Backwards Compatibility (and the PS4)

[alive she cried]

I'm with Lipala and Axel here. I couldn't give a shit about backwards compatibility, I won't be buying a 720 to play my 360 games. But then, I do find it hard to go back to inferior games. I don't see myself playing Assassin's Creed 2 when I have the newest iteration on the 720, Jesus I couldn't even go back and play Oblivion after playing Skyrim.

 

I really fucking hope we get used games on the 720 though.

[Thrizzle]

I'm more worried about losing all of my digital items. I don't like that the PS4 won't be able to transfer PSN purchases.

 

This. This is what I'm talking about. Across both platforms, I own hundreds of digital games. I don't want those married to the current gen. This is a problem that has never existed before, and I was hoping they would handle it properly. So far Sony has not. I don't have high hopes for M$ either, but at least there's still a chance. A chance in hell, maybe, but a chance nonetheless.

 

And no, it doesn't have to include the hardware to run it on board. They have a streaming service now. Technically, nothing there has to be compatible with the PS4 hardware at all. I would be perfectly fine having these purchased digital games available through that avenue. Especially if I'm using the same account, purely out of principle.

[The NZA]

i wish more of you realized this has to do with a larger issue of games being treated as disposable entertainment - both by much of their own industry, and clearly consumers as well - rather than me just attacking people's favorite corporation

 

Am I really the only one here who couldn't give two shits about backwards compatibility? I've got a ps3 and my friend a ps2, between them I can play all the PS1-3 games I want. Why do I need the PS4 to play them for me too? Especially considering PS3 and PS2 architecture is completely incompatible with x86 and you're essentially asking Sony to install two entire chipsets on the board just for that support to be able to play those games with any reliability because if they emulate it and its not 100% of what you remember you're going to bitch. You've really got two choices here, a reasonably priced PS4 or your BC.

 

first off: calm down, according to this thread i'm clearly one of the only ones here who cares at all about BC.

 

second off: once again, that PS3 which plays all the prior titles, i paid quite the premium for, and it's very clearly not going to last forever - i'd be quite pleased if it saw the year's end at this rate.

 

you do not need to explain how hardware emulation works to me, i assure you. once again, i'm acutely aware of the architectural changes being made here, that doesnt mean i as a consumer need to be giddy about the first non-BC system i've bought from them, and ive posted several times speaking about why i don't even expect the software emulation last gen's 80 GB model saw (which was fairly good, most reports showed something like 85%+ full BC) to be done due to the Gakai answer you guys are cheering here, which again (to me) very likely will a) not show full support b) offer what's already on PSN, with hopes of other stuff, and c) be behind a paywall.

 

i'm a big supporter of being able to play a library i've invested in on a product, and if you think that's unreasonable, ask yourself how many consumers today care about hardware changes when they buy new tablets, phones etc - BC is actually becoming more important than ever across the board, so forgive me if your dismissals here strike me as akin to a corporate apologist.

 

I'm more worried about losing all of my digital items. I don't like that the PS4 won't be able to transfer PSN purchases. Physical stuff is one thing, we all went through that in the cartridge era. I don't mind keeping my PS3, but It would be nice to have that extra boost of funds to buy the new one if I could sell it.

 

there seems to be a lot've confusion about this online, so i cannot stress this enough: physical BC is not one thing. you either have the ability to read/emulate past gen, or you don't. meaning: if you can't play PS3 games, you don't have the native ability to play your PSN purchases/digital stuff. same goes for 360 titles and XBLA. there is no real distinction here...hopefully you're starting to see part of what i'm talking about now, rather than just my fancy to play older titles.

 

imagine just how many consumers you think are going to be sympathetic with sony's decisions when they find they cannot access their hundreds of dollars of PSN purchases (full titles, DLC, Rock Band music, etc etc) in this hypothetical. not many, i imagine.

 

I'm with Lipala and Axel here. I couldn't give a shit about backwards compatibility, I won't be buying a 720 to play my 360 games. But then, I do find it hard to go back to inferior games. I don't see myself playing Assassin's Creed 2 when I have the newest iteration on the 720, Jesus I couldn't even go back and play Oblivion after playing Skyrim.

 

with respect: i understand you enjoy a few titles here & there, and that's cool, everyone has their thing. but the bolded bit strikes me as just as ignorant as saying you don't watch older movies when micheal bay makes a new one.

to me, if you don't play any games worth revisiting when next year's sequel shows up, this has a lot more to do with which games you play.

[Keth]

 

there seems to be a lot've confusion about this online, so i cannot stress this enough: physical BC is not one thing. you either have the ability to read/emulate past gen, or you don't. meaning: if you can't play PS3 games, you don't have the native ability to play your PSN purchases/digital stuff. same goes for 360 titles and XBLA. there is no real distinction here...hopefully you're starting to see part of what i'm talking about now, rather than just my fancy to play older titles.

 

 

 

It is one thing though. They proved this with the new PS3 models. Ps2 discs can't be read, but you can download them fine. And like Logan said numerous times, streaming games holds the possibility for any old titles to be played. The smart thing to do is to let us have access to our PSN accounts DL'd games. Until they confirm or deny this, my optimism holds.

 

Now, I do see what you are saying for actual DLC. I don't know how that could be handled in a streaming situation.

[The NZA]

It is one thing though. They proved this with the new PS3 models. Ps2 discs can't be read, but you can download them fine. And like Logan said numerous times, streaming games holds the possibility for any old titles to be played. The smart thing to do is to let us have access to our PSN accounts DL'd games. Until they confirm or deny this, my optimism holds.

 

Now, I do see what you are saying for actual DLC. I don't know how that could be handled in a streaming situation.

 

no, it's not.

 

why did we see a few dozen PS2 titles re-released, out of a library of nearly 4,000? why did the 360 start out with a handful of Xbox titles (numerous having sketchy levels of playability), only to see this support dry up? because this form of software emulation basically required custom emulators to run each title, for lack of proper BC. this is a perfect example of my concerns with Gakai, because if support is either to be done this way, or as i've been saying, possibly via only the PS1/2 titles found on PSN (this is how they answered PSP owners with the vita), only the most popular titles are likely to see support, and again, any with licensing issues - or made by studios no longer existing (sadly becoming too common) are off that list.

 

what i said is important here: true BC either exists, or it doesnt - it's not going to work for digital, but not physical. will sony likely put efforts to get the most popular titles on PSN up & running soon, to alleviate this? sure, but you have to ask how long said efforts will go for content already sold. all this before we talk about accessing your single player content when your internet (or their newtork) is down.

[Newtype]

I knew it was coming but hearing no bc killed whatever hype I had for the few PS3 games that are coming out later this year.

[The NZA]

well...you'll get Last of Us soon, Beyond likely before PS4 drops - i forget what else was on deck, though

[Newtype]

Puppeteer

Tales of Xillia

Earth Defense Force 2025

Disgaea D2: A Brighter Darkness

Deadly Premonition: The Director's Cut

The Last Guardian (unless it's been moved for the PS4)

Dragon's Crown (Cancelled the PS3 copy and I'm now getting it for the Vita)

 

[Iambaytor]

The "so what, I still have a ps3" argument is like saying "who cares if this movie isn't out on DVD, I've still got the laserdisc!" except it's not because a laserdisc player might still work in 5 years. If platforms can't manage an affordable background compatibility then they need to find a workable emulator. I can play any pc game released ever from apple 2 to dos to windows 95 with the right combo of emulator's and patches. Game consoles are not the simple pieces of nigh-indestructable hardware they once were. They're complex machines that can no longer be fixed with canned air and duct tape and if the machine is disposable then they need to find out a way to make the libraries last. If this was any other form of media you would find this barbaric.

[Newtype]

That means thinking about the long term and that's something none of them are good at.

 

 

[alive she cried]

Ha ha, I'm completely aware that I care far less about this than you do, although I wasn't aware that bc included PSN and Xbox Live purchases, that would upset me. I empathise with your plight, I'm just more than happy to wait 20 years for an Xbox 360 emulator and a pc capable of running it.

[Newtype]

You do know that a bulk of the 360 games are also on the pc.

 

 

[The NZA]

ASC's right to point to the emulation scene, as that's the only way we can play some old stuff with lost source code/etc but even that can be dodgy...did you know Saturn emulation only got to a playable/nearly system replacement level (meaning, not improved, just nearly 100% workable) state in the last few years? some hardware is particularly complicated, for instance i think it's safe to predict PS3 emulation is gonna be spotty for a long time to come, unless internal kits/code somehow leak but id love to be wrong.

 

other scenes - Xbox 1, Dreamcast, and the lesser known/loved stuff like Jaguar, CD-I, 3DO etc - are basically dead at this point. tons of those titles are not playable without original hardware, sadly. we're pretty lucky that Neo Geo and as much of MAMA (arcade stuff) as it did made it.

[Lipala]

The PS3 bc was performed via having an entire PS2 chipset onboard as well as a PS1 chip in the original designs. It was 60% of the reason why the PS3 was so expensive at launch and was why it was one of the first things to go in the price drop models. I get that you want emulation, but emulation, as you pointed out doesn't make the company money, if a company invests anything at all into emulation they're doing so out of good will in the first place. Consoles are not PCs this is something we know and have known since their inception. Just because you can do something on a PC, to expect the same on a console is like expecting a typewriter to be compatible with pen ink and being upset when the typewriter's proprietary ribbon prevents you from using a pen to give it ink. From a console specific argument, again I agree that hardware supported BC is the only way you're really going to get solid PS3 support on-console its not worth it. Sony tried pleasing their player base with the PS3 and built in PS2 support day one and what did it get them? A huge hit in market share due to their console costing too much. Its not corporate apology to accept that the business which made the last device I purchased learned that a feature I liked actually lost them sales and therefore took it out. Sony commits to 10 year life-cycles on their hardware, so yes PS4 is coming out but PS3s will still be made and sold for at least another 2 years and there will be continued hardware support for them. Just as the PS2 continued to see titles for years after the PS3 came out. Also, just as the PS2 I'm sure they'll come out with a budget model costing dramatically less so you can have that backup PS3 in case there's content you're jonesing for.

 

all this before we talk about accessing your single player content when your internet (or their newtork) is down.

 

Nick Sony already addressed this and said directly that single player/offline play will be available for all games. Period. They are not locking single player behind a network connection. Also, they integrated much of the Gakai tech throughout the system and at the response times Gakai is able to achieve, running those PSN and classic PS3 titles on a local Sony server and then fed to the PS4 is completely possible even at low broadband speeds and they've yet to comment if any such thing will occur. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if that sort of service was behind a Playstation Plus style paywall as opposed to a per-play/game expense. Why shouldn't it be btw? Its something that costs sony money to operate on an ongoing basis, a single purchase hardly covers the cost.

[The NZA]

The PS3 bc was performed via having an entire PS2 chipset onboard as well as a PS1 chip in the original designs. It was 60% of the reason why the PS3 was so expensive at launch and was why it was one of the first things to go in the price drop models. I get that you want emulation, but emulation, as you pointed out doesn't make the company money, if a company invests anything at all into emulation they're doing so out of good will in the first place. Consoles are not PCs this is something we know and have known since their inception. Just because you can do something on a PC, to expect the same on a console is like expecting a typewriter to be compatible with pen ink and being upset when the typewriter's proprietary ribbon prevents you from using a pen to give it ink. From a console specific argument, again I agree that hardware supported BC is the only way you're really going to get solid PS3 support on-console its not worth it. Sony tried pleasing their player base with the PS3 and built in PS2 support day one and what did it get them? A huge hit in market share due to their console costing too much. Its not corporate apology to accept that the business which made the last device I purchased learned that a feature I liked actually lost them sales and therefore took it out. Sony commits to 10 year life-cycles on their hardware, so yes PS4 is coming out but PS3s will still be made and sold for at least another 2 years and there will be continued hardware support for them. Just as the PS2 continued to see titles for years after the PS3 came out. Also, just as the PS2 I'm sure they'll come out with a budget model costing dramatically less so you can have that backup PS3 in case there's content you're jonesing for.

 

again, while appreciated, i don't need an explanation on how BC worked in the PS3...but there's a few points i have to disagree on.

 

1) BC was not nearly "60% of the reason why the PS3 was so expensive at launch", i'm kind of surprised to hear this said. you had a system of custom parts (requiring entire new production plants to be built) coupled with at the time incredibly expensive blu-ray diodes. they lost market share by selling an $800 blu-ray player with very limited gaming software for $600.

 

if you don't believe me, here's Jack Tretton, President & CEO of sony directly saying BC wasn't removed for cost-related issues.

 

2) i don't believe i implined things doable on a PC = the same on custom hardware.

 

i really should splinter this off, because you're still conflating my larger BC argument with your defense of sony here, which was not my intent. i do think it worth addressing that the image you have of BC being both costly and somehow losing them sales is not rooted in anything viable.

 

Nick Sony already addressed this and said directly that single player/offline play will be available for all games. Period. They are not locking single player behind a network connection. Also, they integrated much of the Gakai tech throughout the system and at the response times Gakai is able to achieve, running those PSN and classic PS3 titles on a local Sony server and then fed to the PS4 is completely possible even at low broadband speeds and they've yet to comment if any such thing will occur. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if that sort of service was behind a Playstation Plus style paywall as opposed to a per-play/game expense. Why shouldn't it be btw? Its something that costs sony money to operate on an ongoing basis, a single purchase hardly covers the cost.

 

no, not "period" because if you tend to take anything sony says before a new cycle at face value, i question how many generations you've been with them.

 

theoretically, if we're streaming video of a remote play of a legacy title (hardware being on the server side) how exactly do you expect to do this offline? I think you're mixing the prior concerns with always-online for PS4 software and the BC issue we're discussing here.

 

as for why shouldn't it be a paid service: the heavy acquisition of Gakai was not done solely as a workaround for the issue of BC; as we saw in the presentation, the larger picture is streaming to mobile devices & beyond. as a consumer, i should then celebrate not only losing viable forms of BC (no longer accessing software i've paid for, rather only that i've re-bought through PSN) and further subsidizing this service? there is absolutely no way i can knock MS for charging people for P2P connections/play and be excited about any of that.

 

If its coupled with PS+, that does soften the blow, but you're again speaking on software i paid for, then paid for again, and the right to access it.

 

*edit: for posterity - you might be quite right about the subscription model, see question # 4 here

[Reverend Jax]

I'm curious how much more you guys are willing to pay for BC. Imagine you have a PS4 with no BC and it has the hard drive size you want and it is prices $x, and they also release a PS4 model with BC and the same hard drive, and it cost $x+y. How much $y would you be willing to drop to get it? Let's take a ridiculous number. Imagine the regular model debuts at $300, and the model with BC (other specs like hard drive being the same) cost $800. Obviously that's ridiculous and you wouldn't pay for that, right? So what would the right price be? $500? Would you be willing to pay $200 more for BC? $100? $50? Is there a number where you wouldn't pay for it yourself, but you would appreciate that Sony put that model out?

Edited February 24, 2013 by Reverend Jax

[The NZA]

in all likelihood, the system (or at least it's lower SKU) will be $400.

 

i paid $600 for a fully-BC system 6 years ago, i'd be hard pressed to go higher than that at the moment.

[Reverend Jax]

So if a $400 non-BC SKU and a $600 BC SKU were released on the same day, you'd pay the extra $200 for the one with BC, but not more. Is that about right?

 

Anyone else?

Edited February 24, 2013 by Reverend Jax

[Keth]

Thats like buying an extra system... it would be convenient, but not worth it

[Reverend Jax]

So how much would it be worth? What's the magic number?

[Iambaytor]

The PS3 bc was performed via having an entire PS2 chipset onboard as well as a PS1 chip in the original designs. It was 60% of the reason why the PS3 was so expensive at launch and was why it was one of the first things to go in the price drop models. I get that you want emulation, but emulation, as you pointed out doesn't make the company money, if a company invests anything at all into emulation they're doing so out of good will in the first place.

 

Well then after a ten year cycle they should sell the hardware to other companies that can continue to make these things on the cheap, thus allowing people to play the things they spent good money on.

 

Consoles are not PCs this is something we know and have known since their inception. Just because you can do something on a PC, to expect the same on a console is like expecting a typewriter to be compatible with pen ink and being upset when the typewriter's proprietary ribbon prevents you from using a pen to give it ink.

 

Modern consoles are more like PCs than their predecessors. We have hard-drives, buggy games can receive patches and updates, they have expansion packs! Nintendo has managed to make a perfectly workable emulation machine that manages to have most of their old library and for a lot of people this was one of the selling points for the Wii (because face it, that machine had a lot of shitty games released for it) It can be done, and if Sony or Microsoft don't want to do the work I'm sure some fly-by-night company would be more than happy to produce Gamestation 2's and Crosscubes for discount prices to the consumers. It's not like Sony or Microsoft is making any money holding onto the plans for obsolete software they're not manufacturing anymore.

[Visitant]

I think the one thing you're forgetting here (or maybe not) is that these companies are starting to happily embrace downloadable content and by that i mean nixing BC in your consoles because they can resell you the game on their new system.

 

People started paying attention to the fact that we own Final Fantasy I on everything including our toaster.

[Iambaytor]

And that covers the AAA titles of yesteryear, but we're never going to get an HD update of Jurrassic Park for the Sega Genesis or Lost Vikings 2 or any of that shit. Eventually it will reach a point where no-one is going to want to pay for games they already own.

 

This is really the first console generation this has actually come up properly. Nobody cared last gen because while no Backwards compatibility was disappointing, everybody had a PS2 or could get ahold of one for fairly cheap, and console from before that era seems to work fairly flawlessly even after years of disuse, and while the Xbox 360 backwards compatibility sucked there were only about 6 Xbox exclusives worth playing, and Nintendo actually did everything right by making their system backwards compatible and releasing most of their old library online. This is when this shit actually starts to take effect.