UPDATE: Watch my How-To on connnecting a PS4 controller to a Macbook Pro or any bluetooth-enabled Mac running Sierra 10.11 or later. How to configure your PS3 controller to use with Snes9x emulator for Mac OS X Lion. For OS X Lion you DO NOT need to install a driver for the PS3 controller. If you are using an older version and need a driver here is the link for it: Snes9x Emulator: If you have any questions or are having any problems feel free to send me a comment below. Sorry for all the weird camera angles and shit like that. I didn't wanna screen record because I didn't want the game to lag upon demonstration.
I know my PS4 controller works with my Mac computer. Works great with Desume. When I set my controller config with snes9x it thinks the d pad. PS4 controllers work on most PC games, but ZSNES: SNES emulator may not support it properly. Pinnacle Game Profiler can solve all your controller problems. Just click the button below to download the Pinnacle Game Profiler software, which includes a pre-made profile to add PS4 gamepad support to ZSNES: SNES emulator.
An anonymous reader writes: The Digital Foundry blog reports that Sony has added functionality to the PlayStation 4 that. Surprisingly, the company did not mention that this functionality is live; a new Star Wars game bundle just happened to include three titles that were released on the PS2. From the article: 'How can we tell? First of all, a system prompt appears telling you that select and start buttons are mapped to the left and right sides of the Dual Shock 4's trackpad.
Third party game developers cannot access the system OS in this manner. Secondly, just like the PS2 emulator on PlayStation 3, there's an emulation system in place for handling PS2 memory cards. Thirdly, the classic PlayStation 2 logo appears in all of its poorly upscaled glory when you boot each title.' Sony has, but declined to provide any further details. And the Linux fans will scream but removing OtherOS was a smart move and was frankly a stupid move in the first place! For those that do not know consoles work on a 'razor and blades' model where the console is sold at a loss and they make their money on licenses and royalties.
At the time of otherOS Sony was losing $300 USD per unit on the console and guess what? OtherOS users NEVER BOUGHT GAMES which meant every.single.OtherOS.user. Was a loss of $300 per unit!
And if that wasn't bad enough OtherOS wasn't. I think of the people chewing into the troll, yours is the best answer. If you bought a PS3 able to boot Linux (an advertised feature, and on the box) that is also able to play online games (same), you had to choose. If you choose the first option, you forever lost your ability to play online games (and many other games would later check for version- basically your box was now dead to everything from that point in time forward). If you chose the second option, you lost the Linux capability.
It was real ba. If you bought a PS3 able to boot Linux (an advertised feature, I wouldn't exactly call OtherOS an 'advertised feature'. Sure a few Sony people talked about it in interviews with sites like Ars, but that's not really advertisement but promotion.
They're two different things. Use the right word for the job. OtherOS was 'promoted' and 'documented' (In the PS3's larger manual), but not 'advertised'. Hell, Sony's 'OpenPlatform' website wasn't actually indexed by search engines back when the PS3 launched.
quote and on the box)/quote OtherOS/Linux was never mentioned o. You essentially just said you don't see any other uses for the ability to run Linux on hardware that was purpose built for media playback other than military cluster computing and game piracy?
Either you are being intentionally obtuse with the intention of trolling or you are incredibly unimaginative and just plain ignorant of the potential the PS3 had as a HTPC running Linux. I had YDL on mine.
It could handle plenty of basic computing tasks. For example, Firefox on the PS3 was a much better browser than the silly Netfront based browser the PS3 had at first. (The browser the PS3 currently has is by the same company but is webkit now, it's 'some' better) It was great for music playback, more functionality than what is built into the PS3. Video not so much, unless 720p or lower. It had OO, GIMP.
And most of the usual applications LInux distros have. There was even IBM'. Because the PC isn't a console.
It isn't a closed platform. It isn't loss leading with profits expected to come from the sale of games. A console is. The likes of Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft sink billions into developing consoles with the expectation of a return over their lifetime. It should be quite obvious to anyone why Sony disabled Other OS. It wasn't because of the handful of people who actually used it (and I was one of those unlike the vast% of people complaining) or even those running MAME or SN.
I suspect you might well be surprised at the hardware used by people who use Slashdot. With a few exceptions, I think the majority of people here seem quite intelligent and logical but have somewhat of an aversion to change and unnecessary innovations. Speaking purely for myself, I built my computer in 2011 with a i5 2500k and maxed out the RAM. Then I spent £60 on a low end graphics card because - why spend more when I have a console for gaming and a media player (WDTV at the time) for watching downlo. As someone who has never had a console, do I understand correctly that people normally have to re-buy games when they upgrade their consoles? Not like a PC where something 20 years old can, sometimes with a bit of hacking, still be played on your current machine.
Do you just stack all your consoles in your living room so you can select the appropriate one for the games you have? Are you people made of space and money? This has been going on for nearly 40 years. Welcome to today. Yes and no, some games do get re-released in an updated format and some users will pay for that. The rest of us tend to keep the old consoles and the few games we truely love, in a box somewhere that gets dusted off and used once every leap year. The upside to this is there's no 'hacking' to get something working.
![Ps4 Ps4](/uploads/1/2/5/4/125406031/484202666.jpg)
And if we're talking 20 year old PC titles, well, we're into the territory that you have to ensure your sound card (yes, they did exist as their own card) and video card are actually supported. PC Gamer here.
I bought a new video card recently for 200. The previous one lasted around 5 years and it was purchased for about 250. It kept up with most games rather nicely and only started showing its age with newer titles about a year ago. Ram and processor are good for a while yet.
8GB DDR3, Phenom 2 1090t Stacks of hard drives? 3tb drive holds it all nicely. Games I am currently playing get moved to the ssd. I also do not have 6 consoles plugged into my TV, with their various con. I don't think keeping a PC constantly up to date is really necessary to enjoy a majority of games. Sure some people spend hundreds of dollars on multiple video cards, high end processors and fancy monitors from Korea but it's not necessary. Mostly because so many PC games are optimized for console hardware released 10 years ago.
If your monitor only goes to 1080p you can usually max out the specs anyway. You can run a 4 year old video card and still enjoy most PC games.
![Mac Mac](/uploads/1/2/5/4/125406031/638601072.jpg)
Because as I said unless you want so. Most things with CD tried to be backwards compatibility, most things with cartridges not so much.
That's not really accurate. Sure the Playstation line was Backwards compatible up until half way through the PS3's life span but none of the Sega Disc based consoles were BC.
However Sega's Genesis could play Master system games with the appropriate adapter. (the adapter was really only there for the slot to accept the cartridges). Also the Atari 5200 and 7800 could play 2600 games. The gameboy's were almost al. In the old day each new console was a very different system that was basically totally incompatible with it's predecessors, if you wanted to keep playing your old games you had to keep your old consoles around.
Sometimes a game would be re-released for a newer console but this was the exception not the rule. If a game was re-released and you wanted to play it on your new console then yes you did have to re-buy it. Often such games were packaged together into compilations for the re-release. Not as much of a trend as you think. Atari 7800 was compatible with 2600 games. Sega broke that trend as well.
Mega Drive was backcompat with Master System, and 32x was also backcompat with Mega Drive by way of being an addon (as you could put your MD cats on top of the 32x and they would generally work). Also Nintend broke that trend in handheld - all GBA systems but the GB Micro could play original B&W GB games. Each successive handheld has at least supported one previous generation of consoles. As someone who has never had a console, do I understand correctly that people normally have to re-buy games when they upgrade their consoles? Not like a PC where something 20 years old can, sometimes with a bit of hacking, still be played on your current machine. Do you just stack all your consoles in your living room so you can select the appropriate one for the games you have? Are you people made of space and money?
We just keep the old consoles. They're not that big - maybe a foot across. And (until they got internet connectivity) they were mostly guaranteed to work forever without user intervention. Backwards compatibility on PCs was not trivial before DOSBox, and I understand that running Windows 3.1 games is still pretty difficult.
Keep in mind that consoles don't have a single standard architecture. Different consoles in the same generation are not compatible, and the hardware on consoles changes much more from ge. Perhaps if the developer chose x86 ASM instead of C, he wouldn't need a multi-GHz CPU to properly emulate things. And he'd have a bunch of limitations as to where he could run it, then. The 'right' way to right an emulator is probably with several tuned hardware specific pieces of code for the parts that are the most resource intensive, cobbled together with a high level language- but you have to maintain each separately.
If you expect a random emulator to have the same sort of support as the Windows. Most DOS or Windows programs could be run directly until the 64-bit versions of Windows. Lots of games worked, but many didn't. Good luck getting sound from a game that expects an ISA Sound Blaster or Adlib card. Some games used software delays to control the execution speed, which became unusably fast on newer CPUs. Regardless, having to install an old operating system is not what I'd call backwards compatibility. The thing I miss most in 64-bit Win7 is the ability to enter 80x25 text mode.
It really brought back the feeling of playing old Infocom games for the first time. Regardless, having to install an old operating system is not what I'd call backwards compatibility. Whatever the game is, Good Old Games will have it eventually. They have lots of very early games with goofy requirements, that run effortlessly in my 64-bit Win7 gaming machine. Games written for 10-years-ago Windows tend to run fine with the emulation built into Win7.
Games that actually followed the MS rules to ensure compatibility (rare, but they exist) from last millennium work. Starcraft released 17 years ago and still works. I'm not sure if I can drop in my Diablo CD from 19 years ago (haven't trie. Well, kinda, but not entirely that simple.
I've probably re-bought more computer games than console games, really. I play my Atari and Nintendo (original NES, and SuperNintendo) games on my PC in emulation. My original computer games were for the Mac OS 6 through 9, none of which are compatible with my curent MacBook running OS X, so I either don't get to play them anymore, or I re-purchased them for PC. GOG.com makes this relatively inexpensive, and honestly it's easier and cheaper (in terms of time) to re-b. There's probably a lot of old titles people would still play if they could, and which can probably make some additional revenue from. I can't remember if it was PS-PS2, or PS2-PS3.
But essentially they achieved backwards compatibility by making the CPU for the previous generation the front-end processor for the new generation. The theory was backwards compatible was essentially free.
It's entirely plausible the PS4 can't emulate a PS3 fast enough. But I bet there's a lot of side scrollers and o. I can't remember if it was PS-PS2, or PS2-PS3. But essentially they achieved backwards compatibility by making the CPU for the previous generation the front-end processor for the new generation. There have been several consoles like that.
Sega Genesis included the Sega Master System CPU as a coprocessor mostly used for audio and a VDP that can fall back to Master System video modes. PlayStation 2 included the original PlayStation's CPU as the I/O coprocessor. Nintendo DS included the GBA's ARM7 as the I/O coprocessor.
There are a few other approaches to backward compatibility. One is to overclock the same CPU (Game Boy Color, Wii), possibly with more identical cores (Wii U). Another is to disable the previous CPU entirely when running new games (Game Boy Advance, PlayStation 3 with SACD logo). The Super Famicom is backward compatible with Famicom games with a cartridge adapter.
Are you referring to something like the blogspot.com? That's no more 'backward compatibility' than a colecovision.dk, Super Game Boy, or Game Boy Player accessory because all the NES processing hardware is in the Super 8 adapter. It just uses the Super NES for power and controllers. It's not like the Power Base Converter, which just mapped Master System cartridge pinout to Genesis. Or was there another adapter I'm missing? Who cares about clock speeds? Even if the PS4 had a current-day top-of-the-line CPU, emulating a Cell processor with usable performance would be an enormous - probably impossible - task.
The Cell is quite exotic: it's radically different from most CPUs. I imagine it would be a nightmare for software emulation. On top of that, you'd have to emulate the GPU, which would another enormous (maybe impossible) task.
A more practical alternative would be to set our sights lower, and for Sony to create tooling to sim. Keep in mind the ps3 (cell) had a totally different architecture where the ps4 is off the shelf (mostly) pc components. They are offering a paid streaming service for some (all?) ps3 titles. That's why just giving us an emulator will never happen. Why spend time and money developing this to give it for free when you can make me buy those games again, or better yet sucker me into a subscription. Fact is, much like the xbox1 supporting a big list of xbox games, no one gives a crap because no one buys a 50. As someone who has shipped a few PS2 games and did PS3 dev support, emulating the 3.2 GHz wikipedia.org along with the 6 SPUs on an 8-core x86 would have been a.huge.
performance hit. Remember the PS4 is only running at a wikipedia.org In contradistinction wikipedia.org, the EEE, only runs 300 Mhz. Likewise the other processors, the VU0, VU1, GS, SPU run at 150 MHz. (The SPU runs only at 8 MHz.) FAR easier to emulate - you basically just throw hardware at the problem.:-) At that is even accoun. I have about 8 or so PS2 titles in my cupboard which would be nice to play.
But I doubt Sony have any intention of opening up the emulation so I can run them on a PS4. They make too much money selling 'remastered' titles, and from packaging up titles to sell on PSN, or via their cloud service. At least they recoup their investment from testing games and making their money in that way. Just opening up emulation on the console doesn't earn them a thing unless they intend to charge people a few coins to 'unloc.
The big unanswered question is whether Sony will allow users to play PS2 games from their original discs. On the basis of what we've seen so far, there would appear to be no reason why this isn't feasible.
The worry, however, is that Sony wants restrict the system to online purchases made via a PS4, so that people who want to play PS2 games on a PS4 need to purchase the titles again, even if they own the original discs (and with probably only a tiny portion of the PS2's library being available for purchase). They haven't tested it for all games. So, they only support using it for this special case. Also, they probably don't want to encourage game makers to use it, but rather recompile (and retarget) their game for better support. It is like running World of Warcraft on linux. The company has a linux build of the game. They don't release it.
They don't support running WoW using Wine. They won't ban you for playing WoW using Wine. Their anti-cheat program will detect you using Wine to run their game, and will appr.