"Revolution will contain four 2.5GHz G5-class IBM PowerPC processors, each with 128KB of L1 cache and 512KB of L2. ATI's contribution is a dual-core RN520 chip, with 16MB of in-package frame buffer DRAM."
Does anyone benefit from backwards compatibility for any console?
I drives up the price of the new console and it vastly reduces the potential resale value of the old one.
The only group of people that will benefit is the people who did not own the previous console, but do the new one, and are intrested in buying games for the old console (which will also drop in price alot slower than if backwards compatibility was not included)
Except for portable consoles (where it is invonveinient to carry around a GB, GBC, GBA and a DS) there is minimal need to include backwards compatibility, the old consoles (should) still work, its is just a phrase that the uninformed consumer likes to hear.
obviously they just worked out that if sony will pay them more for not releasing a game on certain consoles, than they would make for releasing it on those consoles, then it is more profitable to make is a PS2 exclusive.
it is a sad example of how screwed up the gaming industry is, with sony spending money to stop people from being able to play a game, when i thought they should be doing the oposite.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/12/nintendo_r evolution_release_date/
or possibly an demo ap, which is just a rolling video, that is watched on the DS, showing their products in action
I drives up the price of the new console and it vastly reduces the potential resale value of the old one.
The only group of people that will benefit is the people who did not own the previous console, but do the new one, and are intrested in buying games for the old console (which will also drop in price alot slower than if backwards compatibility was not included)
Except for portable consoles (where it is invonveinient to carry around a GB, GBC, GBA and a DS) there is minimal need to include backwards compatibility, the old consoles (should) still work, its is just a phrase that the uninformed consumer likes to hear.
obviously they just worked out that if sony will pay them more for not releasing a game on certain consoles, than they would make for releasing it on those consoles, then it is more profitable to make is a PS2 exclusive. it is a sad example of how screwed up the gaming industry is, with sony spending money to stop people from being able to play a game, when i thought they should be doing the oposite.
surely it must be E4 by now if its been around for ten years? or are they doing a reverse microsoft with the whole 360>3>2 thing