PlayStation 4 Abandons Backwards Compatibility

Recommended Videos

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
If my PC can emulate the PS2, this powerful gaming console can do it as well. Of course, it can also emulate the PS1 as well.

I understand needing the streaming option for PS3/PSN games but forcing us to be online to play PS1 and PS2 games seems silly.

BTW, the Vita is backward compatible with PSP games and some PS1 games.
 

zidine100

New member
Mar 19, 2009
1,016
0
0
completely understandable the overhead for backwards comparability for the ps2 and 3 are well huge, that and the fact they will probably try to resell the games to you.
 

Colt47

New member
Oct 31, 2012
1,065
0
0
As much as I love backwards compatibility, there are limitations to older architecture that can make it difficult for developers to create games on them. I would have jumped on the bandwagon with not buying because of lack of backwards compatibility if Sony didn't pull a rather interesting twist in picking up x86 CISC architecture. This is actually better than backwards compatibility for a number of reasons, one of them being lower development costs since they wont have to freaking rewrite entire code blocks just to make a game work on CELL architecture when they already have it made for x86.
 

klaynexas3

My shoes hurt
Dec 30, 2009
1,525
0
0
What about PS1 games? That's not hard to play, and to this day not a single Sony console hasn't been without a way to play them. Will someone tell me what will happen to that library of games?

I'm in no way surprised about it not playing PS3 games, as that would require a lot more work to do so, thus jacking prices, and making shit far too expensive to the point where the console can't sell at all. I'm more interested in where it is going, not if it can do something that one of my consoles can already do just fine. I'm only interested in the PS1 capabilities because, well, as I said, not a single Sony console so far is incapable of playing those games in some way shape or form, so that's a bit more of shaky ground, as no one seems interested to explain what might happen with that. At any rate, I enjoyed the announcement, like what I see for the PS4, but in terms of PR, it was stupid, and only lead to more questions than it truly answered. Either wait until E3 to show everything at once, or show us most of everything(including the damn console you bastards) and a price point while holding the actual games for E3, or just blow off E3 and tell everyone they got their early peepshow and deal with it. At the end of the day, no surprises about this "news"(if you could even call it that), but I'm still excited(although agitated at the same time) for what else we will get to see in the future, and what the console will actually have to offer.
 

CriticalMiss

New member
Jan 18, 2013
2,024
0
0
Tank207 said:
Yeah, I'm pretty much done with this console generation. The PS4 was really the only thing I was interested in, since I refuse to buy Microsoft's next console. If I do get one, it won't be until many years down the road and after a price drop.

The lack of backwards compatibility on its own is pretty bad, but not being allowed to keep your games you bought on PSN? Yeah both those things combined are a major deal breaker for me.

But at least we have useless social media features shoved in where we don't need them.
Don't forget the Sony Kinect that everyone was asking for.

I wouldn't be suprised if the PS4 is just as slow to sell as Sony's other latest hardware. They keep on ruining their chances of it being good with each passing moment. I can't wait to hear how much it is going to cost. Given the current trends it must be somewhere around $2000 to make sure even the most hardcore Sony fans lose interest.
 

elilupe

New member
Jun 1, 2009
533
0
0
This is...just...goddamnit Sony. If we never get a single console that can play every game ever made (which is pretty much impossible, I'd say), backwards compatibility is the only thing keeping older games in existence. Game companies can't seriously expect people to own every console ever, just to play some older, great game.
Imagine, if you will, that you want to watch Casablanca, a cinematic classic, and the only way to do that was to but an old, black and white, CRT TV with dials.
If that was the case, that movie would disappear, no matter how great of a classic it was. That is what is going to happen in the future unless we get some damn backwards compatibility.
 

gyroscopeboy

New member
Nov 27, 2010
601
0
0
Whelp, there goes my only fleeting interest in the PS4. I've been an xbox owner for a looong time and the only way i'd switch would be if I could play the huge backlog of PS3 exclusives as well.
 
Sep 9, 2007
631
0
0
This doesn't bother me that much. Its a new architecture, so there were most likely to be compatibility issues (Which people would have bitched about if Sony tried for BC). So I guess that means I'll keep my PS3 around and buy a <a href=http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=AC1691>HDMI switch when I eventually get a PS4, so I can play one or the other without cable changing.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,146
0
0
VanQQisH said:
If Sony releases it without backwards compatibility people will ***** about that.

If Sony had released the PS4 with backwards compatibility it would have raised the price and people would ***** about that.

You just can't win with those kinds of people. I'm aware we still don't know how much the PS4 will cost but building PS3 hardware into it would not be free.
Option 3: offer a version without backwards comparability for cheap and one with for more, then customers have a choice.
 

Lucky Godzilla

New member
Oct 31, 2012
146
0
0
Smolderin said:
Something tells me that Sony doesn't want my money.... :(

I mean, come on. Really?
It may have to do with the fact that they abandoned the cell architecture in favor of x86.
We can all agree that despite it's potential, the cell processor did end up holding the PS3 back due to its complexity. By electing to use the x86 architecture, Sony can cut down on development costs, and blur the lines between console and pc development further. Essentially they would have to run a ps3 emulator on the ps4, a feat that is impossible for top of the line computers.

Sucks I know, but I don't think it should be classified as shameless moneygrabbing.
 

rapidoud

New member
Feb 1, 2008
547
0
0
loa said:
Yeah, no.
They have no excuse not to have a ps2 software emulator with all the processing power that thing has.
But then again, why have that out of the box on day 1 and give me an actual reason to consider getting that thing to finally replace my ps2.
Maybe they want you to use the PS2 emulator on your computer...
 

SpAc3man

New member
Jul 26, 2009
1,195
0
0
Kumagawa Misogi said:
PS1 mips cpu

PS2 mips cpu (backwards compatibility with PS1 super easy)

PS3 Power cpu (backwards compatibility only possible with PS2 with PS2 cpu included result increased cost = complaints of it's too expensive so it's dropped and sales increase).

PS4 X86 cpu (same as with PS3-PS2 only possible with additional hardware and increase in cost so they don't bother as people complaining on the internet does not effect sales cost does :)
This.

The huge effort required to build a software compatibility layer to translate to a different architecture is simply not worth the time and money. Embedding a second CPU is too expensive.

An emulator would not run smoothly for PS3 emulation and even PS2 emulation still requires a very decent amount of CPU power. My desktop can run a PS2 emulator fine but my laptop struggles. I would imagine that someone, somewhere will be able to get custom software running on the PS4 and recompile PCSX2 to run on it. Which should be mostly straightforward seeing as it is written for x86. That would give the PS4 backward compatibility with PS1 and PS2 games which is the best anyone could hope for.
 

shadyh8er

New member
Apr 28, 2010
1,778
0
0
Sony....I've defended you for too long. Your $600 price tags and issues with hacking were one thing, but this? Just...no.
 

carlh267

New member
Jun 4, 2012
50
0
0
It's disappointing, but expected. I can live with my fat PS3 sitting next to my tv plugged in next to my ps4.

I agree with the few people in this thread that point out that people whined when the PS3 was super expensive at launch (because it went with backwards compatibility), and now they're whining because the console won't have backwards compatibility (meaning the price should be more reasonable).

You just can't win with some people.
 

JagermanXcell

New member
Oct 1, 2012
1,098
0
0
Ok soooooooooooo on a PC you can have an NES emulator.
The WiU has a Wii emulator.
But the PS4, being more PC centered, can't have any emulators?

I literally cannot facepalm hard enough.
Yeah yeah I know its "business", but staring at my dusty PS2, knowing that will eventually happen to my PS3, really makes me wonder why I even play video games as a hobby only to constantly CONSTANTLY get slapped in the face by the industry's obvious greed.

I don't want this freaking social networking bull crap and "supa weawistic gwaphics":

I. WANT. TO. PLAY. VIDEO. GAMES.

Did I just rant...
 

Orange12345

New member
Aug 11, 2011
458
0
0
Tank207 said:
The lack of backwards compatibility on its own is pretty bad, but not being allowed to keep your games you bought on PSN? Yeah both those things combined are a major deal breaker for me.
I know right?, I was actually considering scrapping together some dough to buy one at launch because hey it'll still play my ps3 games so if the launch/post launch library is a bit stale I'll still have something, but now? what's the fucking point of buying early
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,224
0
0
God dammit Sony. I really wanted to try all those PS3 exclusives I missed out on this past generation. And be able to play my PS2 games in my bedroom finally.

*sigh* Maybe I'll just borrow a friends PS3 when they get their next gen console.