Backwards compatibility is objectively important

[gyroscopeboy]

Why don't you just keep your old console... there problem solved.

That may be true, but as an xbox owner, a huge last gen back catalogue of games that I could play on my PS4 would be a huge boon if i were considering making the switch.

Thats one of the reasons I switched from PS2 to xbox 360

Buy a ps3 when the price gets dropped when the new console gets shipped or if you got a good connection use the gaikai service to stream the ps3 games.

Well i'm not made of money, so don't really want to buy a PS3 AND a PS4, and my connection is kinda shitty for streaming. Not being argumentative, i'm just saying there are people out there who would use backwards compatibility. As it stands, i'll probably just grab a next gen xbox, and sony misses out on a potential sale.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

I have a large amount of PS3 games. Around 50 or so. I also have a larger amount of PS2 games, somewhere in the neighborhood of 100. And I also have PS1 games, only about 20 of those. When the PS4 launches, there "might" be 1 game that I may want to play. Most likely, it won't have any for launch.

If I can't play any old games, I am not buying a PS4 for launch. If no games come out for a while on the PS4 that I want to play, it could be a while before I get it, if at all. The hype will lose steam, and I will just continue to play my backlog of games I already have.

I purchased a launch PS3 because it had backwards compatibility. No other reason. I bought Resistance with it, but I never played it until much later. The first game I played on my PS3 was a PS2 game. I was happy, because it meant that I could have 1 system hooked up to my TV and play all of my games that I already owned. I was happy, because I thought the company was showing some loyalty to the customers that were loyal to it and letting them play their old games. I continued to buy old PS2 and PS1 games along with PS3 games because I knew they would work.

When they removed backwards compatibility from the later models, I knew right away that they would be trying to re-sell the old games. They "hinted" that they were working on an emulation idea for it, but I knew that was a farce, only enough to string people along. (Much like the PSPGo and the people complaining about their catalogue of PSP games).

The point is they have already shown that they have the technology to have backwards compatibility. They also show that they don't want to include it because they make more money reselling games. What's better? Shelling out $50 for that PS2 game, or shelling out $50 and another $20 to play it on your harddrive, and having a useless copy on your shelf? Regressing technology is a stupid, stupid thing, and arguing for it is also stupid.

I have 3 PS3s. 1 launch system and 2 newer systems. I can't play all of my games in any room that I have them set up. I think this is particularly dumb (along with not being able to transfer save files and such, but that's a different). You say I can just hook up all the systems to my TV? How many systems should I have in my room? 2? 3? 5? How about those that play many different systems? Hell, I would like it if Sony came out with 2 models, one for the "poor plebs" that want a cheap system that can't do anything and one that is backwards compatible with everything. I would pay $700 for it. I payed $700 for the last one as well. But I won't pay for a system that can't play the games at all. What is the point? I'll just stay with the old systems and my computer. It'll be cheaper in the long run.

/rambling rant...

 

[Burst6]

To everyone arguing that backwards compatability is to much of a hassle: low sales are an even bigger hassle. Every backwards compatable console sells better than those that are not. 3DS is outselling the Vita hand-over-fist, the DS was a bigger sell than the PSP, the Wii and Xbox 360 are still ahead of the PS3 in sales, and the PS2 outsold all it's competition COMBINED.

Odd to call it a hassle when every console with that feature sells like hotcakes.

1) 3DS is outselling Vita because the vita has expensive and has a relatively small library of games. Also, Vita can play PSP games as long as they were bought on the PSN, so it is backwards compatible.

2) What was Sony's handheld system before the PSP came out? You can't make backwards compatibility if there's nothing to go back on.

3) Didn't the PS3 overtake the Xbox 360 in sales a few months ago? There was a news article on the escapist about it if i remember correctly. Yeah the Wii is ahead but it was aimed heavily at casuals. You can't exactly blame backwards compatibility for that. Also the 360 had software emulation that didn't work on all games and was buggy on a good amount of them.

4) The PS2 had backwards compatibility because it had the same architechture as the PS1 and could do it easily. That's not the reason the PS2 sold so well. The PS2 sold well because of a great game library and excellent 3rd party support.

I think you're overstating how much backwards compatibility helps sales.

 

[mooncalf]

It seems to me that with the market rapidly gaining on our dreams of a hypersaturated entertainment future, the driving paradigm is the *breaking down* of barriers rather than the erecting of new ones. Honestly I don't give a toss if they want to cripple themselves by taking away one of the MAJOR motivators for early adoption in recent console generations, but what I fully expect them to do is hurry the hell up and roll out synergistic tech like cloud gaming where you can play old games on any web-capable machine connecting to a server that runs the game remotely on instanced virtual hardware.

 

[J Tyran]

The screwing happened later, no way of registering your UMD games you own and transferring them to your Vita. They did roll this out in Japan but not globally. Only UMD games got screwed though, any games you bought through PSN for the PSP can be transferred to the Vita using your PS3 though. Sony could have tried to do more though, like plugging the PSP into the Vita to transfer them or linking the individual UMD game your PSN account and then being able to re download them.

You know, I was thinking of something like this the other day.

Most Bluray movies come with a pack-in DVD and a digital copy of the movie you purchased.
So why can't physical copies of games come with a code for a digital copy?

Food for thought Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft...

There was no reason they couldnt have done it, I think it would have been a nice gesture towards the people that supported the PSP and the Vita. Just letting the customers know that they are appreciated instead of exploited.

 

[Arina Love]

i buy new console to play NEW games. I still have my PS3 with all of my games (PS3 is my main platform for games) i just don't care if PS4 will play old games. so no it's not objectively-important, yeh Backwards-compatibility is a nice feature but far far from important ones.

 

[Arina Love]

Objective.
You use that word.
I don't think it means what you think it means.

Really, I don't get why backwards compatibility is that big a deal. Maybe its 'cause I've got backwards compatibility for the last 20+ years on my PC, but I'm not seeing it. Consoles are different to PCs in this regard, in the fact that they aren't large and bulky. Having 2 PCs would be like having 8-16 consoles or so. Having to have 2 consoles instead of 1... Not that big a disadvantage IMO. Yeah, you'll have to swap around your TV ports every so often, but really they don't take up much space, and its not that big a deal that you'll have to use to systems instead of one.

You even don't really need to swap ports that much ether! Standard HDTV have 3 HDMI ports and AV port. You used all of your ports? NO problem, just buy HDMI or AV switcher (they are cheap) and plug anything you like!

here i use this one http://www.amazon.com/Portta-PET0301S-HDMI-Switcher-Support/dp/B00B46XUQU it's effing 10$ and with remote!

 

[theultimateend]

No see, they're companies engaged in providing purely optional leisure activities, and are mostly public listed companies. This means they literally are accountable for the decisions they've made and how that relates to their profitability.


You'll note I didnt say 'They exist to make money' I said 'They're businesses looking to make a profit.' These are entirely different concepts, and the kneejerk response you provided doesnt really mesh.

Most people kneejerk because the "businesses are out to make money" line is really boring and empty.

Building consoles that are backwards compatible becomes easier and easier with each generation, it increases the value of the console in question, and it increases their marketing power.

Also I'd argue that gaming isn't merely a "optional leisure activity" but an important art that gets treated like crap just because people mistake it for being no more important than a twinkie "it's just a product after all".

Anywho, that's my two cents.

4) The PS2 had backwards compatibility because it had the same architechture as the PS1 and could do it easily. That's not the reason the PS2 sold so well. The PS2 sold well because of a great game library and excellent 3rd party support.

I think you're overstating how much backwards compatibility helps sales.

Did the PS2 have a great game library and excellent 3rd party support when it launched?

I seem to recall my buddy lamenting his purchase for a while. But I was quite young at the time.

3) Who is it not good for? i) Those who have to port it (Something much harder than many of the coding neophytes who pose this question think it is. Look back over the history of games, and the software and hardware they run on. It's cheaper and easier to make some of them completely from scratch than to port them.)
ii) Companies who would like to sell remakes.

You can play basically every game made on the NES, Atari, SNES, Sega, and every handheld device on a Nintendo DS >.>...

You can play every game except for 360 and PS3 games on the PC afaik.

One of the things that always bothers me is when they charge 20 dollars for a "port" of a game that has already been ripped for years and fully functional on multiple devices.

I imagine its more a licensing problem than a tech problem. If its just a tech problem I'll direct the companies to the internet where thousands of people have already done it flawlessly [slight hyperbole, but good enough for jazz].

Outside of that... do you throw out your old console as soon as you get its successor? I doubt it. So a lack of BWC really shouldn't be a big deal. I'm certainly not bothered by it. It would be nice (though transferring saves would be a bother), but I'm not longing for it to any degree.

So to you a system is only worth its ability to play games from older systems? It's not trying to be revolutionary, it's trying to be an upgrade from the PS3, so that the games developed for it can be bigger, better, and (hopefully) more ambitious.

So please explain to me the practicality of having a PS3, PS2 and PS4 on my entertainment center, particularly when the PS5 comes out and once again the library of games we just got is rendered unusable. If you have been with Sony from the start, things are already at the ridiculous stage. Most people don't have infinite outlets, HDMI ports and space to have every console hooked up at once, and it's ludicrous to think that's cool. I am not saying this is a problem that can be fixed, but there is enough evidence to warrant that it is indeed a problem. Of course people are going to get a PS4 to play PS4 games, but when their new PS4 title fails to impress (and it will happen periodically), it's good to fall back on the enormous libraries prior without re-arranging your whole entertainment center.

I'm actually playing Final Fantasy 12 again on the PS2 . So your point is valid. I've also recently been on a binge of Final Fantasy Anthology.

Dunno why...ended up buying a factory sealed copy of Anthologies on Ebay a couple weeks ago. Been thinking about how easily this stuff is lost to apathy and decided I wanted to build a nice physical collection.

 

[Abomination]

My PC provides backwards compatability for my Playstation 2. Modern emulation software actually results in a more enjoyable experience. I'm playing through Final Fantasy X without having to grind through as much content and skipping frames during the (*shudder*) laughter has proven great for my sanity.

There is no economic benefit for a company to provide backwards compatability for its consoles. The cost&effort:revenue ratio is heavily leaning toward the cost & effort side of the spectrum.

If someone has Playstation 2/3 games they want to play then use your Playstation 2/3 that you most likely had to play the games in the first place.

Or just join the Glorious PC Master Race and not have to bother with the issue.

 

[VanQ]

Sony released the PS3 with backwards compatibility included but it jacked the price up several hundreds of dollars. So nobody bought it.

Sony then released a version without backwards compatibility which dropped the price significantly. The new version moved 77 million units and went on to be the second best selling console of its generation and a damn good success.

You voted with your wallet. Consumers voted with their wallets. You told Sony you wanted a cheaper console and would sacrifice backwards compatibility to get it. I can only imagine the folks at Sony HQ reading your rants and scratching their heads at you. I would be too, all the signs pointed to cheaper is better.

Releasing the PS4 with backwards compatibility would require PS3 hardware to be built in. Software emulation is highly unlikely because the system is not powerful enough to handle it, so don't give me that rubbish.

If you have PS3 games, I can only assume you either
a) Have a PS3 to play them on
or b) Are stark bonkers mad
So just play it in your damn PS3 that you spent your money on. My PSX and PS2 are absolute champions that still run to this day.

You don't have to have your PS3 in your TV unit or whatever all the time if you don't have room. Chances are if you want to play an old game from the PS3 era you will have the patience to connect 2 cables, one to the power socket and one to the TV. Maybe one more if you have a surround sound unit.

How many gamers does it take to put a PS3 disc in a PS3? None, they're all too busy griping that their disc won't work in a console that's not a PS3. I mean hell, even a monkey can figure out the circle brick goes in the circle hole.

 

[Gypsyssilver]

The fact that the PS2 was backwards compatible and I could play my PS1 games on it was a huge drawcard for me. I didn't want to have fifty consoles fighting for space in front of my tv, I didn't want to give up my old games either. I'd kept them all because I loved playing them.

When I bought my PS3 (before selling it and getting a 360, then giving up and going back to PC gaming) I was pretty gutted that I wasn't going to be able to play my old games on it. I started to worry about what would happen when my PS2 gave out (as it inevitably will). Would I just content myself with memories of playing Final Fantasy VII? Of sometimes thinking about what it was like to play (and laugh at) the original Resident Evil games?

Still, it's the nature of the beast I guess. As time marches on, newer and newer consoles will emerge. I wouldn't want future system developers to limit themselves just because I occasionally like to play Crash Bandicoot and relive my childhood.

Thank God for emulators is all I can say. Perhaps that's the way it will be for current generation games as well. Bestsellers in their day, the companies who made them long gone, all that remains is a listing and a download link on Abandonia.