PlayStation 4 Abandons Backwards Compatibility

[Jfswift]

That's pretty damn lame. Oh well, hopefully somewhere down the line they'll make a super tiny version of the PS3 and sell it for super cheap like they did with the PS2.

It is, I agree but that should reflect a lower unit price for the consumer too. (I hope..)

 

[Easton Dark]

Do a lot of people sell their consoles?

I keep all of them. It's like a museum of my life.

 

[Baresark]

This is the thing that is going to hurt it most. With backwards compatibility the transition is made much easier when a new system is coming out. Now I would need to keep a hold of my PS3 and have a PS4 in order to play newer games. But the newer games are going to be entirely too rare for quite a while after release. At best we will get some slightly enhanced versions of the PS3 games, and that will be rare because the architecture is ridiculously different. They should have tried to devise a way to emulate PS3 in order to make the transition possible. But their stupid worthless CELL architecture bites them in ass yet again.

 

[jthm]

And here I was thinking they wanted me to buy their system.

 

[RicoADF]

This is the thing that is going to hurt it most. With backwards compatibility the transition is made much easier when a new system is coming out. Now I would need to keep a hold of my PS3 and have a PS4 in order to play newer games. But the newer games are going to be entirely too rare for quite a while after release. At best we will get some slightly enhanced versions of the PS3 games, and that will be rare because the architecture is ridiculously different. They should have tried to devise a way to emulate PS3 in order to make the transition possible. But their stupid worthless CELL architecture bites them in ass yet again.

Considering the PS4 is more like a PC, multiplatform games would come out on that more likely than the PS3 once its out. Far easier and cheaper to port to.

Captcha - got my mojo , good for u captcha, did Sony give it to you?

 

[Baresark]

This is the thing that is going to hurt it most. With backwards compatibility the transition is made much easier when a new system is coming out. Now I would need to keep a hold of my PS3 and have a PS4 in order to play newer games. But the newer games are going to be entirely too rare for quite a while after release. At best we will get some slightly enhanced versions of the PS3 games, and that will be rare because the architecture is ridiculously different. They should have tried to devise a way to emulate PS3 in order to make the transition possible. But their stupid worthless CELL architecture bites them in ass yet again.

Considering the PS4 is more like a PC, multiplatform games would come out on that more likely than the PS3 once its out. Far easier and cheaper to port to.

Captcha - got my mojo , good for u captcha, did Sony give it to you?

Haha, great captcha. I used to get that shinglesinfo.com one all the time, I started thinking shingles was the worst possible thing that could happen to me.

OT: The only reason it presents a block is because when it fist comes out, it will slow down the sales significantly. Companies are far more likely to produce games for the system with the much larger install base. Sure, programming the games will be easier, but PS4 development will be on the back burner until the install base is a decent percentage as compared to PS3. If companies do develop a game for both the PS3 and PS4, it will be designing the game for a completely different console and probably require a good portion of the budget as well. The conundrum is, PS3 will have a much larger install base for the foreseeable future but be much harder to program for. I also wonder if a publisher will have to pay a license fee for both systems, which also bites into likelihood of them producing PS4 titles when the PS3 is still far more viable.

This is, of course, conjecture. I don't know for sure, no one does.

 

[bug_of_war]

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.

Just wanna use this to point out to you and others complaining, we did have to buy new copies of old films. Remember going to watch a film and you had to insert a large tape into the VHS machine, and how there was no skipping scenes, only fast forwarding the tape. Then we got DVDs and as far as I am aware we can't shove a VHS tape into a DVD player. Now there is Blu Ray and if I have heard correctly you can't use DVDs in a Blu Ray player.

This goes for music too. You can't play vinyl in a cassette player, or a cassette in a CD player.

Stop crying about the lack of backwards compatability, it's not a crime to move forward and lack the ability to play old hardware. If you REALLY want to play a PS1, PS2 or PS3 game just keep the console and play it on that. Hell, I have my PS1 and PS2 both still working because I didn't just throw away the old product once the new one became available. I enjoy plugging the old consoles in and playing the old games on them, and I have no ill thoughts towards the PS3/PS4 and Xbox not being able to play my old games. They shouldn't have to, they're new, they should have their own collection of games for me to enjoy.

 

[Anchupom]

The Xbox next may be not as backwards compatable as the PS4. The 360 clearly wasn't. It had a "selection" of games at launch. hardly a fraction of it's full library. Switching over would prove noting and wouldn't save you any more or less money.

It's not a case of whether the neXtBox [small](I'm sorry)[/small] is going to be more or less backwards compatible than the PS4, as I don't own a 360 and never have. I'm just saying that if I'm going to have to go into the next generation whilst keeping my old PS3, then there's no reason I should stay with Sony.

 

[synobal]

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

Thank you for this post. It is possible to emulate the games via software but that sort of stuff is notoriously buggy and requires a lot more CPU than running it on it's native architecture. PC enthusiasts are typically willing to tinker to get stuff like that to work but most console players would only think the marketing was misleading, and or it would frustrate them.

Now if the PS5 sticks with a standard pc architecture x86-64 etc, then backwards compatibility will be super easy.

 

[KoudelkaMorgan]

Backwards compatibility does wonders for people that want to jump on the new console bandwagon but would otherwise wait until more than 1 game they want is released for it. I only got a 3DS because I could still play DS games on it, and because EO 4 and Prof. Layton were soon to be here.

I waited until Oblivion's Game of the Year edition came out to finally get a PS3 originally, and I was glad I could still play me PS2 and PS1 games on it too. My other consoles all still worked, it was just way more convenient to have one hooked up, and I wasn't going to spend $600 on a machine that I could only play that one PS3 game on.

Sadly the 2nd PS3 had to get to replace my yylod one had none of that customer pleasing nonsense, and now my Bravia crapped out after a couple years of sporadic use. So Sony isn't exactly on my "Quality" list of manufacturers at the moment.

I'm still slogging through all the PS4 news I opted out of yesterday though, so maybe I'll find something to interest me about this next generation as Nintendo and M$ aren't doing it.

 

[Jamous]

Captcha: Knock Back. How appropriate. I'm desperately not looking forward to this. The PS2 was my first real console and I've stuck with it since, but it's looking increasingly likely that I might just skip out on the next console generation entirely... It's starting to just not seem to be worth it to me.

 

[Jamous]

Captcha: Knock Back. How appropriate. I'm desperately not looking forward to this. The PS2 was my first real console and I've stuck with it since, but it's looking increasingly likely that I might just skip out on the next console generation entirely... It's starting to just not seem to be worth it to me.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I currently own 2 PS3s and 1 PS2. **shrug** I kept my Fat PS3 when it's Blueray laser died because of it's backwards compatiblity and bought a new PS3 for my actual PS3 games. And my old PS2 is in a closet somewhere in case I ever need it.

Speaking of which, I should probably back up my Fat PS3 fake PS2 saves sometime, just in case something ever happens to it.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

It's not like I don't have a PS3, so a minor inconvenience in reality. If it was just going to make the system more expensive then I rather they not include it.

 

[trooper6]

The Xbox next may be not as backwards compatable as the PS4. The 360 clearly wasn't. It had a "selection" of games at launch. hardly a fraction of it's full library. Switching over would prove noting and wouldn't save you any more or less money.

Well, I have an Xbox360 and most of the Xbox games I own, in the end, ended up being backwards compatible. The majority of the ones that were never converted were from smaller studios or were smaller releases. But I'm still playing Xbox games on my 360.

I do not currently own any generation Playstation. I have never owned a Playstation. But Quantic Dream went exclusive to PS with this current generation. This made me sad. I didn't particularly care about any playstation exclusive except Heavy Rain. Then add on the new Quantic Dream game Two Souls. And the Uncharted series and the Last of Us. So there are 6 PS3 games I'm really interested in.

But it is a bit late in the generation to buy a PS3. So I thought, well, I'll get a PS4, since I'm sure it'll be backwards compatible.

For the first time, Sony was going to get the chance to pull in a new customer and get my money.

But now? It turns out the PS4 won't be backwards compatible. So...now it is very unlikely there are going to pick me up as a new customer. Their loss, I suppose.

I certainly hope the NeXtBox will be backwards compatible...because I have a really extensive library I haven't finished...and I don't really have the space to have a gazillion consoles hooked up to my TV.

 

[lacktheknack]

I understand WHY, it's just that it doesn't reduce the suck of it.

Ah well... Maybe one day when we all have standardized chips...

 

[Atmos Duality]

The Vita has too much crap that adds to the cost that in reality is just a gimmick that will be used once or twice just to check it out. Maybe Sony is slowly starting to learn
from that.

On the contrary: The Vita's native library is so freaking TERRIBLE it needs that backwards compatibility.
Those PS1 titles done via emulation? Life support.

 

[elilupe]

-snip-

Just wanna use this to point out to you and others complaining, we did have to buy new copies of old films. Remember going to watch a film and you had to insert a large tape into the VHS machine, and how there was no skipping scenes, only fast forwarding the tape. Then we got DVDs and as far as I am aware we can't shove a VHS tape into a DVD player. Now there is Blu Ray and if I have heard correctly you can't use DVDs in a Blu Ray player.

This goes for music too. You can't play vinyl in a cassette player, or a cassette in a CD player.

Stop crying about the lack of backwards compatability, it's not a crime to move forward and lack the ability to play old hardware. If you REALLY want to play a PS1, PS2 or PS3 game just keep the console and play it on that. Hell, I have my PS1 and PS2 both still working because I didn't just throw away the old product once the new one became available. I enjoy plugging the old consoles in and playing the old games on them, and I have no ill thoughts towards the PS3/PS4 and Xbox not being able to play my old games. They shouldn't have to, they're new, they should have their own collection of games for me to enjoy.

Ok, yes, movies and music have also progressed in hardware, HOWEVER, every movie and every song was not tailor made to a specific system that changed every few years. Think about how big a deal it is to make all these HD remakes we are getting nowadays. It costs a lot, and, depending on the console, can be rather complex to get older games reworked to be compatible with new systems. Transferring movies and music to new hardware is not nearly as complex as transferring video games. This means that many, many video games will never get any kind of official re-release on new systems.

I also have all my old systems. I have a PS1, PS2, Gamecube, and an Xbox, all hooked up and ready to play. However, think about 20-30 years down the line. No matter how much care and effort you put into keeping your old PS2 working, it will eventually break, just like everything else. And Sony no longer makes the PS2. This means eventually it will be incredibly hard just to find a working PS2, just like it is now pretty hard to find a real Ford Model T. Once this kind of thing happens, PS2 game collections will fade into memory, underrated games that never had the chance to be re-released disappearing from the minds of all but the few die-hard collectors.

And one more thing, in all of cinema history, how many radical changes in hardware have they really gone through in all this time? First, we had VHS, then came DVD's, and now we are on Blue-ray? So, two hardware changes since the 70's. Compared to video games, which, according to Wikipedia, we are now entering the eighth generation. So that adds up to two hardware changes in 40 years for cinema, and SEVEN in 40 years for gaming. And I am seeing no slowdown whatsoever in the span of time between console generations.

THIS is why backwards compatibility is important. It's not the same as changing movie formats from VHS to DVD, and it's not the same as records to CD's. If this next generation of consoles were the last one for the next 20 years, sure, I suppose backwards compatibility would be less of a major point. However, as Ubisoft just recently said, they want new consoles even sooner than 6-7 years. So I see no end to this lunacy in the near future.
And with that, /rant

 

[Burst6]

Ok, yes, movies and music have also progressed in hardware, HOWEVER, every movie and every song was not tailor made to a specific system that changed every few years. Think about how big a deal it is to make all these HD remakes we are getting nowadays. It costs a lot, and, depending on the console, can be rather complex to get older games reworked to be compatible with new systems. Transferring movies and music to new hardware is not nearly as complex as transferring video games. This means that many, many video games will never get any kind of official re-release on new systems.

I also have all my old systems. I have a PS1, PS2, Gamecube, and an Xbox, all hooked up and ready to play. However, think about 20-30 years down the line. No matter how much care and effort you put into keeping your old PS2 working, it will eventually break, just like everything else. And Sony no longer makes the PS2. This means eventually it will be incredibly hard just to find a working PS2, just like it is now pretty hard to find a real Ford Model T. Once this kind of thing happens, PS2 game collections will fade into memory, underrated games that never had the chance to be re-released disappearing from the minds of all but the few die-hard collectors.

And one more thing, in all of cinema history, how many radical changes in hardware have they really gone through in all this time? First, we had VHS, then came DVD's, and now we are on Blue-ray? So, two hardware changes since the 70's. Compared to video games, which, according to Wikipedia, we are now entering the eighth generation. So that adds up to two hardware changes in 40 years for cinema, and SEVEN in 40 years for gaming. And I am seeing no slowdown whatsoever in the span of time between console generations.

THIS is why backwards compatibility is important. It's not the same as changing movie formats from VHS to DVD, and it's not the same as records to CD's. If this next generation of consoles were the last one for the next 20 years, sure, I suppose backwards compatibility would be less of a major point. However, as Ubisoft just recently said, they want new consoles even sooner than 6-7 years. So I see no end to this lunacy in the near future.
And with that, /rant

About the PS2 games fading into history thing, they won't. The PC still has a lot of emulators and as long as games are available somewhere, they can be played. I'm assuming you're talking about so far into the future that the PS2 library becomes public domain. At that point even a bad PC should be able to emulate the PS2 easily.

 

[Zakarath]

Considering how completely arcane PS3 architecture is, color me unsurprised.