Yes I know the subs are for MP that mostly isn't from Sony. And we have seem crossplay also being just some complaining point but without any real impact. So there really isn't hard evidence to prove that without BC or crossplay among PS4-PS5 crew it would be a major down point to PS5.
It may be silly but people buy new HW to play new games.
There is nothing to suggest that having BC gives you continuity on userbase. PS3 had BC and no continuity, PS4 didn't have BC and had continuity on userbase.
On the PR, you asked for evidence. We have Sony saying (and they didn't need at all), we have MS numbers showing BC wasn't much used.
On Sony we have from top of mind and making big sales Uncharted Collection, GoW3, TLOU on PS4 (Sly Coopers, Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter on PS3), Crash N'Sane and Spyro on third parties, plus Sega, Atari, and some other collections, FF VII and FF IX enhanced versions, FF X/X-2, FF XII. This just from memory. And probably higher than all of those GTA V.
Even Nintendo and MS have made a lot of remasters, it isn't out of nowhere that people were saying this was the gen of remaster or joking on Sony doing only remasters.
Crossplay between PS4/ X1 barely has any big game/ publisher support. In fact, there are barely any games at all. So of course there would be no real impact in this department. So the point still stands, offering PSN PS4 support will prevent the possibility of users jumping from PS4 to the next XB.
Yeah, about as silly as ppl wanting their digital libraries to exist perpetually like every other online service in existence.
You constantly make these singular points looking at a certain aspect without even contemplating the wider context. PS3 was incredibly overpriced and it suffered for a few years before that could actually be corrected, BC or not. PS4 came out after a very long previous gen, was priced better than the competition, and had an unveiling that made it the anti-PS3. Shuhei even commented about a year after launch that the sales were surprising and that even non-PS3 owners were buying a PS4. Without anything to keep 360 users tied to the Xbox experience, it was easy for users to move over to new hardware.
Well I didn't ask for evidence to that but fair enough. It could be true. Either way, the PS4 BC we are talking about is not the same as the PS3 BC. Publishers weren't seeing a large sum of their profits from digital on PS3 like they do not on PS4. Live service games hadn't really taken off on PS3 like they have on PS4. The situation is not the same, the angle is not the same. Sony wasn't making the bulk of their profit off digital sales or services on the PS3. The situations are different.
So some publishers have released a few games each? And I am not seeing a lot of sales giants in that list you provided. Nonetheless, I see no problems with remasters continuing. Them being healthy doesn't detract from continued engagement with existing consumers going forward. It is just an alternate product.
Anyhow, Sony has been reporting that their network and game services is their most profitable department for a few quarters now. The new PS head is a networks guy. They aren't going to take the risk that comes with resetting their network/ service offerings. They are making so much money off it on PS4 that continuing it without any roadblocks is only the most natural business decision to be made here. And the reality is that announcing as such secures their position next gen.
But if you think Sony is going to risk resetting their network offerings for existing consumers based on outdated contexts, then you are free to do so. Maybe you will ultimately be right. I doubt it though. But we will see.