Understandable if Sony were being innovative with there systems, than thats confidants. Anti-consumer practices like these is confidents fuelled by arrogants.

You expect locking gamers out of accounts and not playing fair with the industry is when a company is struggling and desperate. Not something you expect when you own majority of the market share and doing extremly well. They want to own the monopoly. Thats buisness, and they all do it, but we dont have to stand by and accept it.

There confident that they can get away with it, which is arrogance at its finest. Which suprises me how many will agree with Sony because there buisness is more important than the convenience of there customers. 

Fortnite is a goldmine and having the marketshare does not green light these pratices.

Bottom line: There is no successful method here, this is pure $$$. Anyone with the right mind set can see it.

PC can be mobile. Thus it still has the edge over the Switch.

It isn't

Sony is selling a 20$ a month subscription called PS Nowfor old gen games on PC. With the PS5 coming they can expend it to the PS4 - and make lots more money that way then through BC. Even moreso because PS Now is pure crap

Besides didn't they say early this gen that backwards compatibility was a very often requested feature, but would not be implemented because despite the many demands, barely anybody would actually use it? And even doubled down on this last year, wondering why anybody would want to do this?

I meant to say that because of PS Now, Sony doesn't feel any reason to include BC into the PS5. I mean, why allow that feature when you can rent out the games again? You might be able to play PS1-4 games on the PS5, but probably only through such a subscription service and your discs at home will be useless. I just hope they'll do it better than PS Now is right now (streams from a PS3 somewhere in the world if one is available (if not, no gaming at all!) with terrible lag and PS2 visuals due to crappy compression), because that's even worse than GFWL was during it's heyday.

What are you talking? In actuality, it is the most fair thing Sony can do. It gives the competition the opportunity to one up them and brag about another sideline attraction, something it can hold high up above the head, and does, although its nothing you have to put your back into.

Relation. As mentioned, BC Ps4 to Ps5 would be a lot easier to realize, less cost intensive than it was with previous generations.

Regarding your "sources". Ryan was referring specifically to Ps1 and Ps2.

“That, and I was at a Gran Turismo event recently where they had PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4 games, and the PS1 and the PS2 games, they looked ancient, like why would anybody play this?”

Now, what have those games have to do with Ps4->Ps5, considering the technology used in Ps4pro is capable of enhancing courent gen titles with minimum effort?

What? The GDP? At what price?

I don't particularly like anyone spinning things like that. In this case though, it's also trying to hide the real reason, which makes it especially despicable in my eyes.

So to simplify, your saying your answer to my question about whether PSVR counts as another hardware platform to play Fortnite, is no? I would probably have to agree in this specific instance since Fortnite isn't in first person when your playing VR, so you don't get a completely different experience from what you would see on the TV. Games that are in first person I would personally say make PSVR count, but that's just me.

Switch can do something different, but that's built into it's design and cost and is part of the reason for buying it. Switch can't do what PSVR does, and PSVR can't do Switch. PSVR is a completely separate item, and rightfully so based on it's cost, and has it's own reasons for purchasing it. I have a hard time specifying PSVR as just an add on, mostly based on it's price, considering it basically costs the same as the PS4 itself. If you only care about VR, is the PSVR the add on, or is the PS4?

Comparing companies doesn't really work either. What about streaming PS4 games to your Vita? That changes the PS4 stationary experience to a semi handheld/mobile one at the very least, so both those devices should count I would think. In the future if we see PS or MS try and incorporate their ecosystems even more so with streaming boxes, dedicated hardware, handheld, and mobile, then you would have to base it on the hardware, as long as the content works across multiple devices.

It was arrogance. Do you remember the comment about getting two jobs to afford it if they didn't like the price tag? Do you remember how they bragged about the cell microprocessor and how it ended up never being used to its full potential by any third parties, and in fact most multiplats performed worse on PS3, making that fancy tech little more than an expensive ball and chain? Sony wasn't arrogant in the PS1 and PS2 era, and it payed off because they took nothing for granted. In the PS4 era, they had an opportunity to be arrogant and greedy like Microsoft, but won huge credibility and trust with gamers by siding with them, and that payed off too. Nintendo had history too. They saved the industry in the 3rd gen, beat tough competition in the 4th, and crushed both competitors in the 7th. Coming fresh off the 7th, they were arrogant and failed miserably with the Wii U. Also, I don't know what method you're talking about, because Sony changed their method for each generation. But sure, keep defending them. It does nothing for you and nothing for them, but I'm sure it makes you feel comfortable to think that your chosen console brand is an irreproachable god of business and gaming. Pride comes before the fall.

I get the meta reason behind their decision. But that's not what he said. What he said is that opening fortnight crossplay would open PS up to an inferior experience, when in reality the experience on Xbox is identical or better depending wich system the player has and the Switch one is definitely way superior to the iOS one, wich is already cross-compatible with PS4.

I was just calling him out on his bullshitting. If he had straight up said:'We've made this anti-consumer decision to lock as many customers into our eco-system as possible', I'd still have a bit of a problem with the underlying mentality, but not the statement itself. As is it's just blatantly false and unneccessarily arrogant.

Yeah, it's not going to hurt the PS4 at this point. I was thinking more in terms of what seems to be their general mindset right now. They are making increasingly anti-consumer decisions, when at the start of the gen their whole success leaned on the fact that they were not trying to lock peoples games into an always online eco-system. It makes me a little worried about the kind of decisions they are going to make with their next system.

Xbox meanwhile has been impressive on the hardwareside as well as with enhanced backwards compatibility, actively pushing crossplay and mods, the game pass and the play anywhere initiative. They have been really putting in the legwork and if they don't butcher their next system unveil, like they did with the Xbone they have decent chance to snatch the US right out under Sonys ass.

What Nintendo does in all this is anyones guess, but right now they are profiting off Xboxes underdog position and their own unique hardware design.