Why the PS4 Doesn't Do PS3 Games

[Alatari]

What I don't understand is why Sony isn't catering to the "hardcore" market. I realize they want to keep prices down so I wouldn't expect backwards compatibility to be free. Charge $5 for a PS1 or PS2 software emulator. A lot of people would buy it and they could add some extras instead of just the bare bones PS1 emulation the PS3 currently has.

Furthermore, they could design the PS4 with a slot where a card with the Cell processor (and whatever else is needed) could plug in. Charge $50 or $75 for it. Those who don't want PS3 compatibility then wouldn't have to pay for it.

Say what you want about Ken Kutaragi (the Father of the Playstation who left after the release of the PS3). He was arrogant and misguided (ie. the whole Cell processor thing) but at least he had some vision!

There is a fairly large group of people who want backwards compatibility. If you don't believe me compare the price a new PS3 sells for now with what an original model from 2006 sells for... (Spoiler Alert! The 2006 model is much more valuable.)

I'm willing to pay more for backwards compatibility and want Sony to at least GIVE ME THE OPTION!

(I have been a Playstation owner since the first one was released in 1995.)

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

Make 2 systems dammit! Make 1 that is cheap that only plays PS4 games and does the streaming crap. Make another that is more expensive and can play their entire library. I know that I'd pay for it.

Sony is essentially telling me not to buy their next system. Why would I even want to? Right now, I may as well switch over to Microsoft or Ouya even because I am not losing anything. I'd be "losing my library" in regards to being playable on whatever system I pickup, so why stick with one that is actively trying to nickel and dime me?

 

[Yopaz]

I got a PS3 less than 3 months ago and I still haven't finished the games that made me buy it. Of course I am annoyed that I wont be able to play them if I choose to update, but I understand why. It's a sad, but it's probably better for the developers to be able to work with one kind of CPU. I don't love the idea and it will make me hold off a future purchase for a game I really want though.

Well, I'm sure I'm not the only one but, they are losing my potential money.
I'm an Xbox gamer--so I don't own any PS games. However, I've been very interested in a couple of the PS3 exclusives (Quantic Dream and Naughty Dog). However, it doesn't make much sense to me to buy a console that is on its way out for four games. So I was considering buying a PS4, thinking erroneously that it would be backwards compatible. But now that I learn that it won't be, There is very little chance I'm going to buy the PS4 or any of that PS3 back catalogue.

Did you read the same article I did? Games aren't made incompatible on a whim, but because the hardware is incompatible. Now why would they abandon their old kind of CPU? Maybe because that is the reason the PS3 had problems getting games for its first few years? That CPU was hard to work with according to what I have heard. Abandoning this might mean it gets easier for developers to make games in the future and it also means a bigger chance that the PS5 gets backwards compatibility.

As I said I bought a PS3 less than 3 months ago. Obviously this isn't ideal for me, but I understand why.

 

[Raioken18]

Don't get my hopes up, I would love PS2 backwards compatibility. It's the main reason I didn't bother getting a PS3 and went PC instead. Because I still have hundreds of PS2 games that I haven't been able to play for years because of the crappy quality of second hand PS2's which are like ducks teeth now.

As someone who is now a pure PC gamer, I'd seriously be tempted by that backwards compatibility. Like some of the exclusives so far look nice... I'd love to play Tekken again, there just needs to be that little push to bring me back.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Rage only had 1 texture? That blows my mind.

First 6 core cpus, now DDR5 memory, Sony just likes these big tech numbers.

GDDR5. We're still on DDR3 as the standard for RAM.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/248493-30-gddr

 

[Dryk]

They could, but it wouldn't be in their best interests. A reasonable pricing point will sell consoles far better than backwards compatibility would, and the hardware needed to achieve native backwards compatibility would raise the price of the PS4 a considerably amount. This is evident in the sales of the PS3; most of the PS3 units sold were done once the price of the system was cut, and removing backwards compatibility helped cut the price of the PS3 with the introduction of the slim. Not to mention that high-level industry executives have gone on record stating that a "very small percentage of people" even use the feature.

It's inconvenient, but it's a move Sony must make to try and rectify their poor strategy from last gen.

How expensive are those Cell processors to make. Some of my friends pointed out that they need to include a second processor in the thing anyway, if it's at all possible to make it one that improves backwards compatibility why not do it.

 

[wulf3n]

"Lolz just keep your old console."

Yeah I guarantee there won't be a single functioning 360 in the entire world in 10 years time.

No, but in 10 years time, nearly any halfway decent PC will be able to emulate any game from the 360/ps3 generation.

Hold on to your discs after your 360 dies, download an emulator and play on.

That's not the be all and end all, some games just don't work on emulators.

Try playing Rogue Squadron for the N64 via emulator.
and the Australian version of FF8 doesn't work quite right.

 

[Saika Renegade]

That explains quite a bit, quite cleanly even for the non-technically minded. Unfortunate to see the impressive processing potential laid low by architectural limitations.

 

[Lex Darko]

Make 2 systems dammit! Make 1 that is cheap that only plays PS4 games and does the streaming crap. Make another that is more expensive and can play their entire library. I know that I'd pay for it.

Sony is essentially telling me not to buy their next system. Why would I even want to? Right now, I may as well switch over to Microsoft or Ouya even because I am not losing anything. I'd be "losing my library" in regards to being playable on whatever system I pickup, so why stick with one that is actively trying to nickel and dime me?

Yeah making a "premium" PS4 would make the most sense but with full backwards compatibility PS1 to PS3 could easily see the price go up by two to three hundred dollars on a device that will probably cost between three to five hundred dollars at launch.

Meaning that the "premium" BC version could cost at a minimum five hundred dollars and at maximum (an extremely unlikely) 800 dollars. While 500 dollars seems reasonable it might not be worth it to Sony to make another version and have to deal with essentially selling two different machines which makes inventory planning and production just that much harder to properly estimate in a market that isn't growing as quickly as it once did in the past.

However 3 to 5 years from now if Sony decides to redesign the PS4 there should be nothing stopping them from just including the previous hardware at that point, because the price should be low enough that value added will out weigh the cost.

 

[kamos]

Interesting article. I'd just like to point out that consoles with multiple processors aren't exactly new, they were around long before the PS3. If I'm not mistaken, consoles as ancient as the Sega Genesis already had a muti-processor architecture (though granted, they were usually per task processors; i.e., one dedicated processor for sound, one for graphics, and so on).

It is also interesting to note that one of the reasons why the Sega Saturn failed was because of its bizarre, convoluted hardware, where the Playstation 1 was much easier (and cheaper) to develop for. Well, that and the fact that the Saturn put its bet on 2D, while the PS1 put its bet in fugly low poly games in a time when being "3D" was pretty much all a game needed to be sold. And then, with the PS3, Sony made the mistake that Sega made before, and that led its console to triumph in the first place...

Want to play your old games years from now (and games from other platforms)? Get a real gaming platform: a PC.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

you know what i took out of this article?

the entirety of Rage is one giant fucking texture! wow. do many games do this?

 

[mike1921]

I didn't know anything about cell processors and these differences but I honestly was fine with no PS3 backwards compatibility. It really didn't seem to have that great of a library and I at least felt like the console was recent enough where emulation actually would be costly or difficult. The lack of PS2 and PS1 backwards compatibility is what pissed me off. Even the PS3 can play PS1 games (I think) and buying my PS2 games again is just ...no.

 

[Irridium]

The thing that saddens me most about no backwards compatibility is that the greatest library of games ever will be lost forever.

Just a really damn sad thing to see. On the PC we at least have places like GoG and less reputable sites keeping games up for purchase/download, but what about consoles? That's a shitload of gaming history that'll just fade away. And that's a damn shame.

 

[Theminimanx]

you know what i took out of this article?

the entirety of Rage is one giant fucking texture! wow. do many games do this?

Rage is the only one so far, though future id games may do this as well. The technology is called megatexture. Shamus made a video explaining the tech, if you want to know more.

 

[RicoADF]

I'm resisting an urge to comment about how I hope the new Xbox (because seriously, I'm going to switch back to using the awful Playstation controller again? No.) won't make such a stupid mistake. Partly because some of the rumours I've been hearing about the new Xbox are equally as horrible, and partly because it's bound to trigger an announcement of some other way Microsoft intend to screw me over. I'll just keep my mouth shut look a good little consumer.

I'm going to unfortuently cap that hope, the Xbox uses a different type again, and while more compatible than PS3 its still needs work. However both consoles could in theory receive re-releases/HD versions from multiplatform games, Activision etc just need to adapt their PC versions as they already use x86.

 

[JarinArenos]

I gave the PS3 a complete pass. Both from a business and a feature perspective (sony really ticked me off around the start of the generation). But rage cools, and they could do one thing to win me back: give me PS2 compatibility. I couldn't care less about the PS3 library, but I have a huge pile of PS2 games that I still haul out and play on a regular basis. Let me do that without having to jump through increasingly difficult hoops to replace PS2s when they eventually die.

 

[dagens24]

This was a heart breaking read. I was so looking forward to one day having my entire PS library on one machine and it looks like it'll be at least another decade before that's realistic.

 

[PeterMerkin69]

It will never be realistic, unfortunately. Have you talked to many mainstream gamers lately? They don't know what PS1 games are and they don't care. They want bleeding-edge graphics and Halo and emotional experiences.

The video gaming industry: it's business, not art. Businessmen go where the money is, and there's probably very little to be had in backwards compatibility.