secret sauce that PCs don't have. Similarly, if you were to treat your PC like a console/tablet and only visit/download stuff off legitimate sources approved by the vendors then you're at no higher risk of malware.
Spec wise PC hardware is cheaper. Most people tend to spend more to build something much more powerful than a console, causing it to cost more.
> lets you kick back on a couch
Nothing is preventing you from doing this with a PC. Steam has a TV mode interface that is much like console interfaces. I use PS4 BT controllers with mine.
> setup and maintenance is a couple orders of less magnitude less complicated
I'll give you that on setup. A dedicated gaming PC doesn't require any more maintenance than a console. Everything auto updates now.
> much smaller attack surface for malware.
Sure, but if you have a computer dedicated to gaming the attack surface area is small. If you're worried about it don't use that computer for anything other than games.
> 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.
Check out Humble Bundle, it has similar value except you get to keep the games DRM free forever. Also it's not required, you have a choice.
I don't want that, I just want to play one or two games online, the ones I purchase. My friend has been telling me how much better Overwatch is on the PS4, and the fact that I'd need to pay to play online is ridiculous, shocking when I found out about it. It's not too expensive, but the principle of the thing annoys me.
The display is fine (I have a 4K HDR TV, which are now commonplace) and I can relax on my couch without messing around with a computer.
Take Horizon: Zero Dawn. It runs just fine on a 7-year old PS4 console. If you want to play on a PC, you need a PC that, at the level of a budget DIY system, will cost you around $600.
This doesn't even take into account the fact that this particular game didn't come to PC for 3.5 years.
They are flat-out easier to setup and maintain for the bulk of the customer base. For example, setting up multiple users (family accounts) is a breeze on my PS4 and Switch, because that is a use case they pay attention to.
Meanwhile over on my PC, Steam supports sharing (family view) but it only seems to work from the same base Windows account. What the hell is the point of that; if I'm not around the kids can download and install all kinds of crap (click OK on the near useless Windows UAC prompt???). Or, I can create their own Steam account and their own Windows account and do library sharing but then you share all the games, you can't pick what subset, what to include or exclude.
Two options, neither fully solving the problem.
That's only true for PS3 tho. Microsoft has been doing quite a good job regarding backwards compatibility, and you can still play 360 games in the new Series X.
Emulation alone wouldn't have worked because some folks more knowledgeable than I am have said that the PS3 chip was more powerful than even some modern CPUs. Streaming is really the only relatively universal and financially viable solution for that older library of games.
> VAN DER LEEUW: Even desktop chips nowadays, the fastest Intel stuff you can buy is not by far as powerful as the Cell CPU, but it’s very difficult to get power out of the Cell. I think it was ahead of its age, because it was a little bit more like how GPUs work nowadays, but it was maybe not balanced nicely and it was too hard to use. It overshot a little bit in power and undershot in usability, but it was definitely visionary.
https://www.gameinformer.com/feature/2019/12/03/the-first-25...
While I agree the backwards compatability on PC is nice. The new M1 MBP Pro benchmarks quite clearly show, in my opinion, that the hell bent persuit of backwards compatability, on a _40 Year Old_ instruction set, may have significantly held computing back.
They've produced a chip that goes toe to toe with the fastest x86s parts, but does it in 10W instead of 65W. And this is their first shot at it.
I think we may need to recalibrate our expectations for long term software support, for both PCs and Consoles, if we want the most out of our hardware.
What you are saying is really:
>At the same time, on X86 I can play almost any game it has existed in X86 history.
What you could compare to if you want apples to apples could be how many old ARM games you can play on X86 or how many old X86 games you can play on ARM.
You can still buy digital titles on the PS3, which came out 16 years ago!
Backwards compatibility was basically not even a thing until the 2000s. Now you’ve got the PS5 and Xbox Series sharing essentially the same underlying x86 architecture of the PS4 and Xbox One...kind of like a PC.
Exactly, it's because Nintendo is a Toy-maker (in a good sense), but Microsoft and Sony are Technology Corporations, just look at that PlayStation Classic BS, they cannot even copy Nintendo.
Compared to Nintendo, Microsoft have no gaming history and Sony is not that better.
Nintendo is the oldest of them, with a huge IP for pre-Playstation area (NES, SNES, GB, GBC, etc).
Nintendo is the first to had the opportunity to provide its old games to its console (Wii virtual console). This implies it is the first to have to deal with retro gaming emulation from a financial standpoint.
Nintendo platforms tends to be the most emulated ones with very good emulation. Also dev community tends to focus on Nintendo emulator far more.
Neither Sony or MS had those problems.
I suspect things are moving slightly for the Playstation world, but even with that Sony don't have a such big IP they can control and distribute them-self.
We shouldn't rely on foundations or the goodwill of private companies to save the material future historians will work on.
They're shutting down the online store for PS3 systems.
https://www.essentiallysports.com/sad-news-for-playstation-3...
You can still access the PS3 store from the PS3, but not from the web.
Yes, that means no discless PS5, and getting your games (at least those you want to keep) on disc.
These artifacts are 3D renders of all the old hardware.
[1]https://www.playstation.com/en-us/games/astros-playroom/
Also this generation 4->5 seems to be backward compatible
I'd like webpages to be pretty eternal, that is, statically rendered in a html file, put on a webserver somewhere that is maintained until perpetuity - you know, like the now famous Space Jam website.
But in practice that doesn't happen because Reasons. I'm glad there's the Internet Archive, and I hope there's others, but at the same time I'm aware that an operation like that is really expensive and not profitable.
Edit: I just got a 'thank you' mail from the IA for donating; apparently it only has 4000 sponsors. If you consider the IA an essential part of the internet, consider pushing a few dollars a month their way. If you work for an internet company, consider a corporate sponsorship. Let that dank investor money flow to something that isn't focused on optimizing engagement and ad impressions.
For other archiving, I know of some people who have accumulated vast caches of data and information, for example about Playstation games. Amateur archivists. I know one guy who's been obsessed with an old PS2 game for years now, he doesn't even like the game and the game is objectively bad, but he's spent a ton of time on getting all the data out of there; unused content, the content no longer accessible that used to be an online mode, and getting all the rules and things out. To the point where he taught himself coding and wrote a save file editor, I mean the code looks crude, crammed into a single file and very literal, but it works, it can be followed, and it fulfils a purpose.
Tl;dr don't underestimate individuals with singular, near obsessive interests on the internets. I'm sure some of you will feel seen.
...why? How many people ever looked at Sony's pages of game releases from the 90's? If a person who relies on that content wants to preserve it they should make their own copy (or a physical copy).
They probably know what I think they can do to themselves.