What the PS3 and Xbox 360 can do that next-gen still can't | Hacker News Reader

What the PS3 and Xbox 360 can do that next-gen still can't

redbull.com

28 pointsabcv08557 comments

I miss Playstation 1/2 days, where you just insert disc and play. No install, no online registration, no social sharing whatnot crap, endless downloading, paying for services you don't need/want.

But no online play at all! That's about the time when serious gamers started to defect to PC.

PS2, Dreamcast had online games. From what I read some of them can even be played.

Dreamcast had a modem that was supported by very few games. There was an optional Ethernet adapter that's very rare and supported by even fewer.

The ethernet on the PS2 was optional until one of the later hardware releases. Very few games were released using it until after the PS3 had already shipped.

Well the Dreamcast was a very early gaming console (1998, even the PS2 is from 2000) so obviously only a few games were developed with online gaming in mind (although a lot of them boasted online features like rankings or bonus content). Still, I have very fond memories of online sessions on Chu Chu Rocket, Phantasy Star Online and Quake III Arena. I believe this predates any other initiative of console online gaming by at least a few years.

Maybe I'm a little biased (because nostalgia, and Jet Set Radio), but I think the Dreamcast was ahead of its time by a margin

Agreed. I recently purchased a PS3 and Gran Turismo 5, and I had to wait more than an hour just to start the game, because of updates to GT5. It downloaded around 25 patches, varying in size from 200MB to 1GB.

You should be thankful for those patches as the version on the disc you bought is virtually unplayable. The goods didn't come until Spec II in my opinion, nearly 1 year after initial release.

if there was no ability to patch, there would be much greater pressure to make sure the game is not broken out of the box.

I miss SNES days, where you just insert a cartridge and play -- with no loading times ;)

I expect even past gen consoles could run SNES games without loading times. Loading times are the price you play for advancements in other areas.

> I expect even past gen consoles could run SNES games without loading times.

Point is that an SNES could play SNES games with essentially no loading time.

My point is that's because they were basic.

Also there has been an evolution of games that have lead to games accepting loading times. If we didn't developers would find ways to get rid of them. As it is there isn't enough incentive for them to do it, if they can get away with it and put more effort into that lucrative DLC ;)

Well, I think it was more because cartridges were solid state. You'll never beat solid state loading times with a spinning disc, no matter how fast you spin that disc...

True, but we have SSD's now and they take ages, plus we have more ram that 1000's of those cartridges combined.

I think the leap to disks was due to the need for space (sound especially) and loading came as a cost. Perhaps the next-next-generation will all be downloaded onto SSD and we can do away with loading times again :D

I miss pulling a pack of cards out of my pocket, no loading times, no waiting for console to boot times ;)

I miss whistling out a tune while walking the streets, no need to stop walking, no need to shuffle the deck ;)

Another key part of the PS1 PS2 era was every console fanboy explained that PCs sucked because (insert description of ps4 / xbox one console PITA here).

I will not be buying another console. I've had PC hardware attached to my TV for over a decade for mythtv, a simple PC with steam installed and a TV plugged in, instead of a monitor, will be my next console. Probably next time I upgrade my mythtv frontend it also run steam.

Or perhaps I'll buy a generic $50 android "pc" tv thing and play everything on my phone, on my TV. Probably both setups.

As a bonus all current gen minus one or at worst current gen minus two games can be easily played on a PC.

I actually don't mind much of these things that have been omitted from the current generation of games consoles.

Paying for multiplayer access with the PS4 doesn't seem too egregious, especially since their online service also introduces a bunch of new social and sharing features. It also includes the benefits that PS+ had in the PS3 era - discounts on games, free games, etc.

The PS4 is actually a highly capable media centre - as long as you're not trying to stream from your local network. For me and all of my friends, that's not a problem. Since I don't watch much TV, BBC iPlayer and Netflix fulfils 90% of my entertainment needs.

I think we can all agree that while mildly frustrating, breaking backwards compatibility is a usually good thing.

The lack of external storage may indeed be a bummer. Though I have yet to see anyone complain about hitting filling up their PS4's disk. Storing shared videos (and to a lesser extent, screenshots) in the cloud alleviates some of that, I would imagine.

Personally I would love the option to plug in an ssd-disk, solely for those games with massive loading times. That's the setup I have on my PC, and it works very well.

It'll void your warranty, but I've heard of people replacing the internal disk in their PS4 with an SSD, and it does exactly what you'd expect when it comes to load times.

I'm amazed that Sony/MS don't offer it as an option at a fat markup, I guess they will wait until later in this generation.

Replacing harddrive on PS4 does not void warranty, they even have a guide for doing it: https://support.us.playstation.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5...

Why not plug in a solid state SSD-disk drive? That's the setup I have on my console, and it works very well.

The PS3 really impressed me with it's versatility as a media station. It's sad that they're not continuing that tradition.

They are.

http://gamerant.com/ps4-media-server-features-update/

I saw a lot of discussion about the mp3 and cd playback features, which seem relevant for music, but nothing about video.

I agree, up until my first-gen PS3 failed in January this year I used it for everything gaming and media related, especially streaming local content from my media server. What sold me lock and stock at the time was the built-in blu-ray player, the whole package was a fantastic all-in-one bargain when I built my first 5.1 surround system with 40" 1080p LCD telly back in 2007.

Maybe some of the loss of functionality in the PS4 could be re-enabled with future firmware updates if there's enough demand/complaining.

Personally I'm more likely to get a replacement used PS3 once the prices dip a bit more.

Come to Steam! We got cookies.

Besides the exclusive titles I don't know why should anyone buy a console right now for gaming.

I would say:

- Low barrier to entry / technical know how.

- Future proofing, a next gen console will probably still be running the latest games in 7 years time.

- Level playing field. All gamers online have the same input devices, hardware and performance. No getting you ass whooped because someone has the game running at 60fps to your 30.

- Easy TV hook up - Not everyone has a 1080p laptop or large external monitor. Most people will have a 32"+ HD ready TV.

- Simple input method. You get an easy input method out of the box, no complicated keyboard inputs, or expensive lagless mice to buy.

- Camera / Kinect games, for fitness, dancing etc (if that's your bag)

- Online/service stickyness. Achievements and trophies, friends etc.

- Marketing, big big factor. I have never seen a steam TV ad.

- One off bundled cost, perhaps steam box(s) will address this.

- Security (PSN hacks aside) I don't know of any console viruses.

I don't agree with all of these, but it could help answer your question.

>>Not everyone has a 1080p laptop or large external monitor. Most people will have a 32"+ HD ready TV.

Isn't a 32" HD Ready TV a large external monitor?

Some metrics would consider 32 to even be too small of a monitor

Plugging a PC into a TV has always been a faf, may not be now, but perhaps that leads onto the marketing factor.

It's pretty much Plug-and-Play in my experience.

To some, the whole "if you're not any good at a game, pay money for a crutch" is a bug, to others, its a feature.

Some of your claims are weird. I'm not sure what makes a HDMI cable magically know its supposed to be harder to plug in because its connecting a PC rather than a console.

Knowing you can plug a PC into a TV isn't something most people know about. You need special graphics cards or adapters and have to deal with weird resolutions and oversized images.

Consoles just work...

HN is generally overly pessimistic about the skills of the general public and overly optimistic about their own. Furthermore these are gamers, well not real gamers but console FPS players, but still a technological leap past the average reality TV viewer.

I scrolled around tigerdirect just for fun. It appears you'd have to work pretty hard to buy a video card that doesn't have HDMI out.

As a secret knowledge that horse left the barn a decade or so ago. Too many people have sat in meetings/classes where some drone plugs his laptop into a TV projector and reads a powerpoint to the bored sleepy audience, and calls it a great presentation.

I am certain its possible to find a way to make it not work, for either consoles or PCs.

The point is if consoles aren't any better than PCs anymore because not only are they no longer less of a PITA, they're actually now more of a PITA than a PC, even an extremely minor hassle at the hardware level results in the PC beating the console as an overall gaming system.

The ogliopoly or whatever of console mfgrs results in anti-consumer actions that suck. The PC world is hardly perfect, just better off.

This is bad article because it ignores that both Microsoft and Sony made statements about media centre and external storage functionality in future updates.

I suppose we'll wait for those updates then.

The marketing term for that is: Vaporware.

I miss hooking up 2-4 controllers and play with your gang online. Only a limited few support this. You just need some friends to bring their controller and that one friend that doesn't have a controller can use the spare one (the one with the trigger that doesn't spring back like the others). No they want you to just stay home and use a headset to talk with your friends. xbox one tries to fill the gap by letting you share gameplay quickly. (because that is what you basically do when you are together, you all show everyone cool stuff and laugh about fails).

My experience with the xbox one so far is that it is not all that smooth, and I can turn someone elses xbox off by saying it (even when im off screen) Think its possible for the kinect to watch the lips of the signed in player so it can verify that the player is speaking, not the troll that masters the "xbox turn off, yes" command. But in the end for me the xbox voice commands are fun and I don't think it will fade away since it is easier to use voice. (Also needs fixing, is the part where a paused game randomly resumes)

I find it a lot easier to press the xbox button than say, "Xbox.... Go Home".

Perhaps for things like "Xbox record that" but most stuff I think the voice commands are a novelty.

Having to pay for multiplayer on the PS4 is somewhat unfortunate compared to not paying on the PS3, but the article really doesn't do justice to what a great value PS+ is. I was an Xbox 360 gamer for most of the last gen but did buy a PS3 later on to play The Last of Us and some other PS3 exclusives and ended up getting PS+ on that machine just because the free game offerings were ridiculously good, way better than the stuff Microsoft has been doing in response on Xbox Live (giving away super old games like Halo 3, Gears of War and Asssasin's Creed 2 which most games who would be interested in already have). I now own a PS4 and don't mind the cost of PS+ because I'd be keeping my PS+ subscription active anyway.

Backward compatibility for consoles is rightly a thing of the past. I don't want companies to have to worry about making the hardware massively expensive (see: PS3) or reducing their ability to innovate by moving to new architectures. If I want to play PS3 or Xbox 360 games, I still have my PS3 and Xbox 360.

That aside, I do agree with the gist of the article.

I've noticed a relatively recent trend where big companies have no problem releasing a new version of something missing massive amounts of functionality missing from the previous version. I guess Final Cut Pro was one of the first big obvious instances of this, but it is happening all the time now from new consoles to Google's Map app, to lots of other things, and it can sometimes be really infuriating as a user, especially as we move into a world (via SaaS, web apps, forced updates, etc) where the app ecosystem virtually forces you to upgrade things on a constant basis with no easy ability to keep using the old thing that worked better for you.

I'm considering buying a PS4, and my gf keeps asking me why don't we just get a PS3 instead, as they're so much cheaper and the games look just as good?

Now after reading this article I'm really wondering. We don't have any consoles except a Wii so I was looking forward to having a "media centre" finally, but it looks like I'm SOL there on the PS4. :S

There is something to be said for no serious gamers taking the previous generation of consoles.

They are cheaper, build quality it better, more titles, more features.

I was asked if I wanted a PS4 this Christmas to which I had to honestly reply, no. Getting the first production batch with so few games just didn't appeal to me over other things I could have.

I have a PS3 and don't know if I'll upgrade to a PS4. Maybe when there are lots of more games. (Dark Souls 3?)

(I might even have gone the M-soft way, since they seem to have better support for hobby developers, but I don't have time for work/hobbies already and ... well, Windows.)

Edit: I might look into Steam and an ok graphics card for one of my Linux computers. (Anyway, my 2 cent.)

It's not really true that "the games [will] look just as good" if you actually care about such things, and this will become increasingly true as games start to be optimized for and targeted at the PS4 (and the roughly equivalent Xbox One) instead of being quick ports using previous generation engines and data.

The particular thing I'm really jazzed about on the PS4 is not GPU power, but that it has sixteen times the RAM (and much faster RAM to boot) of the PS3. The relatively small memory of the PS3 forced game makers to limit the size of levels, or go to great lengths to structure them to allow streaming of level data, and the amount of detail in each level. The PS4's (and Xbox One's) much larger memory should give much more freedom to game makers and help get rid of one of the most annoying attributes of many PS3 games: "Loading...." screens every five seconds...

The games don't look as good on the PS3. PS4 games are in their first generation and judging by history will get significantly better looking over time, but even now they have a crisp high-res look that makes them look better than PS3 games.

Having said that, "The Last of Us" on PS3 is a far better game than anything available on the PS4 currently -- crisp graphics aren't everything. And you can pick up a PS3 with that game bundled for like $200 now compared to $400 for the PS4 with no games.

The PS4 is lacking in the local video streaming department currently, as the article says, but it does have the usual assortment of media apps like netflix, hulu, amazon, vudu, etc. Personally the lack of local video streaming isn't a big deal for me because I have a dedicated htpc hooked up for that, xbmc on a cheap htpc (or even a raspberry pi) is always going to be a better, more codec-inclusive solution than whatever local videostreaming solution the consoles offer.

Unless they move away from the x86 arc again in the next generation, we might actually see a very high percentage of backwards compatibility in that switch.

If developers stick to high-level APIs for both CPU and GPU.

The changes of that are pretty low.

I guess a next-gen console can just emulate the low-level APIs for older games.

The 360 attempted to do that[0]. It wasn't exactly successful, and computing power improvements from one generation to the next shrink over time. There's no way you'll be able to emulate a PS3 on a PS5, let alone a PS4, save finally achieving quantum computing and managing to put that in a console.

[0] the PS3 did not even bother, early revisions just bundled PS2 hardware wholesale.

While I agree with PS+ being good value, what about the casual gamers like me who enjoy playing through one or two good games a year and might want to play some of these games online from time to time?

I currently have a PS3 and the last game I bought before GTA5 was Final Fantasy XIII, so I am not exactly a regular gamer (although I play a couple other games on PC). I was happy to be able to play GTA5 online while not having to pay for a monthly subscription that gives me countless extras I have no need for.

If I went and bought a PS4 this would change, I would either have to spend extra money for something I was getting for free previously or enjoy the next game offline; something that has been increasingly difficult throughout the years (when is the last time you found a proper two-player game, for use with two controllers? Even need for speed is online-only these days if you want multiplayer).

> Backward compatibility for consoles is rightly a thing of the past.

It wasn't a thing of the past in the first place really, save for a very small sliver of time where it was useful to (mainly) Sony: the PS2 was compatible with the PS to (successfully) ensure it wouldn't relinquish first place. The SNES couldn't play NES games, the Dreamcast couldn't play Saturn games, the Xbox 360 wasn't actually BC with the Xbox (it could use emulation profiles to run a select number of games, and not necessarily every variant thereof), and early PS3 were reluctantly compatible with the PS2.

> and early PS3 were reluctantly compatible with the PS2.

And they did that by effectively putting a PS2 inside the case alongside everything else, ironically making backwards compatibility one of the things contributing to the high price and hence slow early adoption of the PS3.

It felt a bit harsh realising that the PS4 won't work as a media streamer, so I got myself a Raspberry PI and set up Xbian. I'm so impressed with it! It's much more reliable than my PS3 was, I can control it from my Android phone, and I'm sure it's going to have masses of tinker value.

On the paying for online/PS+ thing - this is a drop in the ocean for us HN readers no doubt, but the people I think it will affect most are younger people who don't have the disposable income. Eg, my nephew's 13, and he games online with his mates all the time on games which they play forever. £40/year for him and his mates will probably be a bit of a block. Maybe Sony could have come up with a light option which didn't give you all the free games and stuff?

>Backward compatibility for consoles is rightly a thing of the past.

Say what now? The previous console generation was the longest console generation to date. And now we're just supposed to throw all of that away?

What makes the whole situation even more appalling is the lack of support for external media. By buying a new console, basically all of your existing games and external media will be useless. Not exactly a great situation for a device with very, very little actual content available right now. But at least you can always re-buy your old media on your new device, eh? Gotta love forced double-dipping.

Meanwhile, a PC will continue to play all the games from the previous gen AND will play all the games from the new gen too, while also playing your media and doing a billion other things. Combine with the fact that PC gaming is easier than ever these days and frankly comes with the least amount of bullshit, I really don't understand why anyone would want to buy what is essentially a tightly locked-down PC from a company that basically treats you as a gullible idiot with a credit card attached (goes for both Sony and Microsoft).

I was largely apathetic about the previous console generation, but this new gen manages to actually disgust me from the get-go.

>And now we're just supposed to throw all of that away?

Or just dont throw your old console in the garbage

Reply on news.ycombinator.com