omf

@Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell

The reason they dropped backward compatibility wasn't because of cost or technical difficulty. They realized they could make some decent money selling people ports of their old games. I don't see why this would change with PS4.

@Roxas560

That *would* be awesome. They dropped support for PS2 backward-compatibility, though, so I'd say the chances are slim-to-none on that. :[

@PN04
Not at this moment, no, but it wouldn't take much. The iPhone/iPod/iPad already have an impressive library of games, and there are newer and more impressive titles coming out at an incredible rate. The latest models can display their output in HD on any capable television set both wired and wirelessly. It would be trivial to add console-like controllers to any of these - again, either wired or wirelessly.

So... what do you have when you put all that together? It may not make for a worthy contender for the more serious gamers in the crowd, but what about for MOST people who want to play games at home? And what about a year from now, when the devices and operating systems are even more powerful?

What would happen if Apple or Google/Android decided to actually TRY to make serious inroads into the game console market, as opposed to just letting it happen as a natural byproduct of the functionality they've been really focusing on?

Of course The Big Three are worried about this. They'd be fools not to be.

Although they all have reason for concern, I really think Nintendo is in the greatest danger. Mostly because "casual" and "family" gamers have been their primary audience for a long time now, and those are exactly the types who are likely to see these new devices as perfectly reasonable substitutes to dedicated game consoles.

@PN04
I wouldn't even mind so much about this if the publishers were cutting their prices to reflect the fact that this new distribution model means consumers no longer get the benefit of re-selling or even re-gifting purchases they no longer want/use, but, of course, that's not the case.

@omf

Also, just as a little frame of reference: the Atari 2600 was released in October 1977. It was "officially retired by Atari Corp. on January 1, 1992, making it the longest-lived home video game console (14 years, 2 months) in video game history." - Wikipedia

@brer Why?

@Hoops The PS3 is plenty powerful to last as a home gaming console for 10 years. The problem is that the world is changing around them in interesting and unpredictable ways. You can't just sit there with the same machine if you've suddenly got cell phones and tablets that can run games as good as your console does and at a fraction of the cost per title.

The 10-year-lifespan wasn't a bad prediction giving how things had gone the previous 10 years. (Note that the PS2 was released in March of 2000 and was still selling remarkably well 10 years later.) Problem is that things ever stay the same for long.

@jph89 ?????? 3 ROCKS!

I imagine Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony are more than a little concerned about the very real possibility of Apple and/or Android starting to cut into their market in a significant way soon.

With the popularity of smart phones and tablets, their recent ability to be able to display output to TV sets, and their major successes delivering game software the last few years... well, it doesn't take a genius to see that the home video game market could look very different in a year or two.

I think this, more than anything else, has got to be putting pressure on the traditional console makers to bring on the next generation sooner rather than later.

@Softserve Yep - and that's exactly why the publishers are super-in-love with the idea of digital distribution and lock-out. No more dealing with that pesky used game/media market.

As long as I have the option, I'm buying physical media for exactly this reason, but I know the writing is on the wall, and eventually there'll be no choice.