PlayStation 4 Abandons Backwards Compatibility

[Fishcactus]

Do a lot of people sell their consoles?

Yeah, this. I'm confused.

The PS4 not having backwards compatibility doesn't mean you can't play your PS3 games, nobody is taking them away from you.

I can see how it might be annoying if a PS4 user wants to try some older games they missed out on, or if your PS3 breaks, but I don't understand all the outrage and facepalming here...you could see it coming.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Saika Renegade]

I guess they never realized precisely why the PS2 was far and away the sales king of its console generation.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

For crying out loud, did Sony learn nothing from the Vita? This is the reason the Vita is constantly being out sold by the PSP.

The reason the Vita tanked was the fact that they were marketing to a small demographic: hardcore gamers on the go. Most people don't want to game on the go, they want to game in bit sized chunks with app-based games or at home in larger chunks. The DS sidesteps this by marketing to kids and a dedicated fanbase among adults.

OT: While this is defiantly sad, it isn't unexpected. Consoles aren't sold on the potential of past generations, they are sold on the potential of future games and big blockbusters. It sucks that is come down to this, but there really isn't much money-making potential in backwards compatibility.

 

[Joccaren]

Meanwhilst in PC land, I'm playing games from 20 years ago on a modern rig.

Really though, I don't get why this is that big a deal. You probably have a PS3. You're new PS4 won't have an inbuilt anti-PS3-minigun or something to destroy it with, so you will be able to game on both. Sure, its a minor inconvenience having to swap which one you've got hooked up to your TV if for some reason you can only link one at a time, but its hardly the end of the world >.>

 

[The_Echo]

Doesn't bother me in the least. I still have my PSOne and PS2, and I had no intentions of chucking my PS3. I always keep my old consoles/handhelds.

Hell, I still have an NES and Genesis, despite one of them plain not working and the other missing a cable.

I might just have a hoarder mentality, though.

 

[Strazdas]

Good. wait, hold on, stop throwing tomatos, hear me out.

First of all, im not familiar with PS2 architecture, but PS3 architecture was simply awful from a developing perspective Having backward compactability would mean they have to use similar architecture, which woudl be very bad. however if they drop this, they can make good architecture, and it seems that they are going this way. so while some functionality is lost, a lot is gained, which is good.
Secondly, even though there are many people shouting "me want backward compactability" hardly anyone use it. research shows that only a few % of gamers ever bothered with it. So developing a backward compactability woudl mean a HUGE investment in resources for a very small niche of your market. id rather have them spend these resources on things that majority will use, like making a decent online environment that does not resemble a 90s comic book.

Besides, its not like they are taking away your PS3 that you have, right?

 

[Aesir23]

I can understand why emulation would be difficult if not nigh impossible. However, the increasing focus on bloody social media is definitely something that's irritating me. It's just one thing that's making me increasingly happy to leave consoles behind even though I'll probably be sucked right back in if they get a decent selection of exclusives.

 

[Kingjackl]

That's a damn shame. The problem with upgraded hardware like this is that you have to upgrade your whole library as well. When the PS3 eventually becomes obsolete, so will all it's games. Worse still, if you ever feel like replaying an old favourite or picking up some old gem you missed, you'd have to dig out your old console. Backwards compatibility may seem like a non-issue to a lot of people, but it's simply more convenient than having to swap between consoles.

The PS2 actually had really good backwards compatibility. From what I understand, the PS2 used the PS1 original processor as a kind of subprocessor so it could just run any PS1 game off of that.

 

[Kingjackl]

EDIT: Oops, double post. Thanks captcha.

 

[FalloutJack]

Now there is Blu Ray and if I have heard correctly you can't use DVDs in a Blu Ray player.

Slight misconception here. Blu-Ray does not play HD, it's competitor. It plays DVD just fine.

 

[JarinArenos]

No backwards compatibility, no purchase. half my favorite games are PS1 and 2, and my PS2 still gets more use than my 360.

 

[Ipsen]

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.

It can't be very profitable, even if cheap, to add in backwards compatibility to systems these days. I can't even say BC is useful perpetually for a console.

But the largest 'problem' I see, and that we all see, is that the general game library is large, and always growing. In every step 'forward' of a generation, consoles brutally cut off the old, and focus on the new. But I find myself more and more agitated that now ANOTHER new console DOESN'T support my old games, as unfortunately, I have not thrown them in the garbage like Sony/Microsoft thinks I should have. Its getting to the point where adding BC again WOULD be the fresh thing to do.

Now, none of this deludes the fact that BC is still a rather small issue (or rather, the system could have much worse problems). But it's not like 400$+ games is cheap either, for a typical game consumer (at least the ones console developers SHOULD target). I can't see adding BC terribly more expensive, especially if you've seen the super slim PS3 these days (looks cheeeeeeeeeeeap!)

EDIT: Now that Sony has denied me this, I'll just find reasons to NOT get the system, despite new features/games. For example....

If I, or even Sony, for that matter, is going to start divvying costs of features up, fuck, I might as well do that math for a gaming PC.

 

[Zipa]

It will likely benefit them and us in the long run, they have switched from cell to x86 architecture which is a much more widely used and known architecture (PCs use it) so more and better games and less issues like the ones that have plagued skyrim for so long on the PS3. Plus if they are using the same as PC and Xbox then multi plats will get more polishing as dev teams will be spending far less time trying to make the port compatible.

Also if it goes well for them with the X86 and they stick with it to the PS5 then you can bet it will be backwards compatible.
As it stands now for the ps4 to have backwards compatibility it would basically have to have a ps3 inside of it and that would raise the cost and people would ***** about that way more.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

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.

You're right. A new handheld gets a major boost when can play a game from a least the last generation. One thing in my pocket that plays new stuff and old is better than wearing bloated cargo pants after all. But , Sony dropped the ball almost ten years ago with a disk based handheld. Backwards compatibility on Vita would necessitate either either using that same expensive and power hungry UMD drive or adding it on the current Vita design. The Vita's guts take up enough juice as it is. They could helped the situation by letting us download our UMD titles like they did in Japan.

Meanwhilst in PC land, I'm playing games from 20 years ago on a modern rig.

Really though, I don't get why this is that big a deal. You probably have a PS3. You're new PS4 won't have an inbuilt anti-PS3-minigun or something to destroy it with, so you will be able to game on both. Sure, its a minor inconvenience having to swap which one you've got hooked up to your TV if for some reason you can only link one at a time, but its hardly the end of the world >.>

I still play DOOM every so often on a computer that can play Skyrim on medium settings. Maybe I should sell my ps3 and 360 and go to Good Old Games.

No backwards compatibility, no purchase. half my favorite games are PS1 and 2, and my PS2 still gets more use than my 360.

I here ya, pal. I get a new game today and it sits on my shelf after running for 30 min because I find playing a 10 to 20 year old Final Fantasy, God of War or Metroid Prime over again for hundredth time more entertaining than all this rushed, focus group driven, online multiplayer garbage coming out today.

 

[Atmos Duality]

You're right. A new handheld gets a major boost when can play a game from a least the last generation. One thing in my pocket that plays new stuff and old is better than wearing bloated cargo pants after all. But , Sony dropped the ball almost ten years ago with a disk based handheld. Backwards compatibility on Vita would necessitate either either using that same expensive and power hungry UMD drive or adding it on the current Vita design. The Vita's guts take up enough juice as it is. They could helped the situation by letting us download our UMD titles like they did in Japan.

UMD was a disaster. A format only practically suited for sequential access (movies, basically), and not programs.
They made the right choice in moving towards a solid-state format (via downloads), but now they're really shooting themselves in the foot with all of this upcharging of hardware and obsession with owning the user's unit wholly.

If the Vita's release schedule were as consistent and frequent as their DRM updates, it'd be the best system in existence.

 

[Woodsey]

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.

No backwards compatibility, no purchase. half my favorite games are PS1 and 2, and my PS2 still gets more use than my 360.

You must be able to buy a PS2 for half a packet of Wrigley's and a Bic razor. What difference does it make?

 

[loa]

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.

No backwards compatibility, no purchase. half my favorite games are PS1 and 2, and my PS2 still gets more use than my 360.

You must be able to buy a PS2 for half a packet of Wrigley's and a Bic razor. What difference does it make?

Well I don't have to stow yet another box away to access my quite extensive ps2 library and the emulation might be at a higher resolution and/or have an option for anti aliasing to make the games look better on HD tvs.

 

[Woodsey]

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.

No backwards compatibility, no purchase. half my favorite games are PS1 and 2, and my PS2 still gets more use than my 360.

You must be able to buy a PS2 for half a packet of Wrigley's and a Bic razor. What difference does it make?

Well I don't have to stow yet another box away to access my quite extensive ps2 library and the emulation might be at a higher resolution and/or have an option for anti aliasing to make the games look better.

Still doesn't quite seem to cover the cost of a new console if you literally have no interest in the stuff coming out for it.

 

[EHKOS]

....Well I guess I'll just buy a Wii and play the exclusives I was missing out on. Thanks for helping with my backlog Sony. My avatar can tell you I loved that company, but I'm done with the new gen. It's not like they made games that were fun to play anyway. I think the PS3/360/Wii is the last gaming generation I'll participate in. It would certainly free up some cash.

 

[loa]

Still doesn't quite seem to cover the cost of a new console if you literally have no interest in the stuff coming out for it.

I'd most likely get ps4 games if I got a ps4, I'd just want it to be a permanent replacement for my ps2.
That would be an actual reason for me to get it just like it was my reason for not getting a ps3.