Fallout 4 Will be Skipping Xbox 360 And PS3

[Creator002]

Well, that's good for me, since my only console is an Xbox One and I plan on getting it on PC anyway, but yeah. No surprise here either. Someone (as in a big-name company) was bound to drop the last gen eventually.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

Yes, but will it actually be PLAYABLE on PC,

Fixed that for ya'.

Fallout 3 was just... so broken on PS3. And 360. And PC. (Yes I played it on all three systems thoroughly. PC was definitely the most stable, then 360, and then PS3.)

Actually, ya know, that game was kinda just broken on a fundamental level. AI was fuckin' dumb and would attack on a dime, quests broke easily, gunplay didn't seem to work without using vats, there was barely any feedback when using weapons in general, frequent crashes and just so many other things.

But still, despite all of it's flaws, it's still one of my favorite games. Sometimes it just gets so broken that you can't help but laugh and love it.

 

[Doom972]

you know, i was thinking about backwards compatibility the other day when it occurred to me how weird it is that we expect it. backwards compatibility only existed in ONE generation change of consoles. PS1 to PS2 and Xbox to Xbox 360. No other time in console history was BC expected or lamented for it's absence.

Previous generations didn't have downloadable games and DLC. People were hoping to hold on to their digital content. The lack of backwards compatibility is one of the reasons I don't own a console.

OT: Does it surprise anyone? Skyrim barely worked on these consoles - especially the PS3.

 

[JayRPG]

Quite frankly, that's not a surprise at all, and it had to start happening consistently sometime. While the 360 and PS3 still have a little life left in them, the Xbox One and PS4 need to expand their libraries, and new games are the way to do that. I still wish they were backwards-compatible though, because that would make the transition that much more palatable.

you know, i was thinking about backwards compatibility the other day when it occurred to me how weird it is that we expect it. backwards compatibility only existed in ONE generation change of consoles. PS1 to PS2 and Xbox to Xbox 360. No other time in console history was BC expected or lamented for it's absence.

i too wish i didn't have to switch my HDMI over to play older games, since my tv only has one hdmi input, but historically, there's nothing to suggest we should expect it. only Gen 5-6 for Sony and 6-7 for Microsoft had that feature.

Nintendo consoles would disagree with you there if memory serves. Gamecube to Wii, Wii to Wii U, Nintendo Ds to every Nintendo portable console after it.
Although I do agree it's weird how people expect to come as standard.

mostly true, but not entirely. there's a cut-off date in production, somewhere around November of 2011 where Wii's were no longer BC with gamecube.

and i purposely didn't mention handhelds because 1. it's gotta be easier and cheaper to make cartridge-based handhelds backwards compatible and 2. despite being marketed as the next gen of handheld, the DS has always felt like newer iterations of the same machine from a decade ago, with slight improvements along the way. that perception could be because nintendo releases a very slightly different of the DS every 6 months or so, to the point that it annoys me in fact.

but point definitely taken, nintendo has gone well out of their way to accommodate backwards compatiblity. even as i type that though, the point occurs to me that i made about the handhelds: it's cheaper and easier to put it into a nintendo product because nintendo hasn't competed with the other two in terms of power for awhile now.

It wasn't exactly easy for them to do the Wii/Wii U backwards compatibility, they basically have an entire Wii console crammed in there because they also switched architecture, just like the PS4/Xbone. From a hardware stand point it would have been a massive challenge, given the size constraints put on the devs by Iwata, I believe it is partly the reason the Wii U is the price that it is; I do expect at some point we will get a Wii U without the Wii hardware/compatibility which will cost around $50 less.

There was one step missed, and I feel it is a pretty important one. The original DS/DS Lite had GBA backwards compatibility, and that was another case of essentially stuffing an entire previous gens hardware into a new console.

I feel Nintendo often over-burden themselves with backwards compatibility, and they'd probably be in a better position if they hadn't worried about it so much at times. Though I do like the Wii BC on my Wii U since I skipped the Wii originally.

The general sentiment of not understanding why people think it's the norm, I agree with though. Though I also often wonder why people think region free is the norm, considering pretty much every home console to ever exist (even in recent times) was region locked (Sony started on the PS3, Microsoft lauched the 360 region locked and decided half way through to let the devs decide so I don't really consider it a region free console), and DVDs are also still region locked to this day.

Disclaimer: Obviously I'm on the side of region-free, it's just never really been the norm, it used to be one of the reasons I was a Sony person.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

Well, it's apparently skipping the Wii U as well, which is a shame. I really like the tablet controller and I was hopping for Bethesda to actually use it and make a good RPG with it. Inventory, map, stats and skill management seems to be perfect for the controller. And seeing how bad the trailer looked, I don't think the hardware would be much of a problem. The trailer seems like one of the early PS3 games.

Eh, it's a shame. Will give it a try on PC when it receives a nice price drop.

-snip-

People want it to be a norm because it's heavily pro-consumer. It allows you to resell your old console and still play the game. It saves up a lot of space. Ideally, you would need just one console to play all the previous generations of the same console. More realistically you would need to keep only every other console instead of every, while still keeping your library.

I would never sell any of my games. I'm kinda tied to them. They are the things that brought the most joy in my life. So I don't want to lose them. Consoles on the other hand break. It sucks when you can't play some of your most beloved games because the console doesn't work. Around a week ago I wanted to play the original Legend of Zelda again only to realize that my NES stopped working. Now I have ~15 games that I can't play until I fix it.

I understand that there is a limitation to backwards compatibility. I wouldn't expect to Wii U or any other console to be able to play cartridges. But if the storage medium isn't too different, I don't see why it shouldn't work. The power difference between console generations should be big enough to allow emulation even if the hardware is different. Unfortunately, that's not the case so they have to put in the hardware of the previous gen if the architecture is different.

Just saying, I love my games, it feels bad when you can't play them. I think it's a shame and a waste if old games, old gems don't work anymore. And not every game will have remake for various reasons. BC helps a lot and it's a huge help to the console manufacturor as well. BC is probably the 2nd biggest reason to get a new console early. Lets face it, most early games are just bad. Getting a console early is a waste of money if you only consider them. But if I can get the new console, , play the few new games and still enjoy my old games on it, I would sell my old console and buy the new one. People are more likely to adopt the new gen earlier if it means they have more games.

 

[JenSeven]

And just to show how little impact the new generation had, my first thought after reading the article was, "Wow, so they're going PC-only this time," before I realized that this article is just talking about the last gen consoles.

yeah, that was my thought too.
I thought they were going the same road XCom2 were going and making a PC exclusice. Completely forgot there was a new console line.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

Not sure why this would be particularly surprising or disappointing at this point. They're 9-10 years old and they've each had a good run. It's just time to let go. Definitely sucks for anyone who can't afford either console at this point though.

I'll be stuck playing it on PS4 unless I somehow get a much better PC by that point. So no big issue, really.

 

[JoJo]

I feel for those still on older consoles but I think it's the right decision, the new generation has been out a couple of years now, it's time to move forward and make full use of that expanded capacity. Can't hold ourselves back forever.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

I'm sort of surprised that publishers still have to be making these press releases. We're almost three years into the 8th generation. It's time for the cross-generation games (save for some sports and low-profile titles) to stop. And this is coming from a guy that only has Nintendo's half-ass attempt at an 8th gen console, an ancient PC that can only run Skyrim (a 2011 game) at a PS3/360 graphical level, and no budget for a new system.

 

[Lightspeaker]

And just to show how little impact the new generation had, my first thought after reading the article was, "Wow, so they're going PC-only this time," before I realized that this article is just talking about the last gen consoles.

Heh that was my first reaction too. For a few moments there I outright forgot that the latest generation consoles even existed.

 

[shrekfan246]

Im surprised there aren't more whiny self-entitled PS3/Xbox 360 comments here.

You've been here since 2009.

Either you're being facetious, or your low post count is indicative of how much you actually visit these forums.

(What I mean is that the community on this website has been heavily slanted toward PC since before I joined. So much so, in fact, that despite me primarily playing games on PC, it has given me a worse impression of "PC Gamers" overall.)

OT: Is this really news? I mean, I guess in the wake of rumor-mongering it's something they need to clarify, but talk about a fluff piece to pad out the news day...

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Isnt this just common sense? Current gen has been around 2 years when Fallout4 is released. No reason to release it on last gen. Would have been different matter if F4 was released same year as when XB1/PS4 was released because then they would not be a large install rate of current gen owners. For me, Fallout 4 is the reason i will buy a new console towards the end of the year. Especially with Witcher 3, Deus ex and MGS5 - those are just a few of the great games this year.

I really wish PC gamers would moan at developers instead of blaming consoles. Had this same advice about Witcher 3, especially when they needed console money to be able to make the game they wanted. Console gamers dont care if the PC gets the best version. As far as im concerned, if your PC can handle Ultra level graphics then you should have an Ultra version of the game. But blaming consoles is just pointless as consoles are not in competition with PC so why would MS/Sony give a crap about what the PC version looks like? Now forcing PS4/XB1 to be the same i can agree with as they are both in competition. Maybe the fact is that developers like Bethesda and CDProjekts can make tons more money by releasing their games on the consoles that PCs are not as important to them as much? That or they will patch it at a later date or just wait for the modders to fix it for them as modders always do.

 

[Alfador_VII]

No surprise that they're not developing for consoles will have been obsolete for 2 years or more, by the time it comes out.

I'm just a bit disappointed that even the teaser trailer where they normally show off graphics way beyond the game ends up having, doesn't look much better than Fallout 3

 

[mad825]

I wish it actually looked like a game that needed to skip last-gen. The game looks like a marginally improved Skyrim, with all the usual Bethesda jank intact. Verdict's still out on stuff like seemless area transitions, improved physics, etc., but I'm guessing that that too remains the same as it was in Skyrim. Pity. It honestly looks like it was cross-gen at some point not that long ago.

I believe we'll see more under-the-hood changes such as native 64-bit which is quite a huge thing for a game that Bethesda develops. I doubt we'll see any improved physics as they're already using Havok...but we may see more of it. Improved interior level design may also be another due to the possible resources available - again, ground breaking stuff.

For the past 3 games that they've made has been with the same shitty console.

You most probably won't notice anything until you start using the SDK.

 

[Zeljkia the Orc]

-at the end of the Fallout 4 trailer- "available on PC, PS4, Xbox One"

evidently everyone in the world: "So, why are you releasing it on the Ps3 and 360?"

Bethesda: ಠ_ಠ

I guess reading is hard for people.

 

[loa]

Oh, this surprises anyone?

but point definitely taken, nintendo has gone well out of their way to accommodate backwards compatiblity. even as i type that though, the point occurs to me that i made about the handhelds: it's cheaper and easier to put it into a nintendo product because nintendo hasn't competed with the other two in terms of power for awhile now.

I don't know how the storage medium affects the ease of bc implementation (my educated guess would be not at all) but it is far from unreasonable to ask for a ps2 and a ps1 software emulator on the ps4 which has more than enough power to brute force that with anti aliasing and shoveling the entire disk data into RAM so nothing spins cherry on top.
I also don't buy that backwards compatibility to the previous gen is technically impossible for a second, especially for the xbone that didn't do this whole "switching to a sane processor architecture" thing.
If microsoft and sony truly wanted to, they could and would find ways to make this happen.

This is also not a matter of "entitlement" or "expectation", this is a matter of getting bullshit explanations of why it doesn't happen and in the case of the ps3, bc was literally there and then taken out of it with no premium option to get it for people who would want that (me) and now, wonder of wonders, sony does the whole subscription based streaming thing which they themselves said is their take on "backwards compatibility" and both consoles get showered with remakes so the undertones are pretty crystal clear here.

Nintendo exudes none of the above mentioned underhanded nonsense that makes trusting microsoft or sony impossible for anyone paying attention which is the actual core of the issue.

 

[Uhuru N'Uru]

No new AAA game is likely to be for last gen, simply because they're not 64-bit, the economics of crossover no longer make sense and with Witcher 3 showing what the limits of each platform are and what they can do. Then this becomes the norm.

I wish it actually looked like a game that needed to skip last-gen. The game looks like a marginally improved Skyrim, with all the usual Bethesda jank intact. Verdict's still out on stuff like seemless area transitions, improved physics, etc., but I'm guessing that that too remains the same as it was in Skyrim. Pity. It honestly looks like it was cross-gen at some point not that long ago.

Thing is Bethesda Game Studios (BGS) are not noted for pushing graphics to the max. Plus they have the "AAA Publisher's Disease" of,, design for the worst and port from that to the better platformsfor "parity", which never gives anything but bad ports.
We have now seen the correct method with the Witcher, design for the best and port it down to the max each platform can handle.

So when after even CDPR get falsly accused of "Graphical Downgade" one week before release after clearly showing in numerous formats, actual gameplay, on multiple platforms for a whole year prior to release. Yet it's suddenly compared to one 2 year old E3 "In Engine" trailer, with more in common with the "In Engine" cutscenes than gameplay, unlike Watchdogs that showed the supposed actual gameplay.
Then when Bethesda show their, for XB1 "In Engine" Trailer, they are slammed for poor graphics. Not complimented for their "Honesty"

Make your mind up what you want internet, you can't have both.
Bethesda's Graphics are for an open world on the XB1, they never do great graphics, they never will.
Skyrim had 512×512b Textures at launch, mods pushed that to 2048×2048b average and 8192×8192b max.

Not even the Next gen consoles can copre with 8k, I expect 1024×1024b or at best 2048×2048b in Fallout 4. Any more is simply unrealistic

 

[martyrdrebel27]

Oh, this surprises anyone?

but point definitely taken, nintendo has gone well out of their way to accommodate backwards compatiblity. even as i type that though, the point occurs to me that i made about the handhelds: it's cheaper and easier to put it into a nintendo product because nintendo hasn't competed with the other two in terms of power for awhile now.

I don't know how the storage medium affects the ease of bc implementation (my educated guess would be not at all) but it is far from unreasonable to ask for a ps2 and a ps1 software emulator on the ps4 which has more than enough power to brute force that with anti aliasing and shoveling the entire disk data into RAM so nothing spins cherry on top.
I also don't buy that backwards compatibility to the previous gen is technically impossible for a second, especially for the xbone that didn't do this whole "switching to a sane processor architecture" thing.
If microsoft and sony truly wanted to, they could and would find ways to make this happen.

This is also not a matter of "entitlement" or "expectation", this is a matter of getting bullshit explanations of why it doesn't happen and in the case of the ps3, bc was literally there and then taken out of it with no premium option to get it for people who would want that (me) and now, wonder of wonders, sony does the whole subscription based streaming thing which they themselves said is their take on "backwards compatibility" and both consoles get showered with remakes so the undertones are pretty crystal clear here.

Nintendo exudes none of the above mentioned underhanded nonsense that makes trusting microsoft or sony impossible for anyone paying attention which is the actual core of the issue.

i'm not talking about the storage medium being the issue, i'm talking about cost of manufacture and end cost for consumer. since the objectively weaker hardware in the Wii is cheaper to manufacture (hence the Wii always having been the cheapest console to buy) there is wiggle room in that price for the consumer. However, with microsoft and sony already pushing the $500 price tag, the cost to put in the extra components to make it a functioning BC machine would just too big of a burden on the consumer.