Do we really need 25 - 50 GB games? I can't see any game needing to be more than 10GB in the near future... Heck, I don't think there's an X-box or Ps2 game that uses more than one DVD. And I can count the number of GC games that use more than one G.O.D. (GameCube Optical Disk, which holds a "mere" 1.5 GB of data) on my fingers.
25 GB to 50 GB? What's the point? I think that the industry is puts way too much emphasis on technological growth and not enough emphasis on improving development costs and software/hardware design.
Ok, first of all, gates is simply stating that, if presented with the opportunity, he'd buy nintendo.
ANY ENTREPRENEUR WOULD DO THE SAME THING. Nintendo has the cash flow and the stability that entrepreneurs everywhere DREAM about having. You'd be a fool to NOT want them. Doesn't mean you'll have them.
Nintendo regularly buys back a lot of their stock to prevent such hostile takeovers from happening. Hiroshi Yamauchi came up with this model, along with keeping a very big cash amount in the bank to make sure that nintendo could be self-supporting, even in times of economic crisis, or market crunches, or whatever.
And to those of you who are saying "Why would Bill call Yamauchi and not Iwata? Yamauchi isn't running the show anymore." That's true, but Yamauchi is STILL on the board of directors for Nintendo, and still is an influence in Nintendo's business matters (the DS is his brainchild) As a matter of fact, Yamauchi IS the majority shareholder in Nintendo. He owns 51% of the company, if I'm not mistaken. To take over Nintendo, Bill Gates would have to buy Yamauchi's shares, but Yamauchi set up Nintendo like this just to prevent a takeover from happening.
What you have hear is a case of a big businessman stating out loud a wish which he shares with thousands of businessmen and women across the globe.
the emulation community was upset about copyright infringement of an emulator's source code.
Someone tell them they're infringing on copyrights by downloading ROMs for free.
hypocrites. -_-
Doomstalk, try 40 years. Nintendo went public about 40 years ago (actually, I think it's been 39.5 years, now). Only one unprofitable quarter out of about 160. Not bad, I'd say.
The fact that Fire Emblem 7 is the only FE on the list just doesn't make sense. Where's FE3, 4, and Thracia 776? How about the original Fire Emblem, which pretty much INVENTED the SRPG genre?
And may I ask, where in the world is Ogre Battle 64? Sounds like this guy hasn't owned a Nintendo system except for the GBA.
Yes, the videos were being displayed on the PSP. But the data was all being sent from PCs. There were no PSP units which were standalone, that were not receiving data from PCs on the show floor. I find that VERY suspicious.
And I don't know about you, but I do NOT consider moving a camera around in a Metal Gear game to be playable software.
Man, a franchise here and some graphics there and everyone all of the sudden thinks the PSP software played great. >_>
The PSP seems to be a Ps2 in portable form: How in the hell are games going to be EASY to make, then? I don't recall the Ps2 being easy to develop for, and with the heavy emphasis on power in the PsP, I'd say the development costs will become dangerously close to console titles. And with Sony stating recently that the PSP is meant to be played inside the home, I question ANYTHING that has to do with the PSP. I don't think even Sony knows what they're doing: They're making a portable system, which looks like it'll cost a lot, and have very low battery life, and they're claiming it's supposed to be used inside the home, and that, and I quote Ken Kutaragi, "No one would go out and play video games," I really don't think Sony knows what they're in for. The fact that all the PSP demos at E3 were basically video demos, and the fact that they were all being piped from PCs, makes the demonstrations of the power of the PSP seem to be a big fat lie. We've yet to see anything run on the actual PSP hardware, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that the PSP's power is closer to that of the N64 and PSOne than the Ps2. Even so, the design of the PSP is begging for high development costs, and I don't see HOW it'll be easy to develop for.
Not to mention the fact that people are drooling over the PSP, despite this. The scary thing is, the PSP could probably be released with a battery life of one hour, a price of $300, and still become more popular than the GBA. That's how alienated gamers are, today. I really hope that the PSP flops, not just because I'm a Nintendo fanboy, but because the industry will be in deep trouble if Sony can get their feet wet in the handheld portion, as well.
That Mario 3 video was done on an emulator, with save states being used to correct mistakes on levels, and various frames being sped up to speed the video up. That run was done with somewhere around 10,000 different save states being used, I believe.
And it SUCKED THE BATTERIES DRY. The technology has always been there, BUT IT WASN'T AFFORDABLE AND ENERGY-EFFICIENT. That's how it is with all technology. My point has been proven.
You also noticed Sony and MS talking about how technologically powerful their next consoles would be, while nintendo was talking about broadening the industry, with the Nintendo Revolution, of which Iwata has said, "It won't simply be a box that connects to your TV," and the Nintendo DS. Even if the gaming audience doesn't like this at first, the developers DO like it, so they'll put their support into the Nintendo Revolution and DS. Gamers will be "forced" to try out these new systems due to the support they get. So, even if gamer approval starts off slow, the appeal of these innovations to developers will pay off in the long run.
I'm excited, because I know Nintendo can really change the industry from being run by technological improvements in sight and sound, to being run by changes in interface and new features which bring gamers together, like Wi-Fi in the DS.
People are upset that Nintendo isn't doing online, that they're doing GBA-GC connectivity, that they're not doing as much "Here and now" as other companies. But Nintendo knows exactly what it's doing, exactly what it needs to do for itself, and exactly what the gamers, and the industry need.
That's not me speaking as a stubborn Nintendo fanboy: That's me speaking from my heart.
Yeah, I know that, but, if I remember correctly, it wasn't exactly the best technical model for the GB, at that time. Costs and battery life, I believe, were worsenned due to the light. Though, I could be wrong.
"You're absolutely right. Nintendo had a massive installed user base and then Sony came out of seemingly nowhere and got a stranglehold on the market. I see a very similar situation here: Nintendo, currently number one with no real innovation in years, facing competition from someone with a technical edge over them. Interestingly enough, it's the same company challenging them. If you question whether or not Nintendo has innovated in the last... 15 years or so that the gambeboy has been available, just think about it: up until about a year ago there was *still* no light and you had to hold the damn thing at an awkward angle sometimes. Color took forever and they were still pushing ugly graphics on expensive media. The battle over handheld dominance will be very interesting as we know Sony has a track record for taking hold in the video game market"
Wait a minute, adding a light source to a handheld is innovative? Waiting to add color is uninnovative? What the heck? First of all, color pretty much was nonexistant in any portable device until the mid to late 1990s. And even so, color handheld games is more of a technological upgrade than an innovation. Same with the frontlight on the GB. What portable devices do you remember having an internal lighting source when the GBC came out? While I admit, Nintendo should have included a light in the GBA, at least they corrected that mistake with the GBASP, and they didn't sacrifice performance or battery life for it, the way it should be done. These things have NOTHING to do with innovation: They have to do with the technological limitations of the time. I mean, look at how the Game Gear performed with the color it had. Technologically, none of this: a game boy with color and/or a backlight/frontlight couldn't be done until six or seven years ago. Don't confuse that with lack of innovation.
Nintendo has not innovated? Wtf? Why is it that people say that? Just because Nintendo often uses the same characters in its games does not make them uninnovative. Mario Kart was innovative in that it started the kart racing subgenre. Mario Party: What games were like it beforehand? It made a board/minigame hybrid party game. How about Pikmin, a game in which you play as a guy and control an army of small plants which have special abilities and powers? Or how about Wario Ware? How in the world is THAT not innovative? Nintendo, just like everyone else, uses brand names, because people love what they are familiar with. It's human nature. Not only that, but when people see a game with Mario in it, they're pretty sure it will be high quality, because that's what mario games usually are. Brand names help inform a consumer of what to expect from a product, like that.
The Playstaion got more support than the N64 because it was, in order of most importance: Cheapter to develop for, easier to develop for, and had more storage.
Now, let's look at the DS and the PSP: The DS allows developers new ways to make games, and appeals to video game developers' creative side. the DS will use a cheap semiconductor memory unit, 128 Megabytes and beyond. Now, Mario 64 was 16 Megabytes. 16 megabytes was the typical maximum for an N64 game, although there was one game that was 24 Megabytes (Ogre Battle 64), and two games that were 32 Megabytes (Pokemon Colloseum 2, and Resident Evil 2). 128 megabytes should be plenty for developers, unless they want to use a bunch of pre-renders and high poly models, which don't really matter on a handheld. The price of the DS looks to be pretty cheap, too.
And the PSP? Well, it uses 1.8 GB disks, so, again, it has the memory advantage of an optical format over a cartridge. But that's the only advantage that the PSP has over the DS that the PS had over the N64. It looks like games will have the production costs of Playstation 2 games, and higher prices disencourages innovation and risky moves by developers. That's one reason
.. I'm not even going to use the quality of Nintendo's products as an argument. I'll just say this:
You do realize that Nintendo has eight billion dollars of plain cash, right? And that the studios and IP they have is billions more? And that they have no debt?
Sorry, but there is no reason for Nintendo to sell themselves to another company. Even if Sammy wanted to, I don't think they could afford Nintendo.
IGN reported that several third parties, which asked to keep their companies' names anonymous, reported that initial hardware tests ran for less than an hour.
I'm reading all these comments about "GREAT! BRILLLIANT MOVE, SONY! Use retail kiosks as a means of game distribution!"
Yet, when Nintendo announced, and implemented, this feature into the iQue, I heard nothing but bashing from the internet community. Why the hell is it that everything nintendo does is a stupid move, but when done by Sony, it's the best business strategy ever? Not to mention the fact that they're touting PSP/PS3 connectivity, a la GC/GBA. -_-
What I meant by my post was that, gamers in general keep on DEMANDING more complexity, more graphics, more sound, more costly stuff! A lot of developers are forced to be conservative, and a lot of them need to fold or sell their property, or the company itself. Because the general consensus among the gaming industry is that you need to make games BIGGER, developers have felt pressured into these high cost projects. It can't hold up forever.
You can't tell me that the increase in development costs for video games is due to inflation, alone. That's just not true.
And I have no idea how I forgot blizzard, or Ubisoft. >_>
Games have become so complex: That is why developers need to work so hard, for so long, while spending so much money, to get games today finished. With so much complexity involved, many developers won't be able to keep up.
Some people look at movies and say "Well, games are only now becoming just as complex as movies!" Not true. Games have technologiclally advanced far enough to be compared to movies: however, they are far more complex than movies. With today's games, you have the complexity of a movie combined with complete interaction by the consumer: You interact with the environment, the characters: In some cases, your actions as the character partially determine the plot.
It's quite obvious: The increasing complexity of games will, unless someone takes a stand, kill off all companies except the huge ones: I can think of only eleven companies which have the money to be able to continue to survive: Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Konami, Sega (maybe), Namco, Capcom, Square Enix, EA, THQ (not sure about them, though), and Take Two. All other companies will eventually be dispersed, or will be engulfed by one of the big eleven.
EA is way too big. They eat up small, well-respected studios like a bad habit (Maxis and Westwood are the two prime examples of this). And we all know where the Command & Conquer series went after EA got it. Frankly, I hate EA. Their games all use the same basic engines, yet they can continue to reuse it year after year after year and sell several million copies of games. I mean, I, personally, get sick of hearing people at school talk about nothing but MADDEN, MADDEN, NBA LIVE, MADDEN, TIGER WOODS PRO GOLF, MADDEN, MADDEN, MADDEN. For every Madden EA makes, they make 50 horrible games. I just get sick of seeing them grow and grow. EA is poisoning the industry, and I don't know if it'll ever stop.
I don't know why I'm getting modded down. I guess it came out wrong. Maybe I should explain.
I see all these projects to put emulators of old consoles on the PS2, the X-box, the GC, the GBA, whatever. It just strikes me as odd that people always try to do this with every single console that gets released. I just don't understand: Why not take the time with each console to appreciate the lineup that it offers, rather than trying to bring an old lineup onto the new hardware? Why spend the hours trying to make your old games playable on the new hardware? Why not take the time to appreciate the new games that are offered by these consoles?
To me, spending the time to develop emulators for old systems on new hardware just seems like a waste of time, a waste of resources, and a negligence of the games which are offered in the present. But that's just me. I guess there are a lot of people who no longer have any access to older libraries, so they try to make them accessible on newer hardware. But wouldn't it be easier to just download an emulator on the PC,then?
Slashdot Mirror
Do we really need 25 - 50 GB games? I can't see any game needing to be more than 10GB in the near future... Heck, I don't think there's an X-box or Ps2 game that uses more than one DVD. And I can count the number of GC games that use more than one G.O.D. (GameCube Optical Disk, which holds a "mere" 1.5 GB of data) on my fingers. 25 GB to 50 GB? What's the point? I think that the industry is puts way too much emphasis on technological growth and not enough emphasis on improving development costs and software/hardware design.
Ok, first of all, gates is simply stating that, if presented with the opportunity, he'd buy nintendo.
ANY ENTREPRENEUR WOULD DO THE SAME THING. Nintendo has the cash flow and the stability that entrepreneurs everywhere DREAM about having. You'd be a fool to NOT want them. Doesn't mean you'll have them.
Nintendo regularly buys back a lot of their stock to prevent such hostile takeovers from happening. Hiroshi Yamauchi came up with this model, along with keeping a very big cash amount in the bank to make sure that nintendo could be self-supporting, even in times of economic crisis, or market crunches, or whatever.
And to those of you who are saying "Why would Bill call Yamauchi and not Iwata? Yamauchi isn't running the show anymore." That's true, but Yamauchi is STILL on the board of directors for Nintendo, and still is an influence in Nintendo's business matters (the DS is his brainchild) As a matter of fact, Yamauchi IS the majority shareholder in Nintendo. He owns 51% of the company, if I'm not mistaken. To take over Nintendo, Bill Gates would have to buy Yamauchi's shares, but Yamauchi set up Nintendo like this just to prevent a takeover from happening.
What you have hear is a case of a big businessman stating out loud a wish which he shares with thousands of businessmen and women across the globe.
the emulation community was upset about copyright infringement of an emulator's source code. Someone tell them they're infringing on copyrights by downloading ROMs for free. hypocrites. -_-
... Large? Sony's share in SE is 4-6% And Kameo is a Rare game. Rare is owned by Microsoft. Kameo isn't going to be on the cube,ever.
Don't codename the Xbox 2 the Manhattan Project. Codenaming the X-box "Project Midway" didn't help your situation in Japan.
Doomstalk, try 40 years. Nintendo went public about 40 years ago (actually, I think it's been 39.5 years, now). Only one unprofitable quarter out of about 160. Not bad, I'd say.
The fact that Fire Emblem 7 is the only FE on the list just doesn't make sense. Where's FE3, 4, and Thracia 776? How about the original Fire Emblem, which pretty much INVENTED the SRPG genre? And may I ask, where in the world is Ogre Battle 64? Sounds like this guy hasn't owned a Nintendo system except for the GBA.
Yes, the videos were being displayed on the PSP. But the data was all being sent from PCs. There were no PSP units which were standalone, that were not receiving data from PCs on the show floor. I find that VERY suspicious.
And I don't know about you, but I do NOT consider moving a camera around in a Metal Gear game to be playable software. Man, a franchise here and some graphics there and everyone all of the sudden thinks the PSP software played great. >_>
The PSP seems to be a Ps2 in portable form: How in the hell are games going to be EASY to make, then? I don't recall the Ps2 being easy to develop for, and with the heavy emphasis on power in the PsP, I'd say the development costs will become dangerously close to console titles. And with Sony stating recently that the PSP is meant to be played inside the home, I question ANYTHING that has to do with the PSP. I don't think even Sony knows what they're doing: They're making a portable system, which looks like it'll cost a lot, and have very low battery life, and they're claiming it's supposed to be used inside the home, and that, and I quote Ken Kutaragi, "No one would go out and play video games," I really don't think Sony knows what they're in for. The fact that all the PSP demos at E3 were basically video demos, and the fact that they were all being piped from PCs, makes the demonstrations of the power of the PSP seem to be a big fat lie. We've yet to see anything run on the actual PSP hardware, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that the PSP's power is closer to that of the N64 and PSOne than the Ps2. Even so, the design of the PSP is begging for high development costs, and I don't see HOW it'll be easy to develop for.
Not to mention the fact that people are drooling over the PSP, despite this. The scary thing is, the PSP could probably be released with a battery life of one hour, a price of $300, and still become more popular than the GBA. That's how alienated gamers are, today. I really hope that the PSP flops, not just because I'm a Nintendo fanboy, but because the industry will be in deep trouble if Sony can get their feet wet in the handheld portion, as well.
That Mario 3 video was done on an emulator, with save states being used to correct mistakes on levels, and various frames being sped up to speed the video up. That run was done with somewhere around 10,000 different save states being used, I believe.
And it SUCKED THE BATTERIES DRY. The technology has always been there, BUT IT WASN'T AFFORDABLE AND ENERGY-EFFICIENT. That's how it is with all technology. My point has been proven.
You also noticed Sony and MS talking about how technologically powerful their next consoles would be, while nintendo was talking about broadening the industry, with the Nintendo Revolution, of which Iwata has said, "It won't simply be a box that connects to your TV," and the Nintendo DS. Even if the gaming audience doesn't like this at first, the developers DO like it, so they'll put their support into the Nintendo Revolution and DS. Gamers will be "forced" to try out these new systems due to the support they get. So, even if gamer approval starts off slow, the appeal of these innovations to developers will pay off in the long run.
I'm excited, because I know Nintendo can really change the industry from being run by technological improvements in sight and sound, to being run by changes in interface and new features which bring gamers together, like Wi-Fi in the DS.
People are upset that Nintendo isn't doing online, that they're doing GBA-GC connectivity, that they're not doing as much "Here and now" as other companies. But Nintendo knows exactly what it's doing, exactly what it needs to do for itself, and exactly what the gamers, and the industry need.
That's not me speaking as a stubborn Nintendo fanboy: That's me speaking from my heart.
Yeah, I know that, but, if I remember correctly, it wasn't exactly the best technical model for the GB, at that time. Costs and battery life, I believe, were worsenned due to the light. Though, I could be wrong.
It takes a lot of guts for a company to apologize to the consumer for its mistakes. I salute you, Iwata-san.
"You're absolutely right. Nintendo had a massive installed user base and then Sony came out of seemingly nowhere and got a stranglehold on the market. I see a very similar situation here: Nintendo, currently number one with no real innovation in years, facing competition from someone with a technical edge over them. Interestingly enough, it's the same company challenging them. If you question whether or not Nintendo has innovated in the last... 15 years or so that the gambeboy has been available, just think about it: up until about a year ago there was *still* no light and you had to hold the damn thing at an awkward angle sometimes. Color took forever and they were still pushing ugly graphics on expensive media. The battle over handheld dominance will be very interesting as we know Sony has a track record for taking hold in the video game market"
Wait a minute, adding a light source to a handheld is innovative? Waiting to add color is uninnovative? What the heck? First of all, color pretty much was nonexistant in any portable device until the mid to late 1990s. And even so, color handheld games is more of a technological upgrade than an innovation. Same with the frontlight on the GB. What portable devices do you remember having an internal lighting source when the GBC came out? While I admit, Nintendo should have included a light in the GBA, at least they corrected that mistake with the GBASP, and they didn't sacrifice performance or battery life for it, the way it should be done. These things have NOTHING to do with innovation: They have to do with the technological limitations of the time. I mean, look at how the Game Gear performed with the color it had. Technologically, none of this: a game boy with color and/or a backlight/frontlight couldn't be done until six or seven years ago. Don't confuse that with lack of innovation.
Nintendo has not innovated? Wtf? Why is it that people say that? Just because Nintendo often uses the same characters in its games does not make them uninnovative. Mario Kart was innovative in that it started the kart racing subgenre. Mario Party: What games were like it beforehand? It made a board/minigame hybrid party game. How about Pikmin, a game in which you play as a guy and control an army of small plants which have special abilities and powers? Or how about Wario Ware? How in the world is THAT not innovative? Nintendo, just like everyone else, uses brand names, because people love what they are familiar with. It's human nature. Not only that, but when people see a game with Mario in it, they're pretty sure it will be high quality, because that's what mario games usually are. Brand names help inform a consumer of what to expect from a product, like that.
The Playstaion got more support than the N64 because it was, in order of most importance: Cheapter to develop for, easier to develop for, and had more storage. Now, let's look at the DS and the PSP: The DS allows developers new ways to make games, and appeals to video game developers' creative side. the DS will use a cheap semiconductor memory unit, 128 Megabytes and beyond. Now, Mario 64 was 16 Megabytes. 16 megabytes was the typical maximum for an N64 game, although there was one game that was 24 Megabytes (Ogre Battle 64), and two games that were 32 Megabytes (Pokemon Colloseum 2, and Resident Evil 2). 128 megabytes should be plenty for developers, unless they want to use a bunch of pre-renders and high poly models, which don't really matter on a handheld. The price of the DS looks to be pretty cheap, too.
And the PSP? Well, it uses 1.8 GB disks, so, again, it has the memory advantage of an optical format over a cartridge. But that's the only advantage that the PSP has over the DS that the PS had over the N64. It looks like games will have the production costs of Playstation 2 games, and higher prices disencourages innovation and risky moves by developers. That's one reason
.. I'm not even going to use the quality of Nintendo's products as an argument. I'll just say this:
You do realize that Nintendo has eight billion dollars of plain cash, right? And that the studios and IP they have is billions more? And that they have no debt?
Sorry, but there is no reason for Nintendo to sell themselves to another company. Even if Sammy wanted to, I don't think they could afford Nintendo.
IGN reported that several third parties, which asked to keep their companies' names anonymous, reported that initial hardware tests ran for less than an hour.
I'm reading all these comments about "GREAT! BRILLLIANT MOVE, SONY! Use retail kiosks as a means of game distribution!"
Yet, when Nintendo announced, and implemented, this feature into the iQue, I heard nothing but bashing from the internet community. Why the hell is it that everything nintendo does is a stupid move, but when done by Sony, it's the best business strategy ever? Not to mention the fact that they're touting PSP/PS3 connectivity, a la GC/GBA. -_-
What I meant by my post was that, gamers in general keep on DEMANDING more complexity, more graphics, more sound, more costly stuff! A lot of developers are forced to be conservative, and a lot of them need to fold or sell their property, or the company itself. Because the general consensus among the gaming industry is that you need to make games BIGGER, developers have felt pressured into these high cost projects. It can't hold up forever.
You can't tell me that the increase in development costs for video games is due to inflation, alone. That's just not true.
And I have no idea how I forgot blizzard, or Ubisoft. >_>
They pull a stunt like this. What a stupid, cheap way to make money. -_-
Games have become so complex: That is why developers need to work so hard, for so long, while spending so much money, to get games today finished. With so much complexity involved, many developers won't be able to keep up.
Some people look at movies and say "Well, games are only now becoming just as complex as movies!" Not true. Games have technologiclally advanced far enough to be compared to movies: however, they are far more complex than movies. With today's games, you have the complexity of a movie combined with complete interaction by the consumer: You interact with the environment, the characters: In some cases, your actions as the character partially determine the plot.
It's quite obvious: The increasing complexity of games will, unless someone takes a stand, kill off all companies except the huge ones: I can think of only eleven companies which have the money to be able to continue to survive: Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Konami, Sega (maybe), Namco, Capcom, Square Enix, EA, THQ (not sure about them, though), and Take Two. All other companies will eventually be dispersed, or will be engulfed by one of the big eleven.
EA is way too big. They eat up small, well-respected studios like a bad habit (Maxis and Westwood are the two prime examples of this). And we all know where the Command & Conquer series went after EA got it. Frankly, I hate EA. Their games all use the same basic engines, yet they can continue to reuse it year after year after year and sell several million copies of games. I mean, I, personally, get sick of hearing people at school talk about nothing but MADDEN, MADDEN, NBA LIVE, MADDEN, TIGER WOODS PRO GOLF, MADDEN, MADDEN, MADDEN. For every Madden EA makes, they make 50 horrible games. I just get sick of seeing them grow and grow. EA is poisoning the industry, and I don't know if it'll ever stop.
Hey, I can hope,can't I? >_>
I don't know why I'm getting modded down. I guess it came out wrong. Maybe I should explain.
I see all these projects to put emulators of old consoles on the PS2, the X-box, the GC, the GBA, whatever. It just strikes me as odd that people always try to do this with every single console that gets released. I just don't understand: Why not take the time with each console to appreciate the lineup that it offers, rather than trying to bring an old lineup onto the new hardware? Why spend the hours trying to make your old games playable on the new hardware? Why not take the time to appreciate the new games that are offered by these consoles?
To me, spending the time to develop emulators for old systems on new hardware just seems like a waste of time, a waste of resources, and a negligence of the games which are offered in the present. But that's just me. I guess there are a lot of people who no longer have any access to older libraries, so they try to make them accessible on newer hardware. But wouldn't it be easier to just download an emulator on the PC,then?
Or do people spend WAY too much time trying to emulate the older consoles on the newer consoles?