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

Forums - Sony Discussion - 4000+ games backwards compatible Day 1. PSN library carries over to PS5

LivingMetal said:
sales2099 said:

Lol I knew I’d see this rather tired excuse...

Well, to you it's "tired," and to you it's an "excuse." But for the rest of us, it's history.  Yeah, I get tired of saying "George Washington was the first president of the United States of America."  Not because I disagree with it or thought it was wrong.  It's established history, and there's no way around it.  We all know it.  At worst, I made a generalization, but it's backed by history.  Backed by facts.  If you want to propagate and sell tickets to the Historical Museum of Xbox, go right ahead.  Nothing wrong with that.  But there is also the Natural Museum of Console Gaming.  Just saying.

Again just because causals don’t care doesn’t mean we enthusiasts shouldn’t care either. Also, think of the children!!! Lol

People who didn’t grow up with these gems who can now play what we played all those years ago. Your history analogy falls flat because you can’t bring back the dead. But you can make gaming generations BC and forever play classics for the first time, if the company puts the effort into it. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Around the Network
sales2099 said:
LivingMetal said:

Well, to you it's "tired," and to you it's an "excuse." But for the rest of us, it's history.  Yeah, I get tired of saying "George Washington was the first president of the United States of America."  Not because I disagree with it or thought it was wrong.  It's established history, and there's no way around it.  We all know it.  At worst, I made a generalization, but it's backed by history.  Backed by facts.  If you want to propagate and sell tickets to the Historical Museum of Xbox, go right ahead.  Nothing wrong with that.  But there is also the Natural Museum of Console Gaming.  Just saying.

Again just because causals don’t care doesn’t mean we enthusiasts shouldn’t care either. Also, think of the children!!! Lol

People who didn’t grow up with these gems who can now play what we played all those years ago. Your history analogy falls flat because you can’t bring back the dead. But you can make gaming generations BC and forever play classics for the first time, if the company puts the effort into it. 

How do you know that casuals don't care?  Look how well the Switch has already outsold the Xbox One lifetime sales while outselling both the PS4 and Xbox One in recent sales.  One could reasonably attest that the Switch backward compatibility was one of the driving factors while the Xbox One backward compatibility was not.  It's reasonable.  Then you factor in that the PS4 has virtually no backward compatibility which logically in turn paints a more accurate picture of the Xbox One backward compatibility effectiveness or lack there of.  So I'm I calling the Switch a casual console?  No.  But using YOUR logic and the previously reasonable stated points, the Switch is more hardcore than the Xbox.  Remember, I'm not claiming that.  I'm using your logic in conjunction with FACTS.  And you talk about fallacy?  Well, it appears that it certainly applies to your attempt of an argument as now shown to all whether you care to acknowledge it or not.  Especially when you attempt these tactics:

And there are hardcores/enthusiasts who while appreciate the choice of backwards compatibility, may not have that option/feature high on their list of priorities such as..... you?  Part of your problem is that you're painting such an assumed broad stroke that you think applies to the preconceived groups you've already self-established. And I've never faulted anyone for having a console preference.  But it's "enthusiasts" such as yourself that have taken such a narrow view that when the bigger picture is presented (to include Nintendo) your argument so... falls... apart.

Just is.

Have a Blessed night.



LivingMetal said:
sales2099 said:

Again just because causals don’t care doesn’t mean we enthusiasts shouldn’t care either. Also, think of the children!!! Lol

People who didn’t grow up with these gems who can now play what we played all those years ago. Your history analogy falls flat because you can’t bring back the dead. But you can make gaming generations BC and forever play classics for the first time, if the company puts the effort into it. 

How do you know that casuals don't care?  Look how well the Switch has already outsold the Xbox One lifetime sales while outselling both the PS4 and Xbox One in recent sales.  One could reasonably attest that the Switch backward compatibility was one of the driving factors while the Xbox One backward compatibility was not.  It's reasonable.  Then you factor in that the PS4 has virtually no backward compatibility which logically in turn paints a more accurate picture of the Xbox One backward compatibility effectiveness or lack there of.  So I'm I calling the Switch a casual console?  No.  But using YOUR logic and the previously reasonable stated points, the Switch is more hardcore than the Xbox.  Remember, I'm not claiming that.  I'm using your logic in conjunction with FACTS.  And you talk about fallacy?  Well, it appears that it certainly applies to your attempt of an argument as now shown to all whether you care to acknowledge it or not.  Especially when you attempt these tactics:

And there are hardcores/enthusiasts who while appreciate the choice of backwards compatibility, may not have that option/feature high on their list of priorities such as..... you?  Part of your problem is that you're painting such an assumed broad stroke that you think applies to the preconceived groups you've already self-established. And I've never faulted anyone for having a console preference.  But it's "enthusiasts" such as yourself that have taken such a narrow view that when the bigger picture is presented (to include Nintendo) your argument so... falls... apart.

Just is.

Have a Blessed night.

LivingMetal, its not about having the feature high on someone's list or not. BC does not represent sales. It represents ownership, consumer friendly practices and value. The principle of having BC is important in the long run for the industry. It puts a stop to companies forcing remasters which is something we were flooded with this gen compared to any other gen before it. Companies reselling old games when many gamers still owned their old games. Think about that for a second.

Its one of the stand out reasons to game on PC. You talk about the console market not doing it, well Sony claimed the console market is niche. You know what market is bigger? The PC market, which offers full BC. We can argue that consoles sell without the feature, that's because you dont have a choice in the matter. If you want to play the latest AAA 1st party games well you have to buy the system with the feature or not.

The first PC gaming app to remove BC will be the first to fail in the PC industry. Its more important than you make it out to be.

Imagine buying a new mobile phone and nothing carries over from your old phone. Its basically barbaric to not have some sort of BC these days.



Nice but how many can transfer saves to ps5?



Tridrakious said:
I'm a collector of video games and I still don't understand the stance of not supporting backwards compatibility. The PS5 should have all generations supported on it.

BC is a big investment that sony just hasn't prioritised. Their stance isn't anti BC, unfortunately there's not just a switch they can press to get that up and running.


PS3 emulators run pretty horribly, presumably because of the cell processor. It took MS years to get to their current support of like 25% of 360 games,  and it is multitudes easier to emulate. I don't think the PS4 could emulate the PS3 even if sony wanted it to. Going back even further, only like 6% of OG Xbox games are compatible with current Xbox hardware

When you look at the reality in numbers, its clear anyone who really cares about BC really just needs to hold onto those older consoles (or just an OG PS3 and 360 which are pretty cheap to find). Its a nice cherry on the top for new consoles to support some of your 15 year old games of course and offer improvements too.



Around the Network
Flayer said:
Nice but how many can transfer saves to ps5?

yeah, its in the article.



Pemalite said:
Replicant said:

To be fair, Microsoft isn't offering its "entire" company legacy as bc either.

Only 41 out of the 1001 original Xbox games are available for instance. And if I remember correctly, about 25% of the 360 library is available. Would be awesome if 25% of the PS3 library supported bc but it'd still be far from the entire legacy.

You'll always have games in your collection that aren't supported.

The fact that backwards compatibility isn't comprehensive is a massive downer on Xbox's efforts, this was always going to happen with a curated approach though, the logistical efforts required to do the complete ecosystem is massive.

But the benefits to it are improved visuals and performance as every game is thoroughly tested and that can be super important to some people.

No argument there. BC support for 25% of a library is still better than 0%. My only point was to tell James that it isn't the entire legacy of games.

If price isn't significantly affected, more features (such as BC) is a good thing and I hope to see stronger BC support down the road.



Yeah but what games allow save transfer that is not in the article.



sales2099 said:
Thought we knew this? PS4 only and not PS1-PS3. I mean if there was any confusion I’m glad we all on the same page. Just isn’t very impressive imo.


Agreed. I usually prefer PS consoles but Sony doesn't deserve a pat on the back for this. This is the absolute bare minimum, anything less would've been off putting to PS4 customers. 

And considering MS is at least trying to do something about 360 and OG Xbox games on their new console, Sony's approach of ignoring their amazing and legendary PS1-2-3 library deserves 0 praise from me. 



Ka-pi96 said:

You don't understand people not wanting to pay more money? That's pretty easy to understand to me.

Especially if you want all PS1-PS4 games to be playable on the PS5. That would undoubtedly increase the cost.

I'm not going to argue for PS2-PS3 games specifically (although I think they should definitely try something at this point) but there's no defense for not putting a PS1 emulator on the machine. Most generic android phones can handle PS1 games. The PSP can handle PS1 games.

A new $500 home game console should handle PS1 games, no excuse. They just can't be bothered to give a damn about this subject.