Backwards compatibility is objectively important

[RedDeadFred]

1) You can keep your old console to play all of your disc-based games from yesteryear.

2) Sony has allowed the transfer of digital content purchased off PSN on every device they have made since the advent of PSN.

3) Backwards compatibility wasn't an issue for the 70+ million who purchased a PS3 to begin with, and won't be an issue to the vast majority now.

Careful now, we wouldn't want people to actually start thinking instead of sensationalizing something so small.

What would happen to all of the passive aggressive debates and comments?

I mean, sure they could keep going on in other topics but still...

Edit: Also, insert usual spiel about objectivity and how people on the internet need to learn what it means here.

 

[Joccaren]

The only issue I see with the "just keep your old console" argument is the folks who wouldn't be able to afford the new without some cash from selling the old; but Shirley that's not enough of an argument for the manufacturers to sink the resources into including backwards compatibility. Shirley that calls for the consumer to make the choice: sell the old and swallow it, or keep the old and save up until the new is cheaper and affordable for them. Is that a good thing?

At the same time though, adding in backwards compatibility increases the price of a console. Say you could sell your PS3 for $50 when the PS4 released, which is probably an alright number considering you're selling a 8 year old system right as a brand new one is released. You save $50 towards your PS4 purchase. The PS4, however, decided to add in backwards compatibility, and that drove the price up at least $50. Now, you've saved no money buy selling your console, you've just added a middle man to the whole thing.
Granted you could sell your console for more, and the backwards compatibility could cost less, but that could be reversed as well. Overall it probably comes out as a little more expensive this way, but a fair bit of the money earned from the sale of your PS3 would go into paying for the backwards compatibility in the PS4.

 

[The_Echo]

So please explain to me the practicality of having a PS3, PS2 and PS4 on my entertainment center, particularly when the PS5 comes out and once again the library of games we just got is rendered unusable. If you have been with Sony from the start, things are already at the ridiculous stage. Most people don't have infinite outlets, HDMI ports and space to have every console hooked up at once, and it's ludicrous to think that's cool. I am not saying this is a problem that can be fixed, but there is enough evidence to warrant that it is indeed a problem. Of course people are going to get a PS4 to play PS4 games, but when their new PS4 title fails to impress (and it will happen periodically), it's good to fall back on the enormous libraries prior without re-arranging your whole entertainment center.

... So, uh... why would you want so many consoles hooked up at the same time? I would personally swap them in as needed.

Complaining about a lack of BWC because "I can't fit all of these consoles on one TV!" is a very, very weak point. And an absurd one at that.

 

[putowtin]

They're trying to make a profit and backwards compatibility is generally a pretty big hassle, especially when a year or two after release no one will be playing the last generations games anymore.

not always true, there's still a huge number of people playing games from 10 years ago, we just end up playing them on the PC

 

[Elijin]

True that backwards compatibility isn't equatable to nickle and diming the consumer.... unless people have to re-buy their games again, which is highly likely here. But that wasn't the point. The point was the person I was replying to was blindly defending a negative of the console under the banner that 'companies exist to make money'. That's not exactly an excuse for anything, nothing should ever be defended that way, which is what the video said as well. A better excuse is the PS3 had such a wonky setup it would be near impossible to make their games work on the new console. It's not a happy thing, but it's a legitimate way to defend Sony. Of course that doesn't explain at all why PS1 or PS2 games cannot work on it, since those can even emulate very well on most modern PCs, and that's were things get muddy. Just like with the vita, they want us to re-buy everything.

Well, really, its a good defence against your argument at the time. You state that it is objectively bad to remove backwards compatibility. You then use subjective personal anecdotes to support this claim. He has come in and said that objectively companies exist to make money, and this stands to make them more money, so from an objective standpoint removing backwards compatibility ISN'T a bad move. Remove that objective part and yeah, the argument holds no water, but with the whole objectively bad/good thing, its a valid point.

Thereeeee you go. Someone had to explain it to him sooner or later. As another member said 'I dont think that word means what you think it means'

 

[carlh267]

I thought this thread would be about the preservation of our history, I leave disappointed

I thought this thread would be about the lack of backwards compatibility on the PS4. I'm still disappointed!

The only issue I see with the "just keep your old console" argument is the folks who wouldn't be able to afford the new without some cash from selling the old; but Shirley that's not enough of an argument for the manufacturers to sink the resources into including backwards compatibility. Shirley that calls for the consumer to make the choice: sell the old and swallow it, or keep the old and save up until the new is cheaper and affordable for them. Is that a good thing?

Its also a space issue. Eventually old console hardware builds up over the years, and eventually I'm going to move my (sadly) unused PS2 into the closet to make room for new systems. This hasn't become too much of an issue for most people I think, but going forward I feel it is definitely going to be a bigger issue going forward in the games industry. We only have so much storage space for older hardware.

Now that being said, I'm generally inclined to take Sony's position on this one, nobody wants a repeat of the $599 USD fiasco that plagued Sony on the PS3's launch. Seeing the rumors for 2 models at $420 and $520 USD is a good step towards making these things more afforadable. It sucks, I know, but hopefully it has enough good games at launch to justify early adoption.

 

[oliver.begg]

the problem is that backwards compatability requires a PS3 and PS4 in the PS4, they are nothing alike the CPU is completly different, your more likely to get a PC game running on a PS4 then a PS3 game

so either they add the cost, at retail, to the PS4, which will already launch at a loss, or they hire some really clever dude to wirte some emulation software, that will due to the x86 CPU be ported to the PC in about 6 months

 

[Loonyyy]

1) Don't use the word objectively like that. Something being objective doesn't make it better, and it's clear that the word doesn't mean what you think it is.

2) Who is it good for? i)Backwards compatability is useful to consumers who don't keep old consoles.
ii) Backwards compatability is good for console releases with poor release lineups.

3) Who is it not good for? i) Those who have to port it (Something much harder than many of the coding neophytes who pose this question think it is. Look back over the history of games, and the software and hardware they run on. It's cheaper and easier to make some of them completely from scratch than to port them.)
ii) Companies who would like to sell remakes.

So backwards compatability is a nice feature for a small subset of gamers who actually use it, a pain in the ass for the people making the games and the consoles, and only useful to a console manufacturer who's not planned their release lineup, and a loss of profit to those who have planned it.

A stellar position to start from!

PS: I like having backwards compatability. I like being able to run old stuff easily. But getting worked up over it is ridiculous. It's a nice feature, not a necessity. I'm not going to ***** that I can't run the games I played in 1997 on my PC, cause I don't even have a floppy drive any more. I'm not going to complain that the family wii can't run N64 games, because giving it a spot for the cartridge would be fucking retarded.

 

[gorfias]

The 360 never offered more than lip service to the idea, and that has since also been forgotten.

I loved what the 360 did. I bought it and a few titles, but I still had a large Xbox collection that I would like to play sometimes. I actually hadn't played Halo 2, so it was nice to finish that off with the up coding the 360 offered some Xbox games through emulation.

By the time Microsoft stopped adding emulators to the 360 for Xbox games, I had moved on. There was a large enough library of 360 games out there by then, including $20 new year old or so 360 games that were much prettier than emulated Xbox games.

But I agree with you, non-backward compatibility is not a killer for me, mostly for the following reason...

I don't care about backwards compatibility- if I wanted to play Ps2 games I would use my Ps2. If I want to play PS3 games on my PS4... I won't, I'll play them on the system they were designed for.

I have to admit, it came to seem silly to me to be putting wear and tear on my gen 7 stuff playing gen 6 stuff. I still have my PS2 and Gamecube. If I really want a nostalgia rush, I play gen 6 games on gen 6 consoles.

 

[Joccaren]

Thereeeee you go. Someone had to explain it to him sooner or later. As another member said 'I dont think that word means what you think it means'

Hehe, that "Other member" was me too >.>
After posting I saw the post I quoted and had to respond to that too =P

 

[an annoyed writer]

Personally, I agree that Backwards Compatibility is important. If anything it is one of the most important things we can put in a console, since that's our history we're preserving there. Let's put this into perspective here: in my house, we have a device. this device is a combination VCR and DVD player. With this device, I can watch just about any film released from the early '70s to today, provided they're on VHS or DVD. That's over 40 years' worth of media, usable right there at my fingertips. Now let's compare this to video game consoles, which have exclusives, and other limiting factors. The Xbox 360 can play games released from 2001 to now. Acceptable, since the Xbox's library only extends that far back. The PS3, before it was cut down, had backwards compatibility with every game from 1994 to now, totaling to approx. 19 years. Not too shabby, since its library extended back that far. Of course, after the system was redesigned, it could only play games released at most 7 years ago. That's less than half of its original library, and less than a quarter of my DVD/VCR combo's backlog. By sacrificing that backwards compatibility, we sacrifice decades of history. And to those who say to keep the old systems around: we don't live in a vacuum, where these systems don't break down with time. I take care of my old systems, and even then they still degrade with time. Batteries go dead, wires break, and shells crack. Our media players and storage are far from impervious to time. Not to mention finding parts to repair these old systems is a real pain in the ass, and I know from experience.

Of course, Backwards compatibility has its drawbacks: it's costly, and then there's the point of people just playing their own games without the manufacturer profiting much from it: however, that leaves out those who bought the system so they could play the company's backlog. I've done this several times: I didn't have a PS1, so I used the PS2 to play any and all PS1 games I wanted, as well as the PS2 games. I'd only had an Xbox for a short time before it broke, so I missed quite a few classics. To play those I went and bought an XBox 360, with which I've played the Halos, KOTORs, and the other games I wanted to play before but didn't have the chance. I did this again this year with a WiiU, so I could catch up on the Wii games I missed while I'm waiting for it to get up to gear with its own lineup. In other words, Backwards Compatibility sold me those systems. It may be costly, but it sells systems. And before anyone says "That's what digital distribution solves!", no, it does not. We still have a sizable population of individuals who have too low of an income to get a high-speed internet connection, because those things are not in any way cheap. By leaving those people out, you're driving away customers who would gladly drop money on your system.

 

[Starik20X6]

Honestly? As long as my PS3 doesn't die, it won't bother me if the PS4 isn't backwards compatible. I'm not the type to immediately get rid of my old consoles- hell, I still have my N64 and it doesn't even work anymore.

 

[GamingAwesome1]

All I know is that the lack of backwards compatibility is going to result in the PS4 being a bit of a hard sell to me should I end up wanting to switch to Sony's consoles for one reason or the other.

 

[sanquin]

Also, I'm going to let you in on a little secret! YOU COULD HAVE PLAYED FINAL FANTASY VIII ON ANY PS3! All PS3s are backwards compatible with every PS1 game.

FF VIII was a PS2 game, not a PS1 game. >_>

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Also, I'm going to let you in on a little secret! YOU COULD HAVE PLAYED FINAL FANTASY VIII ON ANY PS3! All PS3s are backwards compatible with every PS1 game.

FF VIII was a PS2 game, not a PS1 game. >_>

No, no it wasn't.

 

[sanquin]

FF VIII was a PS2 game, not a PS1 game. >_>

No, no it wasn't.[/quote]

Crap...you're right. Well, shit... Still though, that's only one game out of about 5 that I would have still liked to play.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

As a concept from the developers/business side of things, backwards compatibility is designed to help compensate for a poor initial game line-up, or to try and ease the transition for older customers onto their new system.


By having it so you have to rebuy digital copies or whatever instead, they're essentially receiving nearly all the benefits of backwards compatibility (this is the business i'm referring to, not the customers), with the added benefit of being able to make extra money from repeat and new(no old second hand games, as they won't work on the new console) purchases, for the trade-off of rubbing a few people (most of which will still go with it eventually) the wrong way.


It seems to be a trade-off they're willinging to make.
For myself, i'm not much of a console gamer in the end, but lack of backwards compatibility always tended to be a pretty big turn off for me. For instance nintendo DS - lacking compatibility with gameboy colour games made it very easy to not go for them. Kid me had a very definite 'My GB:advance plays colour and original games, so screw you and your DS'.

Kid me had a point.

 

[gyroscopeboy]

Why don't you just keep your old console... there problem solved.

That may be true, but as an xbox owner, a huge last gen back catalogue of games that I could play on my PS4 would be a huge boon if i were considering making the switch.

Thats one of the reasons I switched from PS2 to xbox 360

 

[Corven]

Why don't you just keep your old console... there problem solved.

That may be true, but as an xbox owner, a huge last gen back catalogue of games that I could play on my PS4 would be a huge boon if i were considering making the switch.

Thats one of the reasons I switched from PS2 to xbox 360

Buy a ps3 when the price gets dropped when the new console gets shipped or if you got a good connection use the gaikai service to stream the ps3 games.