Sarcasm

It's not really exactly B/C, but who can blame Sony for ditching it as a priority when they were backlashed for the pricing of the PS3 when it first came out?

Imagine if the PS4 came out at $599 because it included the CELL chip? It probably wouldn't be the console we know it today.

That and it will be selective titles. At least from my impression.

Umm player install base doesn't matter. It's current gen now because currently you could buy one now. It's not next. Next is going to be PS5 or Xbox1080 or whatever.

This is incredibly ironic I can't believe it.

Hmmm no wonder people give me weird looks when I just use "..." when someone asks me a question. Too much telltale gaming.

Well in the sense the PS3 was and proved to be future proof. The same with the Xbox 360 or any other internet connected update-able hardware for that matter. I mean you look at the start of the 360 and PS3, they are vastly different consoles in terms of feature set then when they launched.

A B/C PS4 would probably cost $600 as someone mentioned.

You know who killed proper B/C? The consumers. Those who complained and yelled and cried about how much the PS3 costed too much. Sony had no choice but to cut cost one way or another.

Now I'm no advocate of a super expensive console, but I'm just saying that's the trade off.

Sure it would have been nice to play PS3 games on the PS4, but I still keep my PS3 for that reason....

OnLine doesn't have this one thing that's associated with it.

It's called "PlayStation"

No matter how you slice it, millions upon millions of PlayStation consoles are in homes and people know what it is.

Because it's easy to port over a PC version to x86 hardware. It's practically free money for them.

^PockyKing beat me to it.

Honestly player count isn't as a big deal as people are making it out to be. Clearly this game is more lasered focused on smaller battles, by small I mean not nearly the same size as Battlefield.

But I can see some people's disappointment thinking they will get some giant epic battles across a huge landscape.

As I've said before, it's really a dudebro approach to their game design. Fast, twitch, kill, die, rinse and repeat. You don't need ...

That's true, not only do you get a TV you basically get a "console" that can play 3 generations of PS games assuming you subscribe to it.

It's 5/mbps minimum

http://www.shacknews.com/ar...

My connection here averages 50mbps, so I'm good to go at home.

Although I'm still skeptical for shooters, but man I can see myself playing tons of PS2 games all over again.

Yup, it can only get better in the long run as bandwidth and speed increases.

"PC brute force their games, console optimize them."

This is actually very true. Mostly because of the open nature of the PC platform.

If a developer actually optimized to the metal for something like a GTX 780, it will be 2-3 times more amazing than what we see today.

And costs are a big factor. Ain't no way a $400 PC will be able to play Tomb Raider at 1080p 60fps let alone 1440p 60fps.

They need to make it a survival horror game and not an action game.

Actually man... It could be a good TellTale game if done right.