VGKing said: PS4 needs to have backwards compatibility with PS3. Not via the cloud, but via the Blu-Ray discs and those PSN games we bought need to run as well.....PS4 owners get an intant game collection of PS3 games from Day 1, doesn't that sound awesome? Plus, games like God of War Ascenion and The Last of Us are coming out really late in the generation and letting PS4 owners play those games is the smartest thing Sony could do.

This may be a needed feature, but I have doubts about it happening though...The major reason is a vast difference between the cell processor and what is rumored to be in the PS4. Because of that difference the only real way to reasonably do so at a low price point is to emulate; which due to the instruction sets being so different would be way easier said than done. My guess is don't count on it being there unless they create a dual hardware system like the first runs of PS3 60 gigs.

Backwards compatability would be ideal but not a deal braker IMHO. Considering Sony will most likely not use the Cell again it may be impossible to emulate PS3 code through software.

I wouldn't mind if Sony sold a dongle that would provide B/C but then again they are more likely to just keep on selling the PS3 for those who want to keep playing PS3 content.

VGKing said: PS4 needs to have backwards compatibility with PS3. Not via the cloud, but via the Blu-Ray discs

If you want a powerful, efficient and affordable PS4, this is basically impossible. AMD and Intel x86 CPUs are far superior to non-x86 PowerPC/Cell varieties. Also, with AMD APU, you have the option of either dual graphics, or reduced power consumption for less demanding Arcade/2D games that can be played off the APU. That would make the console very efficient and yet powerful enough with a separate 2nd dedicated GPU. Secondly, PS3's GPU was architecturally a fixed fragment pipeline architecture. All modern gaming GPUs have unified shader architecture that works differently. For that reason, it's going to be nightmare, if not impossible, to get PS3 games to work with BC on BluRay. (Xbox 360 had a unified shader GPU, which means it's 50% there for BC with Xbox next). You have 2 major components that will be incompatible with PS3's CPU and GPU without serious software emulation or requiring PS3's physical hardware in PS4.

There are plenty of reasons why not having hardware BC is better:

1) The console will likely be much cheaper (no need to spend $ on physical hardware of PS3 in PS4). To retain hardware PS2 BC in the fat PS3, Sony had to spend $80 extra per each PS3 made. Talk about a waste of $. 

2) Allows you to start with a clean slate PS4. When you don't have artificial constraints and boundaries to work with (i.e., must use a PowerPC-based CPU for hardware BC), you can start picking and choosing the best components for next generation games in terms of performance/$, performance/watt and total performance. Cell 2.0 / PowerPC CPU is not the best choice from a performance point of view, despite Sony's and MS's TFLOP marketing spins.

3) Going with an x86 CPU means leaving the perpetual cycle of having to settle for inferior PowerPC CPU architectures for games. Breaking the cycle now would benefit PS5, PS6, etc. as those consoles could use even more powerful x86 CPUs. x86 CPU would solve 3 major issues that plagued PS3's development:

(i) Reduce costs and complexity of porting PC games to PS4. It was very costly to port PC games to the PS3. With an x86 CPU, making games for PS4 would be easier. That would attract more developers to consider PS4.

(ii) Reduce optimization / performance issues associated with coding for a proprietary CPU. It's a lot easier to optimize and extract performance from an Intel / AMD x86 CPU/APU that developers are familiar with than coding for a proprietary CPU. PS3's complex Cell has proven that it costs expontentially more to extract top performance and it takes years to learn how to tap its full potential. PS4 games need to look great right away, not great in 3-5 years from launch. Just look at Xbox 1. It arguably had the best graphics of its generation and was very easy to code for. It had an x86 CPU. Also, look at the Wii U. The CPU is different from the PC, PS3, 360 and as a result unless developers learn how to code for it, it is giving them major problems. Now these developers have to spend extra time and money learning how to optimize specifically for the Wii U. Most cross-platform games run worse on PS3 due to its complex Cell and most developers are reluctant to spend extra resources optimizing for the Cell. With an x86 CPU, suddenly PS4 would become the go to system for cross-platform titles as most of those are made on the PC to begin with.

(iii) Reduce time to market for those games since you spend less time optimizing.

4) Including physical PS3 parts in PS4 may be the only way to ensure full hardware compability w/ PS3 BluRays. That would make the console even larger, cooling even more complex and power brick/supply would need to be able to power both PS3 and PS4's hardware. With modern hardware using a lot more power for high-end components, this is just too much of a compromise. It's not the same as including PS2 parts into PS3. As technology gets more advanced and power hungry, it will make it that much harder to retain PS3's physical parts inside PS4.

5) Sony is bleeding financially. It would be far better in the long-term if Sony sold FullHD (1080P) remastered versions of PS3 games on PSN+ for those who never owned a PS3. This would give Sony a new revenue stream and help them survive. For PS3 owners, they could use Gaikai to ensure that PS3 BC works via software online.

I think Sony should not focus on BC at the hardware level at all. Either make the console more affordable, or use that $ instead towards faster/more modern x86 CPU/APU + secondary GPU onboard for a much faster console.

The only way for backwards compatibility to happen is with the Cell processor being involved. Period.

Adinnieken said: What is the difference between building something on board, and putting it into a module that attaches to the console?  None, save for cost.  The PS4 would simply go into a standby state while the PS3 module took over control of the hardware.

Big difference. The maximum power consumption a PCIe 3.0 slot can provide is 75W. That means if you cram a PS3 into an external module, it needs its own power supply too. Ok now how can you sell a $70-100 module with PS3 components when PS3 costs more than $200? Even without BluRay and HDD, I doubt this module will be cheap. How do you propose this module will be cooled exactly? You are going to end up with a PS4 and PS3 massive module stacked on top of it like a giant hardware sandwich? I think this would be awkward. Why would a PS3 owner go out and spend $70-100 extra to play PS3 games if they still have a PS3? If Sony follows along a similar strategy as they did with PS2, PS3 will fall in price to attract gamers who cannot afford a more modern console. I think Sony will try to push PS3 itself closer to $149-179. The module just seems like an added expense that will hardly be a convenient solution.

Instead, just like Sony pushed BluRay to become a successor to DVD, they should push Cloud gaming as the next big thing in console gaming. They should just make all PS1, 2, 3 games on the Cloud for PS4 owners. If they take it a step further and remaster PS3 games in FullHD, people might spend $ to replay GT5, Uncharted, GOW series in FullHD on PS4 as well. 

BlueFalcon said: Adinnieken said: What is the difference between building something on board, and putting it into a module that attaches to the console?  None, save for cost.  The PS4 would simply go into a standby state while the PS3 module took over control of the hardware. Big difference. The maximum power consumption a PCIe 3.0 slot can provide is 75W. That means if you cram a PS3 into an external module, it needs its own power supply too. Ok now how can you sell a $70-100 module with PS3 components when PS3 costs more than $200? Even without BluRay and HDD, I doubt this module will be cheap. How do you propose this module will be cooled exactly? You are going to end up with a PS4 and PS3 massive module stacked on top of it like a giant hardware sandwich? I think this would be awkward. Why would a PS3 owner go out and spend $70-100 extra to play PS3 games if they still have a PS3? If Sony follows along a similar strategy as they did with PS2, PS3 will fall in price to attract gamers who cannot afford a more modern console. I think Sony will try to push PS3 itself closer to $149-179. The module just seems like an added expense that will hardly be a convenient solution. Instead, just like Sony pushed BluRay to become a successor to DVD, they should push Cloud gaming as the next big thing in console gaming. They should just make all PS1, 2, 3 games on the Cloud for PS4 owners. If they take it a step further and remaster PS3 games in FullHD, people might spend $ to replay GT5, Uncharted, GOW series in FullHD on PS4 as well.

Did you actually think about what you just said?  I didn't think so.

You somehow believe you can scale down the price of a PS3 to $179 or $149, yet you can't offer a PS3 BC module for $100.  So, without a power supply, without the controllers for USB, WI-FI, Bluetooth, or SATA, and without the Blu-Ray drive and all the excess plastic and metal involved, you don't think it could cost $100?

The PS3 module wouldn't be for someone who still owns a PS3.  Anyone with half a brain would understand that.  The PS3 module would be for anyone who doesn't already own a PS3 but wants PS3 compatibility with the PS4 they do own.  Those people who own a PS3 and a PS4, but want the PS3 module would simply be a bonus.  

Backwards compatibility should be mandatory on every console.

Regardless of the expense and difficulty in getting it implemented, having BC is still the smart thing to do. We have already seen with the vita that if there is no BC, then people with the PSP are reluctant to move to the next gen device. The same problem will occur with the ps3 to ps4 - we are now heavily invested in our consoles with the games and data which we have already on our consoles and its unlikely that we will be able to transfer any over to the ps4. If sony want a great launch, doing this would be the smartest thing to do....but Im not sure if they will implement it considering how much money they could make releasing ps3 games on the ps4 for a price.

platformmaster918 said: Galaki said: Nah. Sony wouldn't want to be copying Nintendo. Sony invented BC so I hope you're kidding.

Well,

 

Actually Sony didn't quite invent that concept...

 

In the 80's, Atari made the 7800 backwards compatible with the 2600.

Adinnieken said: Did you actually think about what you just said?  I didn't think so. You somehow believe you can scale down the price of a PS3 to $179 or $149, yet you can't offer a PS3 BC module for $100.  So, without a power supply, without the controllers for USB, WI-FI, Bluetooth, or SATA, and without the Blu-Ray drive and all the excess plastic and metal involved, you don't think it could cost $100?

Ya, I actually did think about it. Sony could sell PS3 to emerging and 3rd world countries with lower income per capita for $149-179 and take a loss on those consoles in hopes of making up the profits in software sales in those new markets. Selling a $100 module and making $0 serves them no purpose whatsoever. In the first case, it would allow PS3 to carry on the legacy of PS2 and sell more than 100 million consoles, and allow it to capture completely new consumers. In the second case, Sony would need to design a special module, spend extra $ on testing it, do a redesign of the motherboard, PSU. All of that would add more uncessary costs and occupy employee resources where they would be better spent on making sure PS4's launch is stellar. You also didn't address any of the technical issues I brought up regarding cooling or power of such a module. 

Also, why would PS3 owners want to spend $100 extra on a module that will make PS4 look ugly, take up more space, when the whole point of BC is to alleviate these inconvenicnes to begin with? Why in the world would someone with a working PS3 go out and spend extra $100 on a module that's not even a stand-alone PS3 if they can just put stack their PS3 on top of their PS4?

Sony's management should be focused fully on PS4 because if PS4 flops again financially like PS3 did, the company might not even survive. For that reason as well, removing physical BC is better. If Sony's management cares about making $, they'll sell remastered Full HD versions of the best PS3 games via PSN+/Gaikai and make extra profits from people who never owned a PS3.