By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - The PS4 really should have backwards compatibility!

Conina said:
Azuren said:

Laugh as much as you want. How Microsoft handles BC on Xbox One is more consumer friendly than the PS2 Remasters on PS4.

If you already own the Xbox or 360 disc, you can play the game on Xbox One or Xbox One X for free without buying the digital version.

Also every 360 game you get with GWG stays activated after the subscription runs out, only the XBO games have an expiry date. On the other hand, all PS+ games have an expiry date, even old PS3 titles.

Calm yourself. I was only laughing at MS being in the same sentence as "consumer friendly".



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network
John2290 said:
Fuck that, there is enough new games, we don't need to replay old games.

Then don't play them. It really is that simple.
But removing choice is not a good thing.

John2290 said:
I really like this new console full reset, keeps me from doing dumb shit like that and I'm sure Sony realize this too, better to have people playing new games than old games. Just gotta remember to keep your PS4 next time when buying the PS5 and you're golden.

Except... A massive chunk of the PSN library is old games. Only REAL difference is... If you have purchased the games prior, either digitally or physically, you get it for free on the Xbox One.
Your apologetic point of view really isn't an appropriate argument though.

VGPolyglot said:

I believe that it ended up with around 29 games (2 OG Xbox and 27 360), and man it just makes things so much more convenient!

I am at 121 games, but that is just digital.
Probably over the 300~ mark if I bothered to drop my physical games in.

I just want to keep my Xbox One  X as a pure digital machine though so I don't have to deal with Discs.


Kyuu said:
This has been said countless times but.. PS4 apparently cannot run PS3 games through emulation because it simply isn't powerful enough to emulate PS3's unique architecture.

On the other hand, BC with PS1 and PS2 should have been implemented from the start. Not having that is downright anti-consumer as far as I know.

Just because something is stated "countless times" doesn't mean it is true.
I could point to a plethora of "wives tales" that reinforces that fact.

The Playstation 3 emulator on PC actually runs better than the Xbox 360 emulator... And not every game actually leverages the Cell to it's fullest anyway.

However, Sony could have taken Microsoft's approach to emulation, which isn't just strictly emulation, there is virtualization, there is some repackaging, there is abstraction and more... The Xbox One does feature a few Xbox 360 tech natively in the SoC which aids in emulation as well, but that could be abstracted on the Playstation 4 I guess.

In short though... It does require a ton of software engineering, which is Microsoft's forte'.

pokoko said:
Microsoft did it as a PR move because they were desperately trying to recover from the XO launch.

False.
Because a few standards/features on the Xbox 360 were implemented into the Xbox One chip to aid with backwards compatibility... Which means Microsoft likely planned backwards compatibility well before the generation was started.

Not only that... But Microsoft's Multi-OS virtualization environment on the Xbox One played a role as well.

CuCabeludo said:

You can't just emulate a PS3 game on a PS4 hardware, the architecture differences are too much, as different as X360 and a PS3.

Microsoft did it. And the power difference between the Xbox One and Xbox 360 is probably allot smaller and the architectural differences just as great.

FentonCrackshell said:

What lesson should they learn? To make their consoles BC and periodically update older games to work on the newer consoles? Or should they keep making big budget sequels and new IPs? The console that touts BC is always the console shift the fewest units. How can you take that as BC being so important? I'm not saying Sony shouldn't add it. I'm saying that it's not that importation. Most gamers agree.

Correlation doesn't equate to causation, that would be a logical fallacy and thus can be discarded.

Hiku said:

I don't know about that.
The Cell architecture of PS3 was much more complicated than X360's.
And Phill Spencer even said that he didn't think it was possible to do BC on XBO, and was surprised when their engineers figured it out.
Sony's Shuhei Yoshida also said he didn't think BC for 360 games was possible on XBO:

"It was surprising, I didn't think it was possible. There must be lots of engineering effort. They talked about 100 games, but what kind of games will be included? Is it smaller games or big games? We don't know. "

And for the possibility of BC on PS4 he said this:

"PS3 is such a unique architecture, and some games made use of SPUs very well, It's going to be super challenging to do so. I never say never, but we have no plans. "

https://www.cinemablend.com/games/Xbox-One-Backwards-Compatibility-Surprised-Sony-72571.html

I'd love to see PS3 BC on PS4, but I don't expect it to happen.

The Playstation 4 does have the extra GPU resources to offload some tasks done on the SPU's, onto CU's though.
Either way, Microsoft has some amazing engineers and should be applauded for their efforts.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

i think Sony will do all the BC on PS5 so that it will be more appealing than rather just a more powerful next gen PlayStation



The PS4 doesn't need backwards compatibility. PlayStation actually has appealing exclusives, and a good quantity at that. Microsoft rolled out their compatibility feature to backfill their lack of exclusives, if backwards compatibility was a such a great benefit - then Xbox One would have covered some lost ground with it. But they haven't and PS4 still outsells the X1 two to one, with the Switch coming right up on their meager 35 Million unit average from being on the market for 5 years.



TranceformerFX said:
The PS4 doesn't need backwards compatibility. PlayStation actually has appealing exclusives, and a good quantity at that. Microsoft rolled out their compatibility feature to backfill their lack of exclusives, if backwards compatibility was a such a great benefit - then Xbox One would have covered some lost ground with it. But they haven't and PS4 still outsells the X1 two to one, with the Switch coming right up on their meager 35 Million unit average from being on the market for 5 years.

The PS1 and PS2 had a lot of exclusives too, that didn't stop their successors from being backwards compatible.



Around the Network
Azuren said:
Conina said:

Laugh as much as you want. How Microsoft handles BC on Xbox One is more consumer friendly than the PS2 Remasters on PS4.

If you already own the Xbox or 360 disc, you can play the game on Xbox One or Xbox One X for free without buying the digital version.

Also every 360 game you get with GWG stays activated after the subscription runs out, only the XBO games have an expiry date. On the other hand, all PS+ games have an expiry date, even old PS3 titles.

Calm yourself. I was only laughing at MS being in the same sentence as "consumer friendly".

Actually if you take a look at what they have done in the past three years, they really have been consumer friendly (besides the scalebound cancellation, even though I feel like Platinum deserves a lot of the blame, but I digress).



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

That would be great if it did because I still need to finish Red Dead Redemption, and several other PS3 games. And I don't really have a lot of incentive to plug in my PS3 when I've got the PS4 and a bunch of games on there.



 Been away for a bit, but sneaking back in.

Gaming on: PS4, PC, 3DS. Got a Switch! Mainly to play Smash

As a consumer.. They should. Plus having ps2 and ps4 to play the whole library saves a lot of space... butttttt in a business stand point they shouldn't since a lot of people double dip :p



 

How much does backwards compatibility matter?  Well lets look at the performance of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft consoles.  Some of them had BC and some didn't.  Below I've ranked each console based on hardware sales and market share on a 1-10 scale.  Obviously I left off consoles that were firsts in their line (NES, PS1, etc...) and I left off Switch because it's so recent.  Here are the results:

Console Sales Performance (1-10) BC? Console Sales Performance (1-10) BC?
SNES 7 N Wii 8 Y
N64 4 N Wii U 1 Y
GCN 2 N GBA 8 Y
Virtual Boy 1 N DS 10 Y
PS3 5 N 3DS 7 Y
PS4 9 N PS2 10 Y
PS Vita 1 N XB360 5 Y
      XB1 3 Y
Average 4.1 Average 6.5  


There certainly is a strong correlation between BC and market success.  It doesn't guarantee market success, but it sure doesn't hurt either.



The_Liquid_Laser said:

How much does backwards compatibility matter?  Well lets look at the performance of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft consoles.  Some of them had BC and some didn't.  Below I've ranked each console based on hardware sales and market share on a 1-10 scale.  Obviously I left off consoles that were firsts in their line (NES, PS1, etc...) and I left off Switch because it's so recent.  Here are the results:

Console Sales Performance (1-10) BC? Console Sales Performance (1-10) BC?
SNES 7 N Wii 8 Y
N64 4 N Wii U 1 Y
GCN 2 N GBA 8 Y
Virtual Boy 1 N DS 10 Y
PS3 5 N 3DS 7 Y
PS4 9 N PS2 10 Y
PS Vita 1 N XB360 5 Y
      XB1 3 Y
Average 4.1 Average 6.5  


There certainly is a strong correlation between BC and market success.  It doesn't guarantee market success, but it sure doesn't hurt either.

Actually, now that you mention it, a lot of successful consoles had backwards compatibility. The PS2, PS3, Wii, GBA, DS, 3DS, 360, MD, etc.