Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What exactly is Microsoft and Sony's strategy here?

S

SolarCanoe

macrumors regular
Original poster
Oct 30, 2008
146
6
Why no backwards compatibility with older disc-based games?

I would gladly get rid of my PS3 and upgrade to a PS4 if I could play my PS3 and PS1 games on the PS4. I don't want a huge console collection at my house. It seems ridiculous to me. Also I hear you can't play your own media/movies on the PS4, is that true?

And yes, they recently announced a new service where you can stream PS3 games to the PS4, but I don't want to pay for a subscription service when I already own the games!
 
I can see why they can't (different architecture), but it's still a shame. The Vita breathes new life into PSP games with upscaled graphics and smoother framerate, I'd love to see PS3 games running smoother on PS4 hardware and with that better controller. It is definitely an important feature for me and it did make me not buy a PS4 at launch.
 
nigelly said:
Why no backwards compatibility with older disc-based games?

I would gladly get rid of my PS3 and upgrade to a PS4 if I could play my PS3 and PS1 games on the PS4. I don't want a huge console collection at my house. It seems ridiculous to me. Also I hear you can't play your own media/movies on the PS4, is that true?

And yes, they recently announced a new service where you can stream PS3 games to the PS4, but I don't want to pay for a subscription service when I already own the games!
Click to expand...


Why do you need to get rid of your ps3 to get the ps4....

Keep it. Backwards compatibility solved. Two consoles is not a huge collection. It's two. Drama over.
 
MacRumorUser said:
Why do you need to get rid of your ps3 to get the ps4....

Keep it. Backwards compatibility solved. Two consoles is not a huge collection. It's two. Drama over.
Click to expand...

I don't have just 2 consoles. After a while your home theatre setup just gets convoluted with add on boxes. There is no drama here. I just think backwards compatibility would have been a huge incentive to drive up sales. Sony hasn't given me a reason to buy a PS4
 
Dagless said:
I can see why they can't (different architecture), but it's still a shame.
Click to expand...

They probably could have done it if they really wanted to. They certainly have the technology to pull it off (IF they wanted to). But (for example) Sony making the PS4 backwards compatible with older PS3 games/discs would have resulted in a higher cost for the (PS4) console.

Far as I know, both consoles are considered pretty expensive by the consumers in general, and adding even more expense to these new-gen consoles can be a game breaker factor for potential customers.
 
Solomani said:
They probably could have done it if they really wanted to. They certainly have the technology to pull it off (IF they wanted to). But (for example) Sony making the PS4 backwards compatible with older PS3 games/discs would have resulted in a higher cost for the (PS4) console.

Far as I know, both consoles are considered pretty expensive by the consumers in general, and adding even more expense to these new-gen consoles can be a game breaker factor for potential customers.
Click to expand...

Aye, but that won't happen now. There's more money to be made from selling subscriptions and ports.
 
Y'know, I'm surprised how entitled modern console gamers are. You bitch when the console is prohibitively expensive to let last generation run on (example: the launch PS3), then you bitch that they leave it out to keep the cost down.

Prior to the PS2, no console was backward compatible with software (tho there were a few sideways compatible and one forward compatible). They tried adding the engine chip to the PS3 to play PS2 games, and what did we get? A $700 console. They tried software emulation, and sadly, it sucked and not all games were compatible.

At least we're getting PS3 games on the PS4 via the new service coming out this summer.
 
skottichan said:
Y'know, I'm surprised how entitled modern console gamers are. You bitch when the console is prohibitively expensive to let last generation run on (example: the launch PS3), then you bitch that they leave it out to keep the cost down.

Prior to the PS2, no console was backward compatible with software (tho there were a few sideways compatible and one forward compatible). They tried adding the engine chip to the PS3 to play PS2 games, and what did we get? A $700 console. They tried software emulation, and sadly, it sucked and not all games were compatible.

At least we're getting PS3 games on the PS4 via the new service coming out this summer.
Click to expand...

This, 100% truth!
 
That is 100 percent true for home consoles - handhelds though have been doing it for a while - the GameBoy line and DS line have amazing support. The GBA can play 15 years worth of titles from Gameboy, Gameboy Color and Gameboy Advance.

The DS can play GBA games - it even has a second cartridge slot to support this. Likewise 3DS can play DS games. This is only a newer thing in consoles for the TV.

I love this feature in my Wii U as I never owner a Wii and now I'm playing those titles for the first time. I also have never owner a PS3 so I would rush out to get a PS4 if it was like buying 2 consoles in 1.

I just picked up a PS2 Slim - will be trying out some Crash Bandicoot PS1 games to see how well BC works on that.
 
Just one of the many reasons I won't even be bothering with consoles this generation. I like my backwards compatibility.
 
Basically, strategy is to re-sell the games that have been made it before for PS3, which sony did for PS2 games for PS3. Obviously, Sony allowed to run PS2 games on PS3 before they released slim version of PS3 or it could be earlier, then they totally deprived this function from PS3. As far as I could remember in the time, sony has made it HD version of God of War, Metal Gear Solid and some of exclusive playstation games. They managed to sell pretty good amount of number both on digital and retail. I do not think that they will care about backward computability at all, when they can make money by re-sale.

Right now, Microsoft is following this strategy too. Halo 2 Anniversary probably will be better graphic of version of Halo 2.
 
skottichan said:
Y'know, I'm surprised how entitled modern console gamers are. You bitch when the console is prohibitively expensive to let last generation run on (example: the launch PS3), then you bitch that they leave it out to keep the cost down.

Prior to the PS2, no console was backward compatible with software (tho there were a few sideways compatible and one forward compatible). They tried adding the engine chip to the PS3 to play PS2 games, and what did we get? A $700 console. They tried software emulation, and sadly, it sucked and not all games were compatible.

At least we're getting PS3 games on the PS4 via the new service coming out this summer.
Click to expand...
The Gameboy would like a word with you. 1989 GB games were playable on 2003 GBA's, and if you count GBC's as the successor to the GB then you've got BC in 1998. There were adapters to get Master System games on the Mega Drive, too. The Amiga was also b/c, games made for the 1984 original were playable on the 1994 models too.

The PS3 launching at such a high price was not the fault of the included PS2 chip. A chip that they had been producing for 6 years (low manufacturing cost). You'd be looking at ~$5 additional manufacturing cost on the PS3 itself. And then this: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=526722 (PS3 can actually emulate most PS2 games)

It's not "gamers being entitled" when something that functions is being withheld so they can sell us content back. And having played slow-running PSP games on the Vita you start to wish it worked for other modern systems too (GTA Stories and Monster Hunter at smooth framerates on that OLED display makes for an incredible experience).
 
This is the main reason I haven't picked up an Xbox One yet. I have way too many 360 games (on disk) as well as downloaded and arcade games. At the very least I wish the Arcade games were converted to work on the Xbox One.

I don't mind buying old games that are updated for new systems, but if they aren't updating them I'd really like the backwards compatibility.

I already have a cable box, :apple:TV, Xbox 360, and Wii U running into my receiver. The Wii U replaced the Wii but adding another system and another Kinect just doesn't work on my main TV.
 
I dont understand the "This is done on purpose and they are evil" thing.

The PS3 was very expensive and one of the reasons was that they crammed PS2 architecture into the box.

Xbox one and PS4 are now using x86 systems which means 360 would have to either be emulated or crammed into the box at a higher price. No thanks.
 
PS3 dropped backwards compatibility after a year, Xbox 360 had dodgy support.

Backwards compatibility as I see it is more of a psychological issue with consumers than practical one.

It only really resonates / matters to consumers whilst the number of AAA must have titles on new consoles is limited, and folks like to use ' it's at least backwards compatibility' as a selling point to justify / convince their new console purchase.

Give it till holidays 2014 and backwards compatibility will be generally forgotten about in the conscience of most consumers who are pining for the must have AAA+ games that are no longer being made for older hardware.

First game that will do that this year is Batman Arkham Knight, and I am sure after E3 we will have a slew of other titles to add to that list...
 
I thought this question would have broader scope :p

As for backwards compatibility...I guess it encourages people to buy games for their new machines to "try" even if they are **** *cough* Knack *cough*.

In the past Sony have been pretty good about this, but as much as I love that my launch PS3 can play PS2 games...I don't really play them on there :p
 
Tsuchiya said:
As for backwards compatibility...I guess it encourages people to buy games for their new machines to "try" even if they are **** *cough* Knack *cough*.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not a massive fan but having played it at a friend's house, I came to the conclusion it's ok for a launch game!
 
Tsuchiya said:
I thought this question would have broader scope :p

As for backwards compatibility...I guess it encourages people to buy games for their new machines to "try" even if they are **** *cough* Knack *cough*.

In the past Sony have been pretty good about this, but as much as I love that my launch PS3 can play PS2 games...I don't really play them on there :p
Click to expand...

For some reason, I see backwards compatibility being even more desired this generation than for the PS2->PS3. The PS3 was a huge jump in hardware over the PS2: with HD graphics, Blu-ray drive, huge power increase. It's very easy to tell a PS3 game from a PS2 game. I've played a PS4 a bunch at a friends and it is an improvement over the PS3, but i wouldn't wouldn't call it vastly better to the point where PS3 games are unplayable. Unless I see a side-by-side comparison, it's hard to tell at a quick glance.

There are still so many great games for the PS3 that I haven't played yet, this is why I haven't purchased a PS4 yet. I'll admit that if it had backwards compatibility for PS3 games, I would get one right now.

I doubt we'll ever see PS3 games "remastered" for PS4 like we did with PS2 games such as God of War and Shadow of the Colossus. There wouldn't be much "wow" factor.
 
wwooden said:
For some reason, I see backwards compatibility being even more desired this generation than for the PS2->PS3. The PS3 was a huge jump in hardware over the PS2: with HD graphics, Blu-ray drive, huge power increase. It's very easy to tell a PS3 game from a PS2 game. I've played a PS4 a bunch at a friends and it is an improvement over the PS3, but i wouldn't wouldn't call it vastly better to the point where PS3 games are unplayable. Unless I see a side-by-side comparison, it's hard to tell at a quick glance.

There are still so many great games for the PS3 that I haven't played yet, this is why I haven't purchased a PS4 yet. I'll admit that if it had backwards compatibility for PS3 games, I would get one right now.

I doubt we'll ever see PS3 games "remastered" for PS4 like we did with PS2 games such as God of War and Shadow of the Colossus. There wouldn't be much "wow" factor.
Click to expand...

Funny you say that - Tomb Raider has already been remastered for PS4 and XB1, and there is talk of a remastered Mass Effect trilogy for PS4 and XB1 :)

So I'd say the devs will be more than happy to sell you the same game again. I much prefer doing remasters of things like Wind Waker and other games that are a few generations old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back