# PS4 NOT backward compatible with PS3



## Xuphor (Feb 22, 2013)

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02...wards-compatible-with-retail-or-digital-games

 Figured this news is worth it's own thread, instead of being lost in nearly 20 pages on the official PS4 announcement thread. Not good news IMO, since the PS3 lasted quite a long time. Having to pay again for all those games to play via several gigabyte downloads? Eww.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Feb 22, 2013)

I think most people by now already realized that. Not a surprise considering Sony moved from Cell to x86. The only way to achieve backward compatibility in this situation is to add Cell and RSX chips like Sony did with PS3 launch model. This in return drives up the price quite a bit.

This isn't like Wii to Wii U where Nintendo keeps using Power Architecture.


----------



## pokefloote (Feb 22, 2013)

It wasn't "lost in the thread". It's one of the bullet points on the first post.


----------



## p1ngpong (Feb 22, 2013)

This isn't big enough news to warrant its own USN thread separate of what is already being discussed in the front page PS4 thread. Besides there will be a way to stream ps1, ps2 and ps3 games to the ps4, the exact details about it have yet to be announced though. So moved.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Feb 22, 2013)

So like, how come Sony is so much against Backwards Compatibility? Retail games, yeah, I can understand, but digital games? There's really no excuse on that one.


----------



## Sychophantom (Feb 22, 2013)

Is anyone really surprised given how much Sony likes to re-charge you to play games you've bought before? Or UMD to PSN?

The streaming part makes me wonder, though. I'm waiting to see what Microsoft does, before I decide whether or not to make a PS4 a priority or a "It'd be nice, but no fucks given either way".


----------



## AngryGeek416 (Feb 22, 2013)

p1ngpong said:


> This isn't big enough news to warrant its own USN thread separate of what is already being discussed in the front page PS4 thread. Besides there will be a way to stream ps1, ps2 and ps3 games to the ps4, the exact details about it have yet to be announced though. So moved.


So they expect people to rebuy all the ps1 ps2 ps3 games? is that a joke?


----------



## thegamer408 (Feb 22, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> So like, how come Sony is so much against Backwards Compatibility? Retail games, yeah, I can understand, but digital games? There's really no excuse on that one.


Why doesn't Sony want you to buy used games? If that actually does happen, then there's no way I'm buying a PS4


----------



## p1ngpong (Feb 22, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> So like, how come Sony is so much against Backwards Compatibility? Retail games, yeah, I can understand, but digital games? There's really no excuse on that one.


 
Sony is using a completely different architecture in the PS4 than it did with the PS3. If the games are digital or retail discs makes no difference, they all use cell architecture so its either find a way to emulate a very complicated cell cpu to run PS3 games or include cell technology in the PS4 along with the x86 cpu it uses in order to allow BC which will raise the price. 

This is my personal stance on the matter that I have held since Nintendo omitted a GBA slot from the DSi, if you want to play PS3 games etc go and buy a PS3 and stop crying.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 22, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> So like, how come Sony is so much against Backwards Compatibility? Retail games, yeah, I can understand, but digital games? There's really no excuse on that one.


 
If the game utilizes with the Cell Processor, digital or retail, it's just not going to be compatible with the new architecture.

They said some games might be compatible after some serious fiddling, but most won't. It sucks, but at the same time, the new tech should make the PS4 easier to develop for in the future - down the line, this means that the system should be home to better, less glitch-prone games.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Feb 22, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> So like, how come Sony is so much against Backwards Compatibility? Retail games, yeah, I can understand, but digital games? There's really no excuse on that one.


Sony is not against backward compatibility. The move from Cell to x86 makes it impossible to run PS3 game on PS4 without PS3 CPU & GPU.

As for digital aspect, Sony plans to stream PS1, PS2, and PS3 games (similar to how Onlive works) so you can play it on PS4.


----------



## AngryGeek416 (Feb 22, 2013)

No BC no sale. A PS3 will not last 30 years they barley last 2.


----------



## Maxternal (Feb 22, 2013)

I think the worry of the OP is not exactly having to pay for them AGAIN but not being able to BOTH try to sell his current PS3 to get some money for the PS4 console AND be able to still play his old games.

... Or maybe it's having enough plugs available on his TV to be able to plug BOTH into it at the same time and doesn't want be switching cables back and forth every time he wants to play a PS3 game ... or drop the cash for a multi-input switch box for the TV or a power strip to plug them both into the wall.

(Just clarifying.)


BC is a nice convenience for those who are upgrading but those who didn't have the games already won't necessarily miss the ability to go out and buy used PS3 games for their brand new PS4. Unfortunately, if they really want to play those games they'd have to go buy a used console, too.


----------



## AngryGeek416 (Feb 22, 2013)

They say streaming will be the solution but they leave out ull have to rebuy all your games.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 22, 2013)

CanuckBuck said:


> They say streaming will be the solution but they leave out ull have to rebuy all your games.


 
Okay, you don't like this decision - we got it the first time.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Feb 22, 2013)

CanuckBuck said:


> They say streaming will be the solution but they leave out ull have to rebuy all your games.


Then keep your old PS3 and PS2 so you don't have to rebuy it. Is it too much to ask?


----------



## Maxternal (Feb 22, 2013)

The nice thing about streaming is it made it look like you won't even have to own a console to play PS3 games anymore ... if you buy a digital copy, that is.
(now we'll just have to see if this means you have to pay SEPARATE for the one you downloaded to the PS3 and the one you can stream to your PS4 .. or tablet, vita, pc, etc. ... only time will tell)


----------



## AngryGeek416 (Feb 22, 2013)

trumpet-205 said:


> Then keep your old PS3 and PS2 so you don't have to rebuy it. Is it too much to ask?


i have both a Ps3 and ps2 they wont last 30 years like my snes and genesis what will i do then rebuy hundreds of games? if you had anywhere near my collection of games u'd have a problem aswell. The PS4 is optical disc based right? most likely so theres no excuse to not play ps1 ps2 ps3 games make a adaptor that will play the games if it makes the system to expensive to include inside. The people who are ok with sony doing this are sheeps let them tell you whats right some more.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 22, 2013)

CanuckBuck said:


> my snes and genesis


 
It's funny you bring these up - The SNES isn't backwards compatible and both consoles were followed by consoles that lacked backwards compatible. Shouldn't you be used to this by now?

Also, wow. I finally found someone who understands console hardware even less than I do.


----------



## p1ngpong (Feb 22, 2013)

CanuckBuck said:


> i have both a Ps3 and ps2 they wont last 30 years like my snes and genesis what will i do then rebuy hundreds of games?


 
Are you trolling or just smoking crack?


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Feb 22, 2013)

I've never really seen what the big deal about BC is anyways. Its not really that hard to hook 2 things up at once. In the old days, there wasnt BC at all and people survived just fine.

@canuck: In 30 years we'll have perfect ps3 emulation, lol

Edit Thinking about it, the most your SNES could have lasted is 22 years, actually...


----------



## trumpet-205 (Feb 22, 2013)

CanuckBuck said:


> i have both a Ps3 and ps2 they wont last 30 years like my snes and genesis what will i do then rebuy hundreds of games? if you had anywhere near my collection of games u'd have a problem aswell. The PS4 is optical disc based right? most likely so theres no excuse to not play ps1 ps2 ps3 games make a adaptor that will play the games if it makes the system to expensive to include inside. The people who are ok with sony doing this are sheeps let them tell you whats right some more.


 
It is not as easy as you have said. I can be technical and give you a lot of reasons why such concept you proposed wouldn't work.

Just because a game is on a disc does NOT mean it works universally. Quite frankly you should have no problem keeping PS3 and PS2 alive for 30 years. If anything disc themselves will be first one to die before console.

And who is to say there won't be a PS3 emulator 10 years into the future?


----------



## Rydian (Feb 22, 2013)

CanuckBuck said:


> The PS4 is optical disc based right? most likely so theres no excuse to not play ps1 ps2 ps3 games


Try reading the posts that have already been posted in this thread.  That was already covered.



CanuckBuck said:


> make a adaptor that will play the games if it makes the system to expensive to include inside.


The "adapter" would be A PS3.  Getting the PS4 to run PS3 games will be about as easy as getting a PS3 to run 360 games.  "An adapter" will not cut it.



CanuckBuck said:


> The people who are ok with sony doing this are sheeps let them tell you whats right some more.


And the people who were okay with the SNES not playing NES games were sheep.  I mean they were both carts right?

Christ, learn a little about tech before you open your mouth.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Feb 22, 2013)

PS4 NOT backward compatible with PS3


----------



## GameWinner (Feb 22, 2013)

Doesn't matter to me, I don't plan to get rid of my PS3 once I get a PS4.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Feb 22, 2013)

Let's be optimistic... making the PS4 backward compatible would make it more expensive.

I don't understand people who actually have a PS3 complaining about lack of backwards compatibility. TVs nowadays have tons of hdmi ports and all other kinds of input, you don't even have to go to your TV and remove and insert cables like you did in the past. The only thing you need to do to switch between a ps4 and a ps3 game is get the controller remote and push a couple of buttons.


----------



## LightyKD (Feb 22, 2013)

_I gives no fucks!_

_...am I trolling? Ya damn right! I'll go as far as saying "Fuck a PlayStation!"_

OK, Trolling done!  In all seriousness, I'm sure GaiKai will allow for PS3 and 2 games to be streamed to the console. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if "Playing - while - Streaming" was just Gaikai streaming the game to you while you download and then once you're done with your first session, your save file is instantly transferred to your console. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing PS2 games added to PlayStation Mobile.


----------



## pokefloote (Feb 22, 2013)

LightyKD said:


> _I gives no fucks!_
> 
> _...am I trolling? Ya damn right! I'll go as far as saying "Fuck a PlayStation!"_
> 
> OK, Trolling done!  In all seriousness, I'm sure GaiKai will allow for PS3 and 2 games to be streamed to the console. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if "Playing - while - Streaming" was just Gaikai streaming the game to you while you download and then once you're done with your first session, your save file is instantly transferred to your console. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing PS2 games added to PlayStation Mobile.


That's actually a pretty neat idea. The visuals might be a bit lower, but I won't have to wait for a multi GB game to download before playing it.


----------



## Another World (Feb 22, 2013)

trumpet-205 said:


> And who is to say there won't be a PS3 emulator 10 years into the future?



why would you wait 10 yrs for that? http://ps3.emulatorx.info/

i really don't see what the big deal is. back when i got into gaming there was no backwards compatibility. the next system offered new experiences and new software. you bought the new system because you wanted those better/newer experiences. i just hope they continue to support the ps3 via PSN. i expect to be able to purchase and redownload software for a long time.

-another world


----------



## Sicklyboy (Feb 22, 2013)

Another World said:


> why would you wait 10 yrs for that? http://ps3.emulatorx.info/
> 
> i really don't see what the big deal is. back when i got into gaming there was no backwards compatibility. the next system offered new experiences and new software. you bought the new system because you wanted those better/newer experiences. i just hope they continue to support the ps3 via PSN. i expect to be able to purchase and redownload software for a long time.
> 
> -another world


 
THE FUTURE IS ALREADY HERE! 



CanuckBuck said:


> No BC no sale. A PS3 will not last 30 years they barley last 2.


Have fun staying with last-gen for the rest of your life, pal.


CanuckBuck said:


> i have both a Ps3 and ps2 they wont last 30 years like my snes and genesis what will i do then rebuy hundreds of games? if you had anywhere near my collection of games u'd have a problem aswell. The PS4 is optical disc based right? most likely so theres no excuse to not play ps1 ps2 ps3 games make a adaptor that will play the games if it makes the system to expensive to include inside. The people who are ok with sony doing this are sheeps let them tell you whats right some more.


Right because USB 2.0 can completely support the throughput that a CPU and GPU have, simultaneously, that you would need to use such an "adapter", right? You're a freaking genius, I can't believe Sony didn't think of that first when they removed BC from the PS3 for PS1/2. I mean, sure, it was like three consoles in one before, which is why it's so small now, being just a single console. Why don't they re-add all of the stuff PLUS a PS3 and have a FOUR IN ONE console! Introducing the new MSRP of *$999 US DOLLARS!*


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Feb 22, 2013)

no fucks were given for this


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Feb 22, 2013)

For people wondering what the big deal with BC is, its really really nice to have during the launch of a console when there are so few good games. My PS2 at launch played quite a few PS1 games while I waited for Twisted Metal Black, Tekken Tag, and so on.

Of course after a year or two BC is pretty much just icing on the cake by that time you should have a pretty good library of games built up to keep the stigma of "it has no games!" away.... (The Vita could have used BC in this exact situation but I agree with Sony ditching UMD so yeah no BC is a pain, worth it? I think so but maybe it wasn't?)

On the PS4's BC issue, it should be compatible with the PS1 and maybe the PS2 via software. PS1 emulation should support all kinds of cool filters like the OpenGL ones... (There are some really cool OpenGL cell shaded filters and black and white stencil filters and cartoon filters for the PS1.)

If they don't have a software PS1 emulator at least, thats just sad 

Edit: To put it really in perspective how important BC is, I spend more time playing PS1 and PS2 games on my PS3 than I do playing PS3 games....

Edit 2: I think Sony could have upgraded Cell to one of the other versions added all the RAM upgraded the GPU, kept BC with the PS3 and PS1... But AMD probably offered them a good price VS IBM's Cell.


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 22, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> For people wondering what the big deal with BC is, its really really nice to have during the launch of a console when there are so few good games. My PS2 at launch played quite a few PS1 games while I waited for Twisted Metal Black, Tekken Tag, and so on.
> 
> Of course after a year or two BC is pretty much just icing on the cake by that time you should have a pretty good library of games built up to keep the stigma of "it has no games!" away.... (The Vita could have used BC in this exact situation but I agree with Sony ditching UMD so yeah no BC is a pain, worth it? I think so but maybe it wasn't?)
> 
> ...


Software emulation still takes time to develop, which costs money, and isn't perfect which creates it's own problems, and will again drive up the price. It would also be kind of strange announcing ps1/2 software BC and using the streaming service for ps3 only.

They didn't use cell for reasons already mentioned, and it isn't because of the price. Developers would much rather code for an x86 architecture than a cell one, which will in the end also produce better and more stable code.

I don't know why people are shocked to see no local BC support.

Edited due to a premature ejaculation of the submit button


----------



## trumpet-205 (Feb 22, 2013)

Another World said:


> i just hope they continue to support the ps3 via PSN. i expect to be able to purchase and redownload software for a long time.
> -another world


 
PSP is still supported on PSN, and PS3 is still selling strong, so PS3 will be with us for a while.



Psionic Roshambo said:


> Edit 2: I think Sony could have upgraded Cell to one of the other versions added all the RAM upgraded the GPU, kept BC with the PS3 and PS1... But AMD probably offered them a good price VS IBM's Cell.


 
They can't. IBM stopped any new development on Cell. Sony HAD to move on.

Plus PS4 focus is being developer friendly. Sony had to drop Cell because it is notoriously difficult to program.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Feb 22, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> For people wondering what the big deal with BC is, its really really nice to have during the launch of a console when there are so few good games. My PS2 at launch played quite a few PS1 games while I waited for Twisted Metal Black, Tekken Tag, and so on.
> 
> Of course after a year or two BC is pretty much just icing on the cake by that time you should have a pretty good library of games built up to keep the stigma of "it has no games!" away.... (The Vita could have used BC in this exact situation but I agree with Sony ditching UMD so yeah no BC is a pain, worth it? I think so but maybe it wasn't?)


No one is saying BC isn't a nice feature, problem is that there is no way PS4 will have it. 

This isn't news, the first models of the PS3 offered complete BC with the PS2 and they were $599. Of course, one of the ways they found to drop the PS3 price would be to eventually remove the actual PS2's GPU and CPU from the PS3, which did literally nothing useful unless providing BC. I think Sony is making quite a good decision, if the PS4 includes BC but it turns out to be too pricey, people who want to play PS3 games will just buy a PS3.

Also, Sony has chose to use complicated architectures for the PS2 and the PS3, so there is no way to use some smart tricks like using the older console processor in the new console as a co-processor just like the Mega Drive and Nintendo DS did.

And where is the optimism of all Sony fans in this forum? Of course the PS4 will be a good system and will have great games. It doesn't need any BC to do that


----------



## trumpet-205 (Feb 22, 2013)

BC did play an important part as to why PS2 was successful (during that time neither GameCube and Dreamcast have BC). Sony tried to replicate that magic formula with PS3, but it backfired because unlike PS1 to PS2 (where it is still MIPS), PS2 to PS3 is a major change (MIPS to Cell) that needs the inclusion of EE and GS for BC. Needless to say $599 launch price did not help PS3 launch sales at all. Not to mentioned at that time PS3 was already priced at a loss (hence why people called it a very cheap Blu-ray player at that time).


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 22, 2013)

Sychophantom said:


> Is anyone really surprised given how much Sony likes to re-charge you to play games you've bought before? Or UMD to PSN?
> 
> The streaming part makes me wonder, though. I'm waiting to see what Microsoft does, before I decide whether or not to make a PS4 a priority or a "It'd be nice, but no fucks given either way".


 
And to think they bitched about Nintendo's policy on repurchasing.


----------



## Depravo (Feb 22, 2013)

I know how some of you feel. I just upgraded most of my VHS collection to DVD then Blu-Ray happened!


----------



## Wiicho (Feb 22, 2013)

Come on people. This is sony we are talking about.

 It won't surprise me if at launch sony decides to drop the streaming idea and few years after removes ps4 format support from the console. Then the ps4 will be another box collecting dust like my ps3 is now.

What sony gives, sony takes.


----------



## Hielkenator (Feb 22, 2013)

Another World said:


> why would you wait 10 yrs for that? http://ps3.emulatorx.info/
> 
> i really don't see what the big deal is. back when i got into gaming there was no backwards compatibility. the next system offered new experiences and new software. you bought the new system because you wanted those better/newer experiences. i just hope they continue to support the ps3 via PSN. i expect to be able to purchase and redownload software for a long time.
> 
> -another world


And how old are you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_7800
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_System

http://eab.abime.net/archive/index.php/t-12427.html

And how about PC in general for gaming?

BTW, I agree about what the big deal is.
Anyone want to buy a PS3?


----------



## Hielkenator (Feb 22, 2013)

mysticwaterfall said:


> I've never really seen what the big deal about BC is anyways. Its not really that hard to hook 2 things up at once. In the old days, there wasnt BC at all and people survived just fine.
> 
> @canuck: In 30 years we'll have perfect ps3 emulation, lol
> 
> Edit Thinking about it, the most your SNES could have lasted is 22 years, actually...


Acctually nowadays it's very handy.
For instance my Wii replaced my Nes, Snes, Mastersytem, Megadrive,C64, Amiga, Atari 2600, Atari 5200, 7800, PC engine/cd, GAMECUBE, some via emulators. Not to mention all the catridges etc that were lying around.
THE BEST INSVESTMENT I ever made in terms of space saving.
Modern times, yay!


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Feb 22, 2013)

Hielkenator said:


> Acctually nowadays it's very handy.
> For instance my Wii replaced my Nes, Snes, Mastersytem, Megadrive,C64, Amiga, Atari 2600( these do not work on lcd tv's btw) Atari 5200, 7800, PC engine/cd, GAMECUBE, some via emulators. Not to mention all the catridges etc that were lying around.
> THE BEST INSVESTMENT I ever made in terms of space saving.
> Modern times, yay!



Oh, don't get me wrong, I love emulation and think all the emulators we have on the Wii are one of its best features. But that's not the same as BC, and if say the Wii U for whatever reason hadn't played Wii games/homebrew I would have no problem hooking them both up. In fact I dis have them both hooked up for a little bit until they got HBC et al working again.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 22, 2013)

If you want to mow a lawn, buy a lawn mower. If you want to play PlayStation 3 games, buy a PlayStation 3.

I'll be brutally honest - if you're buying a Next Generation system for playing Last Generation games, you're doing it wrong. What matters the most is that Sony's reaching out to the developer, they've created a system that will be easy to develop for with developer's insight in mind, which is the exact opposite of what they did with the PS3 when all they wanted was technical prowess at the cost of the convenience of easy development.

What I want now is the console to be affordable and if the launch line-up will be great, I won't give two flips about PS3 titles.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 22, 2013)

-


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 22, 2013)

Peps said:


> I don't think it's unreasonable for the average consumer who doesn't care about specs to expect the console to be backwards compatible. In their mindset, it would be reasonable to assume that the next iteration of a console should be compatible with software designed for previous iterations.


That only takes you so-far. Backward Compatibility is like a backpack of bricks a console has to carry on its back, slowing it down for the sake of being compatible with old software.

It's not _"natural"_ to expect that new technology will be compatible with old technology because new technology is, well, new. Some features that are obsolete in old technology are removed in new technology and Cell was deemed obsolete, with good reasons behind doing so as well.

All that adding the Cell to the PS4 would amount to would be ramping up the price, and I'll tell you what would happen - the console would do _everything everybody wants_ but people would _still rag on it_ because _"FIVEHUNDREDNINETYNINE DORRARS!"_ and Sony doesn't want that to happen again.

At the end of the day, nobody in the history of ever has fully satisfied their userbase with a product because customers are diverse - what Sony's doing is ditching the old and reaching out to the new, and god bless them for that because I sure as hell don't want to pay a fortune for a Next Generation console at this point.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 22, 2013)

-


----------



## Wiicho (Feb 22, 2013)

Like my dad would say "the blue ray player plays all the dvds we have. Why doesn't the playstation play all the games we have?" He doesn't care about specs. He just hates spending money on something we already have.


----------



## Hielkenator (Feb 22, 2013)

In these times, BC simply means more bang for your buck.
For playstation, I really  do not care.
I won't get dragged in again. no matter how many top notch actors are gonna in the commercials.
And I also do not care for specs, only games.
And I simply cannot afford it at the moment, spended my money on the dissapointing WiiU....


----------



## Auryn (Feb 22, 2013)

So many post about that backward compatibility but nobody noticed the "future compatibility"??
Take a look at the structure of a PS3 and you will see that Sony has gone all out their own way making conversion of games for the PS3 more difficult.
Now the PS4 will be more "mainstream" with an x86 architecture, what that means??
1) Sony has not the money or don't want to spend money to go with a completely new and revolutionary system
2) the fact that the PS Vita is suffering of the lack pf 3th party developper, made Sony think and so they are staying more near Xbox 720 and PC so that conversions of the games can be more easy. Yes, this means that it will probably be the end of 3th party exclusive titles.
3) the future of gaming is so uncertain that they are progressing with caution.
The right answer is probably a mix of those 3 things but what is important, is that  all those speculations about Xbox720 or PS4 being 6-8 times faster than the current generation, are bullshit.
If you know a bit about technologie and you look at the PC of today, you see that there wasn't such a big jump as it was the case 20 years ago in the same time span.
The second fact is that we are going toward the all games for all consoles so the choice is just for the customer to make and probably in a more far future that console will dissapear completely or take the place of a desktop PC.
In fact i was reading years back that there will probably not be a PS4 at all (connected to the change at the head of Sony japan and market study) but it seems to me like they want to try it one last time.
Anyway concluding, I not expect much more than decent modern PC, 3D, probably SSD HDD or Hybrid HDD (depending on how much the rest of the console costs) with the move controller, touchscreen and movement sensors from the PS4.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 22, 2013)

Peps said:


> *To you and me, you who understands hardware and technology, it's not natural to expect backwards compatibility.*


Oh, I understood you, I just wanted to elaborate on my earlier point.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 22, 2013)

Wiicho said:


> Like my dad would say "the blue ray player plays all the dvds we have. Why doesn't the playstation play all the games we have?" He doesn't care about specs. He just hates spending money on something we already have.


 
It does support Blurays still, if you care.

Also, I don't care really. I'm not buying a PS4 to play PS3 games. An inconvenience? Yes, but it's not the first console in existence to do so. Remember the N64? The Gamecube? Even later PS3's?

EDIT: Only thing I'm displeased about is that your digital games won't transfer to cloud streaming.

EDIT2: Also what's with this whole thing of the PS4 being "Sony's last hurrah"? Sony have done consistently well in home consoles. Actually they've done REALLY FUCKING WELL. 100 million PSX sales, 150 million PS2 sales. They set a record and broke it with their next console. The PS3 was off to a bumpy start but it's now doing really well.


----------



## gusmento01 (Feb 22, 2013)

Gahars said:


> It's funny you bring these up - The SNES isn't backwards compatible and both consoles were followed by consoles that lacked backwards compatible. Shouldn't you be used to this by now?
> 
> Also, wow. I finally found someone who understands console hardware even less than I do.


 
Sega Genesis was officially backwards compatible with Master System by using the Power Base Converter.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Feb 22, 2013)

Well, I'm certain that the PS3 will last a long time, first of all. In compatibility with the PS4, I'm actually pretty shocked to hear that. But, as p1ngy said, STOP CRYING. I actually predicted this were to happen, too. In time, the PS3 will drop in value, so PS3's will be cheap then. Get a PS3, play PS3 games on that, Get a PS4, play PS4 games on that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 22, 2013)

gusmento01 said:


> Sega Genesis was officially backwards compatible with Master System by using the Power Base Converter.


They _could_ release an Add-On containing the CELL only and deal with the rest via software methods, except _why would they do that and who would buy it?_ You have to keep in mind that this kind of thing would easily cost a $100.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 22, 2013)

gusmento01 said:


> Sega Genesis was officially backwards compatible with Master System by using the Power Base Converter.


 
Right, which is why I only said the SNES wasn't backwards compatible. My second point was that the Saturn and Dreamcast weren't backwards compatible.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 22, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Right, which is why I only said the SNES wasn't backwards compatible. My second point was that the Saturn and Dreamcast weren't backwards compatible.


This just in, PlayStation 4 now natively compatible with _PlayStation 1 (including Pocket Station), PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable (UMD as well as Digital via MSPD and M2 support) and PlayStation Vita (via cartridge as well as memory card support)_, here's the leaked photo of the system:


Spoiler


----------



## Rydian (Feb 22, 2013)

gusmento01 said:


> Sega Genesis was officially backwards compatible with Master System by using the Power Base Converter.


That's because the Gen was an upgraded MS, like the Wii is an upgraded GC, and the DS is an upgraded GBA (more along the lines of the GBA->DS, since the Genesis used the whole "the older processor is my co-processor" trick).  The power base converter was just a connection thing.

Backwards compatibility is often a burden, and sometimes it just needs to be dropped to move forward.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 22, 2013)

Rydian said:


> That's because the Gen was an upgraded MS, like the Wii is an upgraded GC, and the DS is an upgraded GBA (more along the lines of the GBA->DS, since the Genesis used the whole "the older processor is my co-processor" trick). The power base converter was just a connection thing.


 
I really didn't know what you are trying to say. That like saying the launch ps3 was a upgraded ps2 and that was a upgraded ps1.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 22, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> I really didn't know what you are trying to say. That like saying the launch ps3 was a upgraded ps2 and that was a upgraded ps1.


 
Well no. He's saying that the actual tech of the consoles he mentioned were just borrowing older tech and integrating it into their infrastructure. Whereas the PS2->PS3 and PS3->PS4 are using completely different tech, the consoles he mentioned used older yet improved tech. So it's a lot easier to have backwards compatibility on a Wii or a DS where it already used some of the older tech than on a PS3 or a PS4 where it would require shoving old tech into the console alongside new tech just for the sake of backwards compatibility.


----------



## Veho (Feb 22, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> This just in, PlayStation 4 now natively compatible with _PlayStation 1 (including Pocket Station), PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable (UMD as well as Digital via MSPD and M2 support) and PlayStation Vita (via cartridge as well as memory card support)_,


But no PS3 support? Lame.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 22, 2013)

Veho said:


> But no PS3 support? Lame.


I just contacted my sources - PS3 support has been added! All it took was one additional _"drawer"!_


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 22, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> This just in, PlayStation 4 now natively compatible with _PlayStation 1 (including Pocket Station), PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable (UMD as well as Digital via MSPD and M2 support) and PlayStation Vita (via cartridge as well as memory card support)_, here's the leaked photo of the system:
> 
> 
> Spoiler


I see they improved the controller, no 4k support there though.

As a side note, the terminal in that pic seems to have a picture of a guy flexing his arm and another pointing at the camera.....


----------



## kristianity77 (Feb 22, 2013)

Seriously, who gives a shit if its backwards compatible or not?  You buy a new console to experience new things, not to play the stuff thats come out over the past 10 years on what would then be an inferior machine!  BC is not a right nor should it be expected.  Just keep your existing PS3 for use with your old PS3 stuff.  

When the PS3 came out I was gutted it didnt have PS2 compatibility and this bothered me no end for about ummmmm 12 months.  And now, I couldnt give a toss about anything PS2.  Anything I wanted to play I played during that era and if i want to play it again for some reason, I'd hunt down a PS2 but guess what, I havent and I have no desire to.  

Times move on.  PS4 comes out, either keep both consoles or dont, its as simple as that.  Why even bother buying a PS4 if all your concerned about is games you have already on your PS3?


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 22, 2013)

-


----------



## narutofan777 (Feb 22, 2013)

waht i say people. I knew this was gonna happen and some1 said saves and info would transfer over PSN. yeah right.

+1 for me.


----------



## Qtis (Feb 22, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> This just in, PlayStation 4 now natively compatible with _PlayStation 1 (including Pocket Station), PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable (UMD as well as Digital via MSPD and M2 support) and PlayStation Vita (via cartridge as well as memory card support)_, here's the leaked photo of the system:


But what about NES, SNES, N64, GC, Wii, Xbox, Xbox 360? The machine is more than capable, right? LOL PS4 will suck cuz it doesn't support other platforms! 

A more serious though, people are happy with Nintendo releasing VC games and possibly charging more for a transfer from the previous gen to the next. When Sony mentions a possibility of getting all previous consoles (by Sony) available by streaming, that's a bad thing? I love how you're cramming that N64 cart in your Wii or that GC disc in your WiiU, while being happy that something is available on VC. I hope Sony names their emulation environment something along the lines of VC just to stop the bitching everywhere :3


----------



## McHaggis (Feb 22, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> ...Right because USB 2.0 can completely support the throughput that a CPU and GPU have...


Who said anything about USB?  Near as I can tell he just said 'adapter', for which any proprietary port could be introduced at a much faster speed than a USB controller.  Also, here's this thing.  Just saying.


----------



## kristianity77 (Feb 22, 2013)

Peps said:


> People who don't have the finances to pay the full price of a new console are those who would love backwards compatibility. Normally a consumer can just sell off their old console, and use the finances they get from that to fund their purchase for the new console. It's a huge incentive for people to purchase the new console, and quickly increases the adoption rate. Just because you can afford to pay the full price of the new console without any hassle whatsoever, it doesn't mean that the average consumer can afford to pay that price.
> 
> The PS3 did actually have PS2 backwards compatibility when it was first launched. Obviously the PS2 backwards compatibility was removed when the PS3 had a huge line-up of games and PS2 games were slowly phased out of the market. No point keeping expensive hardware in a console for backwards compatibility when the market has moved on. However, a market doesn't move on when the console is released. It takes time.
> 
> Hence, adoption rate will be slower.


 

I understand that, but in reality, if people cant afford to buy the consoles out right when they are released they should save up or only buy one when they can afford one.  And at the end of the day, had they made the PS4 backwards compatible, it would have added maybe 15-20% onto the final price maybe, and all that will result in is less people buying it because of the high price.  This would then lead to people moaning that PS3 compatibility shouldnt have been included to keep the cost of the new console down.  Sony it seems cannot win here.


----------



## emigre (Feb 22, 2013)

Personally I don't understand the logic in making the PS4 backwards compatible, when the PS3 has no gaems to be compatible with.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Feb 22, 2013)

Peps said:


> People who don't have the finances to pay the full price of a new console are those who would love backwards compatibility. Normally a consumer can just sell off their old console, and use the finances they get from that to fund their purchase for the new console. It's a huge incentive for people to purchase the new console, and quickly increases the adoption rate. Just because you can afford to pay the full price of the new console without any hassle whatsoever, it doesn't mean that the average consumer can afford to pay that price.
> Hence, adoption rate will be slower.


 
There is a reason why used market exist. Who says you have to buy new console at full price? If you can't afford full price then go for an used one. PS2 now costs about $40 to $70 in used market, if you want to play classic PS2 games that is one way to jump on the board.

Consoles like SNES, N64, etc didn't have BC but all enjoyed financial success.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 22, 2013)

trumpet-205 said:


> There is a reason why used market exist. Who says you have to buy new console at full price? If you can't afford full price then go for an used one. PS2 now costs about $40 to $70 in used market, if you want to play classic PS2 games that is one way to jump in the board.
> 
> Consoles like SNES, N64, etc didn't have BC but all enjoyed financial success.


 
I got my PS2 for around $60. Got my PS3 for $300 with the inFamous Collection and Uncharted Dual Pack so it was a pretty good deal.

With digital distribution as well, eventually a console becomes weak enough in power that it can just be emulated easily. So now you can just buy all the old games for $5-$15 a piece digitally.

Oh the wonders of technology.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 22, 2013)

While BC is a great bonus, it will never be a deal breaker for me.  Though, I will also never spend more than $300 on a video game console so I'll likely be sticking to my Xbox 360 for the next few years...


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 22, 2013)

-


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 22, 2013)

Peps said:


> Let's start by saying that lots of people struggle to save up such a huge sum of money. Not that they're careless with their money, more so of the fact that for a lot of people, money matters aren't that simple. Perhaps you have an easy time with finances, so do I, but you shouldn't ignore what financial situations other people go through. Remember we're in a recession, and there has been a huge number of job losses etc. Making your console more accessible should be common sense here.
> 
> As for increasing the final price, that's not necessarily the case. Considering that console manufacturers want their console to be quickly adopted so that more developers develop for the console, it makes perfect sense to increase cost of manufacturing while keeping the price the same. The huge increase in interest of the console from the average consumer should largely offset any losses incurred from introducing backwards compatibility. If Sony thinks that the risk isn't worth it, that's fine, but it's silly to automatically assume backwards compatibility means increased final price.


 
If you're having a "financial situation" then video games shouldn't be your priority.

I like a cheaper console as much as the next guy but Sony aren't wizards. They can't magically make a $300 console with the hardware they're sporting. They have employees to pay too.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Feb 22, 2013)

Peps said:


> Let's start by saying that lots of people struggle to save up such a huge sum of money. Not that they're careless with their money, more so of the fact that for a lot of people, money matters aren't that simple. Perhaps you have an easy time with finances, so do I, but you shouldn't ignore what financial situations other people go through. Remember we're in a recession, and there has been a huge number of job losses etc. Making your console more accessible should be common sense here.


If you have money problem, you should be more focused on putting the food on the table than video gaming. Video gaming is not a necessity.


----------



## Qtis (Feb 22, 2013)

Gotta love the "it's next gen, it must have previous gen BC!". I just bought an Xbox (hardmodded, but that was just a bonus for what I paid for it) and an Xbox 360 (Halo LE) for about 250€ in total. I've never owned a MS console before (many friends do have them though). but there are quite a few good exclusives for the consoles (the reason why I have a PS1/PS2/PSP). If you're willing to pay 400€ for a next gen console and bitch about hardware that can be bought for about half the price, you got your priorities wrong. Just buy the previous gen for cheap and enjoy next gen games on the hardware that was made to run them!

Also if your financial situation isn't good, the last thing you should be worrying about it video games. I admit that I buy more games than I can play (hoarder/collector problem.. I prefer original carts/discs instead of just the backed up data), but if my financial situation is bad, I just wait for a good deal or buy the game used.

Edit: Ninja'd by trumpet-205


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 22, 2013)

-


----------



## sliver123 (Feb 22, 2013)

i dont like it every time they create a new console they don t make no games anymore of the old one,like with ps2,


----------



## Armadillo (Feb 22, 2013)

Meh. Still have my ps3 to play on. I keep all my old consoles around anyway.

Trading in, never done it, but I didn't think they gave that much for the old console.


----------



## rg (Feb 22, 2013)

p1ngpong said:


> This isn't big enough news to warrant its own USN thread separate of what is already being discussed in the front page PS4 thread. Besides there will be a way to stream ps1, ps2 and ps3 games to the ps4, the exact details about it have yet to be announced though. So moved.


 
Probably they will charge people a monthly fee or a pay per play fee. It is bad in my honest opinion even if it's free.

I think Sony did not learn with previous mistakes, The PSP GO was a failure because it did not allow people to use retail games.
And even that was better then streaming i think.. (the ps4 has the advantage over the psp go off being a new system and allowing at least the native games to run via retail..)

Streaming means that you will never own anything. It will always be available on the cloud, when they decide to remove it's gone...

Goodbye 2 hand markets, trades, etc...

But i could be wrong, i'm in fact getting old so maybe physical goods are overrated... Time will tell. 

I will wait to see the comment, i just sold my PS3 due to inactivity and loads of powerful graphics but very little content... (with some exceptions off course).

The Mobile gaming market is telling people that good games do not necessarily mean Powerful systems..... A lesson Nintendo is teaching for a LONG time...


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 22, 2013)

sliver123 said:


> i dont like it every time they create a new console they don t make no games anymore of the old one,like with ps2,





Spoiler











 
Just sayin'.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Feb 22, 2013)

sliver123 said:


> i dont like it every time they create a new console they don t make no games anymore of the old one,like with ps2,


 
I know, right?  Fucking Sega not making games for the Genesis anymore.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Feb 22, 2013)

Peps said:


> As I just said, Sony can increase the cost of manufacturing while keeping the same price, because the large increase in demand would offset the cost. A quicker adoption rate of the console is absolutely crucial if they want to stand a chance, especially with a larger price point over the competition. So as I said earlier, lack of backwards compatibility means that the adoption rate of the console is going to be significantly slower, whereas if they had it, it would be an entirely different story.
> 
> Why do console manufacturers purposely make a loss on their consoles? Obviously they want to make their console as accessible as possible. Backwards compatibility is one of those additional tactics that can be used to help that. You shouldn't just dismiss the idea automatically due to cost. Even if it did increase the final price, there's a huge possibility that the increase in demand may still be significantly. Sure you yourself will have to pay more, and you'll probably be pissed off that you have to pay more for a feature you didn't ask for, but businesses don't care about what each individual consumer wants.


 
PS3 was estimated to cost $800 to $850 at the time of launching (not including retailing, advertisement, labor, R&D, packaging, and QT). That means Sony lost about at least $200 to $300 per unit sold. While both EE and GS chips were cheap (estimated to be $50), the use of them increases complexity of PCB. Elimination of EE and GS means less time in the assembly line (which cuts down labor), and less units failing quality testing (units that failed QT are either trashed or scrap for parts, with Sony taking the full loses).

Console manufacturers generally takes $3 to $10 per game sold, while the rest goes to publishers. So that means it took 20 to 100 games to offset the loss of 1 unit back then. Multiply that by 5 millions shipped PS3 at the end of 2007 fiscal years, and you suddenly see how much savings is there (even when you look at $50 and ignore other indirect cost). For the record both Xbox 360 and Wii were estimated to sell at a break-even point vs massive losses PS3 had (a loss that BC did NOT help to offset). Had Sony lack the big cash reserve, PS3 could've ended sooner than you think (*cough* Dreamcast *cough*).

Also, while BC played an important role in PS2 success, it is by far, NOT the biggest reason for its success. Two bigger reasons why PS2 was successful is because of large pool of library and being an affordable DVD player.

Wii achieved BC with GC because the use of PowerPC on both consoles, where no hardware modification is needed. Xbox 360 achieved BC because the use of software emulation (which x86 is much easier to emulate than MIPS used on PS2).


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 22, 2013)

-


----------



## iNFiNiTY (Feb 22, 2013)

'Backwards compatibility of a system as complex as the PS3 on the PS4 is actually ridiculous in difficulty to achieve. They are not magicians, just because <whatever other system did it> back in the day is irrelevant. There's either software or hardware methods; software would be a monumental effort requiring tying up some of the best software engineers they have no doubt in a massively long process trying to improve compatibility on a huge PS3 library for a system that's entirely different architecture. Anyone with that skill would ideally be working on new PS4 software not an emulation system for the userbase people who own PS3 games, and a PS4. without owning a PS3.

Hardware would compromise their whole design of the system to put probably at least half a PS3 inside it, and require constant production of those extra parts for the entire lifespan of the console if it was to be on every design, again think about how much of the userbase this is actually for? Business wise it's madness. Unlike what someone else said it's not 'reasonable' for a consumer to expect it at all and you are underestimating the complexity of modern systems and how they operate.

Backwards compatibility is not even a standard and you can go back through system history and see.. this ain't 'Gamecube running on a Wii because cause it's essentially an overpowered Gamecube' type situation. Not even Nintendo are particularly impressive with their BC offerings (they could certainly do better software emulation; how about the GBA library, or even N64 on 3DS? and whats with the annoying drip feeding of such simple emulated games VC?) despite the much easier task. PS3 on PS4 is like i dunno; as different as Saturn and Dreamcast lets say, not actually feasible at all.

But you can't just say well x does this and y does this so why no BC? because every comparison is a different situation. Some architectures are closer and easier to natively run code, or some are more easily software emulated while others are notoriously hard etc. etc it's all different. If it was close to possible Sony would be including it while some of you seem to think they just went 'nah fuck it' even though it would be likely a large team of experienced people working on it for years to work half-decent if at all. 

People have a weird 'us vs them' mentally with regards to Sony like they deliberately want to do this.. as if they don't want to move across their pretty large PS3 base over easily. Of course they do and would if they could, even just in early models like PS2 on PS3 or partial software emu support. The fact they didn't even attempt shows everything.


----------



## Another World (Feb 22, 2013)

Hielkenator said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_7800
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_System
> 
> And how about PC in general for gaming?



pc gaming is not console gaming, so there was no need to mention it. unless, your arguement is that modern consoles are no longer specific gaming machines but in fact pcs. pcs, by nature, progress in a forward momentum. as long as the pc supports the o/s and the o/s supports the software, then the pc can to. this was evident with DOS as each version brought new games but also continued to supported the hardware necessary to run old games. to this day you can install old dos games into a modern windows pc and they will work (not all, and as the o/s changes the list grows smaller). 

the sega mark III was a re-release, the original master system was not backwards compatible with the sg1000.

Colecovision played atari 2600 carts *with an addon device*
Gamecube plays GBA games *with hardware addon*
Intellivision I/II played Atari 2600 carts *with hardware addon*

the intellivison II was also a rerelease. the colecovision and intellvision were not atari systems. they required extra hardware to accept the atari2600 carts.

i really don't see what point you are attempting to make. you are reaching for examples to challenge my comments. software made companies realize that compatibility with more systems would mean a greater library. but these things were not realized at first. as i said, these were after thoughts or completely new system designs.

-another world


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 22, 2013)

-


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 22, 2013)

Peps said:


> You can use the same argument for the Xbox 360 allowing Xbox games to be ran on the system...
> 
> ...Fact of the matter is, backwards compatibility is a crucial factor when it comes to having a successful launch.



Did the xbox 360 have BC at _launch_?  I thought the *emulation* of original xbox games was introduced via update...  And the xbox 360 had a reasonably successful launch from what I remember...


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 22, 2013)

-


----------



## trumpet-205 (Feb 22, 2013)

Peps said:


> Not everyone is wealthy. So as for who the backwards compatibility will be attractive to, the answer is *a hell of a lot*. If Sony want to make their console far more attractive and want to get consoles out there quicker, the obvious answer is to introduce backwards compatibility. In fact, at the moment I'm reading through a Facebook status for the PS4 with 500 comments, and there's a lot of people complaining about the lack of backwards compatibility and stating they won't buy the console for that very reason.
> 
> Fact of the matter is, backwards compatibility is a crucial factor when it comes to having a successful launch.


And it is repeatedly stated that it costs a lot of money to add PS3 BC to PS4. Sony did it once with PS3 which costs them a lot. Even if Sony decides to eat a portion of the losses you are still looking at a pricey consoles. *You keep saying that the inclusion of BC will satisfies those with low money at hand but it is not. Adding BC to something like PS4 will only drive the price up, period. If Sony produced a PS4 that can play PS1 all the way to PS4 and priced it high you then have too many people not buying it. If Sony priced it low who knows how long can Sony last?*

And no, a success of a console does NOT solely depends on BC. Many consoles did not have BC but performed well.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 23, 2013)

I mean they could go crazy and make huge loses per console, but that's.... crazy.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 23, 2013)

-


----------



## trumpet-205 (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> Nobody said that the success of a console *solely* depends on BC, but it's a significant factor as I said, and as many other people are currently complaining about all over the internet outside of GBATemp. Nobody is also saying that backwards compatibility costs little to nothing or that there's no risk associated with it. I don't know where you're getting the view that people are saying otherwise. It's also unlikely that the Cell processor and GPU alone would cost as much as you're thinking it'll cost.
> 
> Obviously backwards compatibility will increase the cost of manufacturing, but it does not necessarily translate to a huge additional increase in price. That's an assumption you're making. Even if it did, let's just do some maths here. Let's assume backwards compatibility increased the cost of the console by €50 with Sony deciding to suffer the rest of the cost as a loss. Let's assume I could sell my PS3 to a friend for €200. Right there alone, I've saved €150 off the PS4. That's a huge incentive to upgrade to the next iteration. Not only would I have the latest hardware which I bought for a fraction of the price, but I can still play my entire game library and add next-generation games to it if I wanted to.


Yes but this isn't about consumer per say, this is about corporate. Last time I checked it costs around $70 just for CELL and RSX chips at 45 nm. It all adds up to a significant number (you are mass producing it). Although I wasn't sure about Super Slim PS3, I did know that PS3 regular Slim was still making a loss.

Among other things, IBM dropped any new development on CELL. PS2 production line has ended, which means production of EE and GS chips has also ended.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 23, 2013)

-


----------



## tbgtbg (Feb 23, 2013)

I don't have a problem with a system not being BC.

I do have a problem with a system not being BC with discs you've already bought but suddenly if you pay for them again somehow they have a way for you to play them on the new system. That's deplorable.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 23, 2013)

tbgtbg said:


> I don't have a problem with a system not being BC.
> 
> I do have a problem with a system not being BC with discs you've already bought but suddenly if you pay for them again somehow they have a way for you to play them on the new system. That's deplorable.


...what? I'm not sure I get what you mean.

Do you mean, like, Multiplatform games that are released for the PS3 and PS4? Or do you mean streaming? Because streaming, if at all possible before the release of the system, will not require you to jam in any disc at all.


----------



## IBNobody (Feb 23, 2013)

It's too bad (but understandable) that BC had to go. The PS2's BC of the PS1 was great because it added graphical tweaks. The PS3's BC of the PS2 wasn't as stellar due to the requirement of the EE chips, but the BC mode did get rid of memory cards. Likely, the PS4 wouldn't have been able to bring any benefits to the BC table.

At least it plays used games, though.


----------



## Hop2089 (Feb 23, 2013)

I'll just keep my PS3, no BC is sad but I can accept it but the problem is that the 360 and PS3 could be impossible to emulate down the line (10+ years from now), which is a shame because I may want to revisit this gen 10,15, 20+ years from now.


----------



## Hielkenator (Feb 23, 2013)

You


Another World said:


> pc gaming is not console gaming, so there was no need to mention it. unless, your arguement is that modern consoles are no longer specific gaming machines but in fact pcs. pcs, by nature, progress in a forward momentum. as long as the pc supports the o/s and the o/s supports the software, then the pc can to. this was evident with DOS as each version brought new games but also continued to supported the hardware necessary to run old games. to this day you can install old dos games into a modern windows pc and they will work (not all, and as the o/s changes the list grows smaller).
> 
> the sega mark III was a re-release, the original master system was not backwards compatible with the sg1000.
> 
> ...


You said back in "your" day BC did not exist , while it clearly did. ( with or without addon )
These devices where ( more or less ) official converters/ hardware upgrades exclusively to get BC going.
The idea was to narrow the gap between new hardware and old software sales.
The whole idea of BC came forth to stimulate the games market and make more money.
So it WAS present in "your"day, as you yourself quoted.
and yes I'm old enough to know and to own all these retail devices.
Back in the day it was a bargain to get a Megadrive and get the Mastersystem converter included, for instance. In the end Sega made more money out of the sales offcourse.
The same applies to PC software, it a marketing strategy known for years.
It's not for creating a bigger library for the consumer at all. It's for keeping sales up when new hardware/ software arises. Remember computers in the past were not a common household item as it is today. I think it a very naive way to think it was though up for the consumer.
It's has been around since a second version of a system arose.

I could not care less for Sony to include it as I really did not like the PS3 game offer, I was into pc gaming at that time, wich was cheaper in comparison to Sony's offer.
It's nice to have on the new console and in PS4 case it could potentionally hurt sales.
In my case it feels like starting over for them with the PS4 since I lost faith after the PS2.

They tried to market the PS3 with the idea you get a Blu-ray player aswell, "somewhat BC with PS2" and offcourse boost the cell processor marketshare, later even coupling the console with Bravia TV's, talking about losing focus.

BC nowadays basicly means "keeping your fanbase", because I'm clearly stepping out of the Sony hype. especially making the fans pay for a second time ( at least that part they got right from the past...) Game industry nowadays is a multi-billion industry but there's a reason.
You either are very original in regards to gameplay quality, or you keep supporting your most popular system, to keep your investing companions happy. (Remember Atari 2600 games and alike were programmed mostly by ONE person. There was no budget on advertising, global releases etc. Big profits were made over the backs of the programmers so they were very happy if their cart got sold in the next generation of cf a console.No million dollar contract were signed at that time...remeber the programmer of the original Tetris?)Thus try keeping out of the red, at least when a new system is launched. Keeping the fanbase is also important this way, as you can clearly read following this thread. Back in the day, that was'nt any different also but, it also proofs it's important to keep original, it's hard in these times to stay original, I know. Retro becomes more important, as the "children" of the past are the "father and mother" of present day.
Specs to not mean a thing, originallity/quality does. 30+ years of gaming talking here.


----------



## mightymuffy (Feb 23, 2013)

I can see plenty of you harping on with all your knowledge as to why the machine won't have BC, but you're basically preaching to the converted here... most of the users on here will actually know the reason themselves... What you're completely missing is the average gamer (who represent a larger market than we do by the way - get over it) will probably find the idea the brand spanking new console 'isnt powerful' enough to play old games bewildering like Peps is saying.... "You're saying this new PS4 can't run Sonic 2 that I downloaded on my PS3 last year? Worra piece o shit!"
Come on, ask anybody in the gaming retail business what it's like trying to explain Wii U (or earlier 3DS) to the masses....

If they include 'BC' from the getgo via Gaikai there's still naturally a big problem: your save games aren't any use there without one MAJOR league headache for Sony to set up, and so said 'clueless' gamers will still be WTFing, so perhaps Sony are doing the right thing by stopping any purchases from being transferred too. Here's hoping the list of titles available at launch is good enough for everyone to think 'who gives a shit about owd PS3 games?' 

Personally I'd have liked BC of course - get to chuck the PS3 upstairs onto my bedroom telly then! But as one of you that knows why it ain't gonna happen - it's no big deal really...


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 23, 2013)

-


----------



## Hielkenator (Feb 23, 2013)

mightymuffy said:


> I can see plenty of you harping on with all your knowledge as to why the machine won't have BC, but you're basically preaching to the converted here... most of the users on here will actually know the reason themselves... What you're completely missing is the average gamer (who represent a larger market than we do by the way - get over it) will probably find the idea the brand spanking new console 'isnt powerful' enough to play old games bewildering like Peps is saying.... "You're saying this new PS4 can't run Sonic 2 that I downloaded on my PS3 last year? Worra piece o shit!"
> Come on, ask anybody in the gaming retail business what it's like trying to explain Wii U (or earlier 3DS) to the masses....
> 
> If they include 'BC' from the getgo via Gaikai there's still naturally a big problem: your save games aren't any use there without one MAJOR league headache for Sony to set up, and so said 'clueless' gamers will still be WTFing, so perhaps Sony are doing the right thing by stopping any purchases from being transferred too. Here's hoping the list of titles available at launch is good enough for everyone to think 'who gives a shit about owd PS3 games?'
> ...


Actually I think it's an unwise decision on Sony's behalf. Not for the reasons you mention though...
People getting off the bandwagon, by splitting up you own marketshare is never wise to begin with. I had my time with them for 3 generations now, nice milestone to get of the bandwagon.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 23, 2013)

mightymuffy said:


> I can see plenty of you harping on with all your knowledge as to why the machine won't have BC, but you're basically preaching to the converted here... most of the users on here will actually know the reason themselves... What you're completely missing is the average gamer (who represent a larger market than we do by the way - get over it) will probably find the idea the brand spanking new console 'isnt powerful' enough to play old games bewildering like Peps is saying.... "You're saying this new PS4 can't run Sonic 2 that I downloaded on my PS3 last year? Worra piece o shit!"
> Come on, ask anybody in the gaming retail business what it's like trying to explain Wii U (or earlier 3DS) to the masses....
> 
> If they include 'BC' from the getgo via Gaikai there's still naturally a big problem: your save games aren't any use there without one MAJOR league headache for Sony to set up, and so said 'clueless' gamers will still be WTFing, so perhaps Sony are doing the right thing by stopping any purchases from being transferred too. Here's hoping the list of titles available at launch is good enough for everyone to think 'who gives a shit about owd PS3 games?'
> ...


 
...So your reasoning is that not including native BC is bad because consumers will think the console is weak and can't run current gen games? I know consumers are stupid but they're not _that_ stupid.

They take one look at the games and they see they look better than current gen. Why didn't this happen with the PS3 Slim? Hell the PS3 Slim made the PS3 sell as well as it did. Without it I don't think we'd be seeing a PS4, or any Sony home console after that.

Consumers are pretty stupid but even at their stupidest form they'll see 4 is greater than 3 and assume 4 is more powerful than 3. And it is.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 23, 2013)

-


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 23, 2013)

So let's just add this old, and still expensive hardware to the new ps4, increase the price by around $100 and everyone will be happy right guys?

Don't forget that Sony hasn't been in the best position lately, with junk stock, which really doesn't put them in a position to add this hardware and take a massive loss on it. They are a business, and one that's in financial problems, they really need to turn a profit.


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Feb 23, 2013)

@Hielkenator you completely miss AW'a point I think.... Having a hardware apdater to play old games is nowhere near the same as built in BC. The vcs adapter for the 5200 cost 70$. That's a lot to pay just to play old games, especially if you already had a 2600.

Besides that one, the other ones where in no way "official" or BC as intellivison and colecovision were made by tottally different companies. It would be like Nintendo making an adapter that allowed the genesis to play snes games.

So, the point still is BC is a relativley new idea.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 23, 2013)

-


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> Again assuming that Sony would pass on the cost to the customer. Odds are, they wouldn't pass on the full cost at all, because it means there would be a huge increase in demand for the product, and thus they can profit much more easily. Backwards compatibility means more sales for the console, the games for that console, and more sales for games for the previous generation of that console.
> 
> Why should the consumer care that Sony hasn't been in a good position lately? The only reason Sony are in the position in the first place, is because they've been making a bunch of stupid decisions recently that don't take into account how the average consumer behaves and their purchasing habits. Even though I personally don't like the majority of Nintendo products, and never played a Zelda game or liked the Mario series, I think from a business perspective they're absolute geniuses. They fully understand how the average consumer behaves and are clearly exploiting it. Same with the likes of Valves, who actually understand why consumers pirate products etc.


They would have to pass it onto the customer, otherwise it would be a massive loss to them that would not be able to turn as much as a profit which they need to stay alive.

The consumer shouldn't care, but the stock owners/ investors definitely do, and it's not easy to market something to them that isn't going to turn a profit if they take the hit for it


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 23, 2013)

-


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 23, 2013)

We already got people here at the temp going to buy ps3 instead with the announcement of ps4, so there is some backing to this bc argument. I talked with someone about the ps4 and he said he is fine with his ps3 for now.


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Feb 23, 2013)

CanuckBuck said:


> i have both a Ps3 and ps2 they wont last 30 years like my snes and genesis what will i do then rebuy hundreds of games? if you had anywhere near my collection of games u'd have a problem aswell. *The PS4 is optical disc based right? most likely so theres no excuse to not play ps1 ps2 ps3 games make a adaptor that will play the games* if it makes the system to expensive to include inside. The people who are ok with sony doing this are sheeps let them tell you whats right some more.


A little part of me died inside when I read that.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 23, 2013)

ZAFDeltaForce said:


> A little part of me died inside when I read that.


 
To be fair they do have an adapter for PS3 games.


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> Bloody hell, why can't people read?
> 
> Spending the extra money without increasing price = More customers = More sales = More profit = Potentially winning the generation.
> 
> Why on earth are you assuming that the number of customers and sales won't increase? As I've said, the number of console and games sales for the PS4 will increase, and the number of game sales for the PS3 will also increase. That of course, is highly attractive to stock owners and investors and customers. It's a win-win-win scenario.


Bloody hell, why can't people use logic?

No, spending the extra money without increasing price = more customers = more sales = less profit per hardware sale (as the base hardware loss is higher)

The amount of software sales would have to dramatically increase to offset the costs of the hardware, we are talking an average attach rate of at least 15, and that's not second hand games of course, which would have to be pretty amazing to achieve. Its not financially feasible.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 23, 2013)

-


----------



## Veho (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> Less profit per hardware sale, but again you're ignoring the huge influx of new customers which would offset that.


Not if they're actually losing money on every hardware sale. In which case, more customers, bigger losses.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Feb 23, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> ...So your reasoning is that not including native BC is bad because consumers will think the console is weak and can't run current gen games? I know consumers are stupid but they're not _that_ stupid.
> 
> They take one look at the games and they see they look better than current gen. Why didn't this happen with the PS3 Slim? Hell the PS3 Slim made the PS3 sell as well as it did. Without it I don't think we'd be seeing a PS4, or any Sony home console after that.
> 
> Consumers are pretty stupid but even at their stupidest form they'll see 4 is greater than 3 and assume 4 is more powerful than 3. And it is.


I mean hell, don't even get me started on iPad sales. All you have to do is tell the next idiot in line that the 4 is shinier than the 3 and they'll be frothing at the mouth.



Peps said:


> [...]Have you ever worked in retail stores? That's the true meaning behind the phrase "the customer is always right" (to which you'll subsequently learn to hate). You have to accept that the customer is right, no matter how stupid they sound.


 
Have *YOU *ever worked in a retail store? I have. If you have any sort of a backbone and aren't afraid of the wrath of corporate management, you quickly learn how to politely tell the customer that they are in fact wrong while explaining why and what the correct option is. If you don't just go "Lol you're retarded bro" and actually explain where they're making an incorrect assumption, they're usually pretty happy about that.



Peps said:


> [...]People who would purchase a console because of graphics alone are a niche audience.


 
Tell me you're fucking joking... Again, going back to what I just said to Guild, have you ever SEEN people buy iPads? Tell them the new one is shinier. Tell them that it has a higher resolution screen ("what does that mean?"). Tell them simply that it's "better" without going into details (so the Apple 4 pad is better than the Apple 2 pad? Can I use Word on it then?") And how many times are they going to go with the "Apple 2 pad"? 9/10. First hand experience right here. Why? Because it's newer. It looks better (and doesn't at all). It does more (and doesn't at all).



Peps said:


> You're right that people will assume 4 is greater than 3. Hence it's natural for them to assume that 3 will operate in 4, especially considering that assumption has been valid for a very long time with the majority of other console launches. It's nothing to do with assuming a platform is weaker.


 
"that assumption has been valid for a very long time" No, it really hasn't. True BC is a relatively new thing. I may be missing a console or two here, but this is the BC we're looking at:
GB/P> GBC> GBA/SP/M
GC+GB/C/A> Wii-GB/C/A
Wii > WiiU
NDS+GBA>DSi-GBA>3DS
Xbox~>Xbox 360
PS>PS2~>PS3

Without having a hardware converter, I believe this is all of the BC we're looking at. With the exception of PS1 and handhelds, this is a very recent thing, all considered.

If I could tell you how many customers I deal with on a daily basis that are surprised that DS games work on a 3DS, or that Wii games work in a WiiU, you'd lose your shit.



Peps said:


> Heck, I even have techy friends who don't really want a PS4 because they can't play PS3 titles on it (they currently don't have a PS3).


THEN THEY MUST *REALLY *HAVE WANTED A PS3 WHEN IT WAS RELEVANT THEN, RIGHT?

And edit, for great justice:



Peps said:


> Less profit per hardware sale, but again you're ignoring the huge influx of new customers which would offset that.


 
I have $100, and I give it to a friend, he gives me $90 back.
I've lost $10.
I have $200, and I split it between two friends.  They each give me $90 back.
I've lost $20.
I have $300, and I split it between three friends.  They each give me $90 back.
I've lost $30.

See where I'm going with that?


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> Less profit per hardware sale, but again you're ignoring the huge influx of new customers which would offset that.
> 
> If the number of customers remained the same, obviously profit will be significantly less. However, since we have plenty of evidence that shows a large majority of potential customers are pissed off at the lack of backwards compatibility, we know that if Sony did introduce it, then the decrease in profit per sale will most likely lead to overall higher turnover.



It doesn't matter what new customer base you bring in, the percentage of software sold would still need to significantly increase PER hardware unit sold to be able to turn a profit just to make up for it, and that likely hood is minimal to impossible for them to be able to promise/prove to investors/stock owners let alone achieve. If they could bring in another 2 million customers in the first year by having BC, It wouldn't mean anything if each and every customer (even outside that 2 mill) doesn't achieve the attach rate that would be needed to turn a profit.

I would also take that evidence with a grain of salt, as I'm sure we all know how that COD:Blops 2 boycott went. People will complain but in the end they will become customers if they want the product.


----------



## Hielkenator (Feb 23, 2013)

mysticwaterfall said:


> @Hielkenator you completely miss AW'a point I think.... Having a hardware apdater to play old games is nowhere near the same as built in BC. The vcs adapter for the 5200 cost 70$. That's a lot to pay just to play old games, especially if you already had a 2600.
> 
> Besides that one, the other ones where in no way "official" or BC as intellivison and colecovision were made by tottally different companies. It would be like Nintendo making an adapter that allowed the genesis to play snes games.
> 
> So, the point still is BC is a relativley new idea.


I've been there.
I even have a yoko game-copier, BC in whateverform imaginable is BC the way I see it.
Whilst they may or may not manufactured the harware to do so, licencing reared it's ugly head back in the day.
So you post does not speak out of experience.
It's like  saying the atari 2600 had no bc. BC in earlier days was there for pure financial benefits.
Nowadays its to keep people where they are. This count for blu-ray players, telephones.
It's the way technology works, it builds upon it's former tech. Sony left it out for vague reasons.
It splits fanbase, wich also costs money in the long run.
Also there's more behind the scenes, ending contracts etc....they only care about money.


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 23, 2013)

Hielkenator said:


> I've been there.
> I even have a yoko game-copier, BC in whateverform imaginable is BC the way I see it.
> Whilst they may or may not manufactured the harware to do so, licencing reared it's ugly head back in the day.
> So you post does not speak out of experience.
> ...


A business that only cares about money? That's the first I've heard of this zany idea


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 23, 2013)

-


----------



## Hielkenator (Feb 23, 2013)

Scuba156 said:


> A business that only cares about money? That's the first I've heard of this zany idea


Some people think consoles are made exclusively for THEM, it not about programmers anymore either.
None of the programmer in early 80's made profit.
Offcource bc is a relative new thing, homeconsoles have only been around for about 40 years ( in a completely different form, not even remotely mainstream.) BC is and will always be a marketing trick.


----------



## kristianity77 (Feb 23, 2013)

People saying that the 360 succeeded because it had backwards compatibility with the original xbox need their heads looking at.  I cant find where I read it but Microsoft a couple of years ago stated that out of all the 360s out in the wild, only 2% of users had played an original xbox title, on their 360s.  1 person in 50!  So anyone who thinks it is important or makes a massive difference to sales needs to think again.  Its a convenience to have it, and nothing more


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> Less profit per hardware sale, but again you're ignoring the huge influx of new customers which would offset that.
> 
> If the number of customers remained the same, obviously profit will be significantly less. However, since we have plenty of evidence that shows a large majority of potential customers are pissed off at the lack of backwards compatibility, we know that if Sony did introduce it, then the decrease in profit per sale will most likely lead to overall higher turnover.


you have a grossly over-simplified view of manufacturing and retail...

If a company is going to take a loss on hardware, they're are going to want to re-coup that loss within 2 or 3 software sales.  That is to *break even.*  Profit wouldn't come until the fourth or so game sold to that customer...  The average customer (regardless of how stupid they are) is only going to buy about 2 games at the time of their console purchase, meaning, it could take months for that customer to produce any sort of profit for the company.  Investors want a return on their investment...now.  They do not want to wait months.  So, unless Sony has some super-secret way of bringing in enough revenue to keep their investors happy, they will not take $100 loss (or even a $50 loss) on the PS4 hardware...


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 23, 2013)

-


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> I know how businesses work.
> 
> You've again ignored the point that the number of customers would largely increase, and in fact, would probably show larger returns far more quickly. They're going to have new PS3 and PS4 software buyers. Why do people think that the number of new customers is not that significant in the least? It's as simple as looking at the reception for the lack of backwards compatibility.


Why do you seem to think that somehow with more customers they will take less of a loss on hardware?


----------



## Sicklyboy (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> The customer is always right no matter what. You can try tell the customer they're wrong, but most of the time for a business to be successful, it's better to just give in. You'll have far more satisfied customers that way. People don't like to hear that they're wrong, no matter how softly you try to put it. If a customer has an issue with their product, even if they sound silly, exchange their product with no question asked. It's human nature that people hate admitting they're wrong, so if you want fully satisfied customers, just give in to them.


 
No, really, they're not. From a corporate standpoint of wanting to make every single person happy, sure. *Most of the time*. My eyes? I'm a retail slave. I don't give a fuck if they're happy or not, I try to share what I know and give them the best, most informed help I can.

Customer came in, used his camera's memory card in the photo printer machine, wouldn't work in the camera now. I asked him for the card, saw the lock switch was engaged, and put it back in. It worked. "You are magic!" he said to me with a huge grin.
"What HDMI cable should I get?" "The cheapest one you can find. Don't waste your money on the Monster crap."
Stuff like that. And if someone says something that is blatantly wrong, I have no qualms calling them out on it. The customer is an uninformed idiot who is seldom right.



Peps said:


> People who purchases iPads are an entirely different audience and is not comparable in the least. They're not gamers, and *are looking for far more features than just fancy graphics*. On that note, the latest iPad is always backwards compatibility with previous iOS software. If you want proof that gamers don't go for shiny graphics, just look at every single previous console generation where the most powerful console has always lost. If people only cared about graphics, then consoles wouldn't exist in the first place because everyone would choose the PC instead. Honestly wouldn't surprise me now if the PC market share started growing significantly on that note, mostly because it's cheaper.


 
Like what other features? A bigger Apple logo?

Edit - also, "the most powerful console always lost" could easily be attributed to the higher price associated with more powerful hardware.  People aren't made of money, especially not these days. I could see the PS Vita doing a LOT better if it was priced down where the 3DS is, $170. However, that would diminish/eliminate profit for Sony then.



Peps said:


> I see nothing wrong with cheap hardware converters to introduce backwards compatibility. Having to buy an entire new console is a different situation all together. There will obviously be customers who are idiots and wouldn't know that the Wii U can run Wii software. But guess what? Obviously judging from the fact that they were surprised, it obviously sealed the deal for them. So you have just indirectly proven that backwards compatibility sells and pleases customers.


 
Of course BC satisfies people. I never tried to disprove that. What I was countering was your argument that BC is pretty much the norm and has been for a while, which is grossly incorrect.



Peps said:


> As for my tech friends, they don't see the point in purchasing a PS3 currently (they've only just been interested in the console recently) because of the PS4. Why spend a lot of money on hardware that's going to be phased out? However, they don't see the point in purchasing a PS4 because spending a large amount of money to play one or two games in the short future is a high investment and a waste in their eyes. But if the PS4 had PS3 support, it would have been an instant-buy for them. Getting that instant-buy factor is going to be critical for the launch window.


 
Why spend money on anything that's technological? The hardware is irrelevant a month after you buy it. PS3 is cheaper than PS4 will be, and price will drop further when the PS4 is released.

"If PS4 had PS3 support, it would have been an instant-buy for them" Then they must not REALLY want either console. Buying a next-gen console for then-last gen shit is stupid. If you want to play PS3 games, buy a PS3 unless they are so grossly unavailable or hideously overpriced. If you want to buy a PS4, the only logical reason to buy one is for PS4 games.

People buy Wii's to play GC games now because of how unavailable the GC is. Go back two or three years when the GC was $40 in GameStop, and if someone wanted to play only GC games, they'd go for the $40 used GC over the $90 used Wii.

I didn't buy a PS3 off of my friend so I can play my PS2 games on it. I have a PS2 for that, AND a compute perfectly capable of PS2 emulation. I bought the PS3 for PS3 games.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 23, 2013)

-


----------



## Another World (Feb 23, 2013)

Hielkenator said:


> You
> 
> You said back in "your" day BC did not exist , while it clearly did. ( with or without addon )
> 
> ...



i completely disagree with your assumption about my intended meaning. i'm making the distinction that those systems required extra hardware, blatantly obvious ad-ons. my gamecube box says nothing about backwards compatibility with gba on it. my master system, atari systems, etc, are the same. true backwards compatibility, by example, would be defined by the ps2 which could play ps1 out of the box, the original release of the ps3 which could play ps2 out of the box, etc. those systems were marketed with that feature, while every example you pulled was not.

by your definition, the snes is backwards compatible with the genesis, because THIS now exists. 

-another world


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> Obviously hardware is going to cost more, but that's not the point I'm bringing across. I just told you, there will be exponentially far more software sales, as well as the incentive to purchase the console on launch. *More console sales also means more bulk purchasing which means the hardware becomes even cheaper*. Besides, clearly because of those specs, they're not scared of making unnecessary losses on the hardware.


 
What does the bolded portion actually mean?  Bulk purchasing by whom?  Retailers?  Because retailers will not pass any "bulk" savings onto the consumer...  Consoles will have a flat MSRP and retailers (as a whole) _might_ all sell it at a 5-10% "discount".  The word "discount" is in quotes because it isn't really a true discount.

As far as there being "exponentially far more software sales", that's quite the assumption...  You're saying that because a console has BC, more games are sold as a result?  Not likely.  Unless you're taking into account that someone might choose to purchase two last gen games as opposed to one next gen game...  Then, sure, you'll have _more_ software sales.  Not necessarily more money being brought in though.  You're arguing that BC would bring in more money, but you're not realizing two things:

1. Sony makes the bulk of their software money from number shipped rather than number sold.  Publishers are increasingly getting paid upfront (or via credit lines) for games shipped to retailers and then offering a "credit" (which is substantially less than the retailer paid for the item) for copies unsold and returned to them.  That has little to do with Sony.  They're making their money regardless.

2. Disposable income is finite.  People will not buy more games just because their console has BC.  They will simply replace current gen purchases with last gen purchases.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 23, 2013)

-


----------



## XDel (Feb 23, 2013)

Hmmm, so we can still call it the Pay Station then. Good, less confusing that way!


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> Bulk purchasing as in more bulk purchasing of PS4 components, as in the manufacturing of the console. The more sales they can get, the cheaper the console will be to manufacturer, and the quicker it will be to profit off the console.


 
Not exactly how it works, bud.  If you're looking to build 200 or 1000 units, then yes, you'll likely pay less and less for components based on the total ordered.  However, producing units on the scale that console manufacturers are, they are more than likely negotiating flat component prices with their suppliers so they can better manage overhead and software licensing.  They also need straight numbers to feed investors.  Console prices drop as the* tech ages* and becomes more affordable.  Little if anything to do with the number of units being manufactured...

Also, that's another leap in assuming that backwards compatibility means consoles are being sold off the minute a new, BC console is released...  You've made it a point to bring up how stupid the average gamer is.  Well, wouldn't the average gamer trade their old console in towards the new one?  Especially considering the deals that stores generally offer to do exactly that?  Retailers can then turn around and sell this old tech to "average gamers" who see a $150 PS3 as a deal regardless of the harderbetterfasterstronger PS4...  You assume that a new console release automatically means _new_ customers.  Unless you're the Wii, that's hardly the case...


----------



## Veho (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> But far more software sales for both the PS4 and PS3. Not seeing your argument here. Overall, the situation would be far better for them. If they were really that concerned about price, then they really shouldn't have included the over-the-top specifications really.


What software sales? People who already own a PS3 (and would sell it to buy a backwards compatible PS4) have already bought the software, so there's no profit there. And any PS3 title over a year old is already either heavily discounted or widely available used, so even if PS4 buyers who didn't own a PS3 beforehand were to buy those games, Sony wouldn't make much profit off of them. So the only profit there is from brand new PS3 titles (that will be dwindling after the PS4 comes out), sold to early adopters. That's really not much money. It's not a good bet. 

Backwards compatibility does boost hardware sales, but it's counterproductive if you're losing money on every sale. And Sony can't afford to do that at the moment. 


And the "over the top specifications" are there to ensure the console has a lifespan of over two years. You can't release a console with anything _but_ over the top specs and expect it to be relevant in a few years' time.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 23, 2013)

-


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> Less profit per hardware sale, but again you're ignoring the huge influx of new customers which would offset that.


Provided said _"Influx"_ would be huge wheras all signs on heaven and Earth show that it wouldn't, even if we _"assume"_ that 100% of PS3's weekly sales would magically transfer to the PS4, which is silly, it would not cover the costs. They may as well continue selling both models separately like they have with the PS2 and the PS3 before.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 23, 2013)

-


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> My evidence of the huge rise of sales is based on the huge negative feedback from multiple gaming sites and social media. What evidence is there to suggest otherwise? How subsequently do you know it will not cover the costs? You're not providing any logical reasoning as to why the huge increase in demand would not offset the increase in manufacturing costs. You're just stating it. Give me a logical reason.


Perhaps you should check how many PS3's are sold these days. Including Backwards Compatibility into the PS4 would require including most of the PS3's guts into it, and if you were to keep the price of aprox. $420, which is already low considering the specs we know now, you'd have a $100+ loss per unit.

It's more profitable for Sony to sell PS3's separately at +/- $250 that "bundled into the PS3" at -$100 - is that logical enough?

IF the PS4 has a slow launch as most $350+ consoles seem to have, they would post consistent losses all across the board.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> My evidence of the huge rise of sales is based on the huge negative feedback from multiple gaming sites and social media. What evidence is there to suggest otherwise? How subsequently do you know it will not cover the costs? You're not providing any logical reasoning as to why the huge increase in demand would not offset the increase in manufacturing costs. You're just stating it. Give me a logical reason.
> 
> Besides my main argument is, is that it's silly to automatically assume that backwards compatibility can't be easily covered and that it will most likely increase sales drastically. I'm not arguing that they absolutely must implement backwards compatibility, I'm just trying to stop people being so narrow-minded about the different options Sony could have taken.


The PS3 had backward compatibility and that resulted in a HUGELY successful launch...oh, wait...


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 23, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> The PS3 had backward compatibility and that resulted in a HUGELY successful launch...oh, wait...


Indeed.

That's because:

Backwards Compatibility actually made the games look _worse_ than they have on their native hardware
People prefered to buy cheaper PS2's than expensive PS3's when they had PS2 games in mind
Everybody and their dog had a PS2 at this point and the PS3's Backwards Compatibility was weak incentive - even if people would trade in their PS2's, it was old hardware and they wouldn't get much in return, so that hardly "lowered" the entry price for their new console
All in all, it turned out to be so useless and unpopular that it got removed - that says a lot.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 23, 2013)

-


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> I doubt it would require most of the components. The important things would be primarily the CPU and GPU with the CPU being the most important component obviously.


And those two just happen to be the most expensive components in this whole thing to begin with, plus you have to give them additional cooling which would make the console beastly.



> Could you explain your last two sentences more clearly? Perhaps it's just that time of the night where my head is shutting down. >_>


What I'm saying there is that from Sony's seat it's more profitable for them if someone who's interested in PS3 games simply buys a PS3 which is now more affordable than ever and easy to manufacture.

As for how the PS3's launch would look like without the shoddy BC, it would probably be better because the thing wouldn't cost $599. The price point was the biggest barrier customers had at the time, such a big one in fact that it turned into a meme.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> My evidence of the huge rise of sales is based on the huge negative feedback from multiple gaming sites and social media. What evidence is there to suggest otherwise? How subsequently do you know it will not cover the costs? You're not providing any logical reasoning as to why the huge increase in demand would not offset the increase in manufacturing costs. You're just stating it. Give me a logical reason.
> 
> Besides my main argument is, is that it's silly to automatically assume that backwards compatibility can't be easily covered and that it will most likely increase sales drastically. I'm not arguing that they absolutely must implement backwards compatibility, I'm just trying to stop people being so narrow-minded about the different options Sony could have taken.


Stop right there. Any academic person (especially those who studied a bit of Statistic) will tell you that online feedback is by far the most inaccurate way of doing estimation. This is because most who leave online feedbacks are those who hold strong opinion. Online feedback is even more inaccurate than survey phone call.

Also, while I have no doubt that BC will increase the sale of the console, "drastically" is far fetched. I seriously doubt it will increase the demand "dramatically". Furthermore I posted a while back, manufacturers take $3-10 on full priced title (the rest goes to publisher). That means a loss of $50 will take at least 5 brand new games just to offset (likely more for cheaper title). If you have a person that will only buy PS4 because of PS3 BC, then this person shows little interest in PS4 titles. When PS4 comes out PS3 development will slow down a lot, so it will take even longer time for Sony to recoup the cost. As pointed out earlier, company wants to recoup the cost sooner.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> Just imagine what the PS3 launch would have been like if it didn't include backwards compatibility.


 
I know, right?  More people would have been able to afford it...


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 23, 2013)

---


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 23, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> I know, right?  More people would have been able to afford it...


And Sony would of been able to turn a profit around much quicker than they actually did....


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 23, 2013)

Peps said:


> Why assume that backwards compatibility means huge increase in cost? For all we know, it probably only added $50 at most.


Backwards Compatibility with the PS2 costed as much as the ES and GS chips, which is the heart of the PS2 and its most expensive part. Even if it was $50, it was $50 too much.  Backwards Compatibility should only be included when it's not a bother to add, like with the Wii or the WiiU.


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> Bloody hell, why can't people read?
> 
> Spending the extra money without increasing price = More customers = More sales = More profit = Potentially winning the generation.


That assumes that sales are profit.
The PS3 was sold at a loss, so the more _systems_ they sold, the more money they initially lost and then had to count on software sales for.

And I don't think they liked doing that... they tried it already, remember?  And they were losing money for a while before they started making a net profit (with the game sales).

I don't think they want to have a large period of net loss before profit this time.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> [...]Just imagine what the PS3 launch would have been like if it didn't include backwards compatibility.


 
Probably a lot better, because the console could have cost a much more stomachable $499 or $399 instead of $599 for being *TWO CONSOLES IN ONE SHELL*.

The Wii worked so well with BC because it was literally a clocked up Gamecube with some extra components to make the Wii stuff work. Disable the Wii components, underclock the CPU/GPU and you suddenly have a GC in a really slim white shell. You're not adding in an entirely separate CPU/GPU like they had to with the PS3 for PS2 BC.



Peps said:


> You listed a bunch of platforms that had huge backwards compatibility support. The PS2 was backwards compatible with the PS1. The PS3 was backwards compatible with the PS2. Why should we expect otherwise for the PS4? The Xbox 360 was backwards compatible with the Xbox, why should we expect different from the Xbox 720/8/whatever? The Wii was backwards compatible with the GameCube, and the Wii U as expected as backwards compatible with the Wii.[...]


 
First off, cutting out the conversation about customers and the one about iPads as they add little to this discussion. We clearly have different opinions how customers should be treated - you've drank the corporate koolaid and are under the impression that "give them what they want because they know best". Meanwhile, I try to solve their problem with the hardware they have so they don't have to worry about added and cancelled transactions on their cards and they can also feel the satisfaction of learning how to fix the problem if it was something they were doing wrong. Guy came in, brand new iPod touch froze on the OS initialization screen (first time setup). No idea what was wrong. Did a hard reset, wouldn't turn back on. Battery died. Wouldn't proceed because the battery dropped too low. Charged it, five minutes later he was out and happy. A lot easier than returning it and buying a new one.

ANYWAY, to your quote up top, keep in mind that the PS3 is no longer backwards compatible with the PS2, and at one point was only partially compatible as it relied on emulation instead of having PS2 internals in addition to the PS3 ones. The Xbox 360 is only partially backwards compatible with the Xbox because it relied HEAVILY on software emulation of certain parts. Some games do not work, and likely never will. The Wii was BC with GC because it was literally a souped up GC with a few extra parts. As I said, disable the extras and downclock the processors and you have a tiny GC.



Peps said:


> See you raised the exact problem about Sony and their buyers. The only people who are buying their products are those who "REALLY" want them, and are willing to sacrifice a huge sum of money for them. I mean, it's nice that you're wealthy enough to own multiple consoles at once, but not everyone is that fortunate. As you mentioned, price is going to be a huge reason why Sony might do terribly this generation, so it's stupid to not try attract as many customers as possible. If they had that backwards compatibility, the people I know would instantly buy it due to the nature of the deal they're getting. Two consoles for the price of one? How can anyone say no to that? That's what Sony needs, and that is going to be a deciding factor this generation.


 
I said no to it.
I never bought a PS2. My uncle gave me his instead of throwing out last year.
I never bought a PS3 (new). I bought a broken one off of a friend for $40, fixed it, and he threw in a game, two controllers, and a GH guitar. THAT was a deal considering ONE controller costs more than that to begin with.
I never bought a 360. It was a gift.
I never bought a Wii. It was a gift.
I never bought any Gameboy system. They were all gifts.

NONE of those were bought or given with the intention of "Oh, I'm going to get Nick this nice new shiny system for his birthday so he can play his OLD games on it." Fuck that, people buy new systems to play new games on them. The old games working on them is icing on the cake, a convenience.

Ought I be pissed that the WiiU doesn't support Gameboy games natively, because the Gamecube supported them via an adapter, and the Wii supported the Gamecube, and the WiiU supports the Wii? Or am I misinterpreting your thought process?



Peps said:


> Kotaku's poll from 2006 showed that 40% of their readers believed backwards compatibility is very important. That's a huge figure. Especially considering how long this console generation lasted, I'd be surprised if people thought it was less important.





Peps said:


> Kotaku's poll from 2006 showed that 40% of their readers believed backwards compatibility is very important.


 


Peps said:


> Kotaku's poll from 2006


 


Peps said:


> poll from 2006


 


Peps said:


> *2006*


 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/americans-acceptance-gay-relations-crosses-threshold.aspx
ALSO according to outdated information from 2006, only 39% of people believed it was acceptable for a man to be in a homosexual relationship. Those numbers are CLEARLY the same in 2013, right?

I just noticed it was more acceptable for a console to have BC in 2006 than it was for a man to be homosexual. OH SHI-


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Feb 24, 2013)

*Reasonably priced console with no BC:* "_Oh fuck you, Sony! You money hungry bastards! Let me play my old games!_"

*Ridiculously priced console with BC:* "_Oh fuck you, Sony! You money hungry bastards! That's way too much for a console!_"


Any questions?


----------



## Sicklyboy (Feb 24, 2013)

TwinRetro said:


> *Reasonably priced console with no BC:* "_Oh fuck you, Sony! You money hungry bastards! Let me play my old games!_"
> 
> *Ridiculously priced console with BC:* "_Oh fuck you, Sony! You money hungry bastards! That's way too much for a console!_"
> 
> ...


 
I have one.

Do we still lose as a consumer if we're logical and hold on to our old systems?


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Feb 24, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> I have one.
> 
> Do we still lose as a consumer if we're logical and hold on to our old systems?


 
No, but sadly you would be the exception and not the rule.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Feb 24, 2013)

TwinRetro said:


> No, but sadly you would be the exception and not the rule.


 
Don't worry, It's not often I fit in with the crowd.  Not much of a sheeple person anyway.


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 24, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> I have one.
> 
> Do we still lose as a consumer if we're logical and hold on to our old systems?


 That's preposterous and blasphemy!


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> I have one.
> 
> Do we still lose as a consumer if we're logical and hold on to our old systems?


Well technically if you don't buy the product...


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> http://kotaku.com/178121/msoft-?tag=backwards-compatibility
> 
> Kotaku's poll from 2006 showed that 40% of their readers believed backwards compatibility is very important. That's a huge figure. Especially considering how long this console generation lasted, I'd be surprised if people thought it was less important.


 
Prepare to be surprised then. According to a poll on GameSpot from this year (http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topi...ility-worth-to-you-on-nextgen-consoles?page=0) 52% of people said they would pay "$0... Rather pay less and simply keep my old consoles for those games" for BC. "Since that's not going to happen, if I cared as little about statistical validity as you did, I can now say the majority of people don't care about BC and your entire argument is now useless.




Peps said:


> All forms of surveys are subject to the same inaccuracies. You can't accuse one form of communication to be more inaccurate than another. As long as there's a huge number of responses, you can easily assume what the general consensus is as a result.


As mentioned by trumpet, this is total BS. Surveys are only statistically valid if they a) have truly random cross sectional representation and b) adequate power to represent the population. Even then, you have reporting bias due to people wanting to look good. Online surveys fail a mightly as the people are self selected and obviously care enough to answer. If I did a "Is the Wii U awesome" poll on a Nintendo forum the majority would say yes. If I did it on a Sony forum the majority would say no. According to you, these would both be valid surveys.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 24, 2013)

Are we still ragging on backwards compatibility? Not every console has it or has to have it. If it's between an affordable console and backwards compatible one, I'll choose the first option.

I don't sell my consoles anyway. Hell I still have a Gamecube and there's like zero reason to keep it with a Wii around. Or my GBC and I have a GBA. Or my GBA and I have a DS.


----------



## xerodragon21 (Feb 24, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Indeed.
> 
> That's because:
> 
> ...



Yes because a HD device playing games in their 480p that they actually are is SO looking worse.
When people say they want backwards compatibility they mean they want ps4, ps3,ps2, and ps1 compatibility, idk about you guys but I don't like having to dig out an old system OR rebuy my games. Sony drops the ball and is making stupid decisions left and right, for instance what is the actual selling point of the vita? I can do everything a vita can on a psp except play vita games aka they added no new ps2 game support or ANYTHING. Point is I don't feel justified spending $300 on a ps3 then shelling out another $400(?) for a standalone console that like the vita the only difference is it an play ps4 games... Ffs I'd be better off using a really good pc and just waiting for an emulator for ps3 before I justify buying a ps4...


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> Yes because a HD device playing games in their 480p that they actually are is SO looking worse.
> When people say they want backwards compatibility they mean they want ps4, ps3,ps2, and ps1 compatibility, idk about you guys but I don't like having to dig out an old system OR rebuy my games. Sony drops the ball and is making stupid decisions left and right, for instance what is the actual selling point of the vita? I can do everything a vita can on a psp except play vita games aka they added no new ps2 game support or ANYTHING. Point is I don't feel justified spending $300 on a ps3 then shelling out another $400(?) for a standalone console that like the vita the only difference is it an play ps4 games... Ffs I'd be better off using a really good pc and just waiting for an emulator for ps3 before I justify buying a ps4...



Hell, why not even buy a ps2 and play those games, since the only difference with a ps3 is that it can play ps3 games, why not just get a psx for that matter?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> Yes because a HD device playing games in their 480p that they actually are is SO looking worse.
> When people say they want backwards compatibility they mean they want ps4, ps3,ps2, and ps1 compatibility, idk about you guys but I don't like having to dig out an old system OR rebuy my games. Sony drops the ball and is making stupid decisions left and right, for instance what is the actual selling point of the vita? I can do everything a vita can on a psp except play vita games aka they added no new ps2 game support or ANYTHING. Point is I don't feel justified spending $300 on a ps3 then shelling out another $400(?) for a standalone console that like the vita the only difference is it an play ps4 games... Ffs I'd be better off using a really good pc and just waiting for an emulator for ps3 before I justify buying a ps4...


 
Alright, so if they made the system $599 and gave it PS3 support, would you be happy?

It seems like no one here understands like... how shit works.


----------



## chavosaur (Feb 24, 2013)

Because... yknow... there is apparently no difference between ps3 and ps2 games, or between ps2 and ps1 games apparently.
Do people seriously not think when before they talk out their ass?
We get it, you dont wanna rebuy games.
THEN
YOU
DONT
HAVE
TO.
If your really going to sit there and say "HAY, THERE AINT MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PS3 AND PS2, ILL STAY WIFF MA PS2," you must literally have no eyes, and no perception of gaming.
To say you wont buy this freaking beast of a new console, that will have the ability to play games even better then a ps3, and A MILLION times better then a ps2&1, then I'm just going to laugh as you lay in the waste of the old gen while I enjoy the shit out of this new gen.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 24, 2013)

chavosaur said:


> Because... yknow... there is apparently no difference between ps3 and ps2 games, or between ps2 and ps1 games apparently.



Um, they're all played on discs so they're obviously the fucking same.

Get your facts straight.


----------



## xerodragon21 (Feb 24, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Alright, so if they made the system $599 and gave it PS3 support, would you be happy?
> 
> It seems like no one here understands like... how shit works.



If I could sell my ps3 for $150-250 then sure it actually would. And to the person above that also quoted me, the ONLY reason I bought a ps3 was my friend sold it to me super cheap, the biggest annoyance if you will is they removed its BC and turned around and put ps1 and ps2 games on the psn... Yes let me buy a game I already own again just because you failed to make a system BC OR at least have the ability to play roms


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> If I could sell my ps3 for $150-250 then sure it actually would. And to the person above that also quoted me, the ONLY reason I bought a ps3 was my friend sold it to me super cheap, the biggest annoyance if you will is they removed its BC and turned around and put ps1 and ps2 games on the psn... Yes let me buy a game I already own again just because you failed to make a system BC OR at least have the ability to play roms


 
I think it's pretty logical to realize that, with trade in, you'd pay the same as just keeping your PS3 and non-backwards compatible PS4. So why not just have it be slightly more inconvenient so Sony can sell it at a broader pricepoint that isn't so terrible that it'll dead on arrival like the PS3?

Sony doesn't cater to you. Sony caters to millions of people, most of which don't want to pay $599 for a new console, regardless of BC.


----------



## xerodragon21 (Feb 24, 2013)

chavosaur said:


> Because... yknow... there is apparently no difference between ps3 and ps2 games, or between ps2 and ps1 games apparently.
> Do people seriously not think when before they talk out their ass?
> We get it, you dont wanna rebuy games.
> THEN
> ...



K that's nice, I'm not saying they aren't different I am however questioning why something so "beastly" isn't capable of playing an older version of that consoles games but a PC can play EVERYTHING except current gen and that's only bc to my knowledge no ones tried to make an emulator. I'm pretty damn sure that a PC esp top of the line blows ANY system out of the water


----------



## Gahars (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> K that's nice, I'm not saying they aren't different I am however questioning why something so "beastly" isn't capable of playing an older version of that consoles games but a PC can play EVERYTHING except current gen and that's only bc to my knowledge no ones tried to make an emulator. I'm pretty damn sure that a PC esp top of the line blows ANY system out of the water


 
Oh my god, I can't take it anymore. You are killing my brain.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> K that's nice, I'm not saying they aren't different I am however questioning why something so "beastly" isn't capable of playing an older version of that consoles games but a PC can play EVERYTHING except current gen and that's only bc to my knowledge no ones tried to make an emulator. I'm pretty damn sure that a PC esp top of the line blows ANY system out of the water


 
Who said the PS4 won't play PS1 or PS2 games?

And no shit a top of the line PC blows any gaming system out of the water. A top of the line PC also costs like $1000+. It's just really stupid to go "WELL MY PC CAN DO IT BETTER" because no shit it can. People buy consoles for a different reason. Usually for the streamlined approach, unique features, and exclusive games.


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Feb 24, 2013)

Guild, I would have thought you'd realized by now people are delusional. They want the PS4 to play every PS game ever made for free and have it cost nothing after they trade in.  They also want ps4 games to all be priced like phone games and have unlimited free DLC. In short, they believe Sony is a greedy bastard and they are somehow entitled to free stuff.


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> K that's nice, I'm not saying they aren't different I am however questioning why something so "beastly" isn't capable of playing an older version of that consoles games but a PC can play EVERYTHING except current gen and that's only bc to my knowledge no ones tried to make an emulator. I'm pretty damn sure that a PC esp top of the line blows ANY system out of the water


You do realize that the PS3 is "current-gen", and is the thing that PCs won't play, and also the thing that the PS4 won't play, right?


----------



## xerodragon21 (Feb 24, 2013)

mysticwaterfall said:


> Guild, I would have thought you'd realized by now people are delusional. They want the PS4 to play every PS game ever made for free and have it cost nothing after they trade in.  They also want ps4 games to all be priced like phone games and have unlimited free DLC. In short, they believe Sony is a greedy bastard and they are somehow entitled to free stuff.



Nope not expecting free stuff, however am I confused why something so "beastly" can't do what it's predecessors could without extra hardware. I mentioned the pc because if u put the price of a ps3 and ps4 together I could build a pretty damn good one capable of running anything currently, hell my pc I built 3/4 years ago still can. But I digress unless there is a really good game that I just have to have I probably don't see a reason to get a ps4 and since I mostly play RPGs which are pretty much a dying genre I don't have much interest in it. Oh... And back to the vita for a sec... Read some reviews both of the system and its horrendous wannabe mainstream games if u don't wanna beleive Sony dropped the ball.


----------



## xerodragon21 (Feb 24, 2013)

Rydian said:


> You do realize that the PS3 is "current-gen", and is the thing that PCs won't play, and also the thing that the PS4 won't play, right?



Yep quite aware, I have a ps3 for my ps3 games and a pc for everything else. So as I said unless something fantastic comes out for the ps4 and even in that case I prolly can't justify spending $500(?) to play one game or a couple(the extra hundred is taking into account the possible new price of ps4 games) even the ps3 took quite awhile to get a decent game lineup so I'm not saying it won't happen... But if the vita is anything of an example to how they will release games for this too then I'm not holding my breath. I mean ps3 had a blueray player to justify buying it but what does the ps4 have that you would call new other than its standalone console itself?


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Feb 24, 2013)

So... If you don't want a ps4 don't buy one. No one is forcing you too.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Feb 24, 2013)

I'm throwing out so many likes here to people that aren't Peps or xerodragon21.

ITT Peps made a new account and continues to argue that sony is wrong and should magically keep their price the same.



xerodragon21 said:


> [...]I have a ps3 for my ps3 games and a pc for everything else.[...]


 
Then where lies the problem?  Get a PS4 for the PS4 games and continue your legacy of PS3 for PS3 games and PC for everything else.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> K that's nice, I'm not saying they aren't different I am however questioning why something so "beastly" isn't capable of playing an older version of that consoles games but a PC can play EVERYTHING except current gen and that's only bc to my knowledge no ones tried to make an emulator. I'm pretty damn sure that a PC esp top of the line blows ANY system out of the water


It's a matter of differences between architectures. We cannot emulate the PS3 at full speed at this point, no matter how beastly a PC is, and seeing that the PS4 uses the same x86 architecture, it cannot emulate it either. Hardware-based Backwards Compatibility would be the only option, but for that, they'd have to put the CELL processor in the PS4, ramping up the costs.

The only way to achieve Backwards Compatibility without "adding" anything to the machine is continuing the same processor line like the Gamecube, Wii and WiiU have. In all the other cases, you're just increasing costs.

Similarily, you can't really be upset that an electric train isn't able to "support" steam - we switched from using steam to using electricity because hey - electricity is better on all accounts. The engine was swapped to a completely different one so "compatibility" with steam isn't really an option unless you want to create some odd and expensive contraption.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> If I could sell my ps3 for $150-250 then sure it actually would. And to the person above that also quoted me, the ONLY reason I bought a ps3 was my friend sold it to me super cheap, the biggest annoyance if you will is they removed its BC and turned around and put ps1 and ps2 games on the psn... Yes *let me buy a game I already own again just because you failed to make a system BC* OR at least have the ability to play roms


 
Except...they didn't fail to make the PS3 backwards compatible...  It was backwards compatible until it was apparent that a) it wasn't a huge selling point, and b) they could remove it and bring the MSRP down making it more available to a broader audience.

Availability > Bells&Whistles

Xbox 360 won _my_ console war this gen because it was cheaper and I don't like burning cash for no reason whatsoever.  Consoles have exclusives, but they are pretty evenly matched quality-wise so exclusives will never be a selling point for me.  And sure, I pay for Xbox LIVE.  But I always get it for less than $3 a month and it is worth it in my opinion.  If Sony comes in cheaper this gen, then that's too bad because they lost their opportunity to get my money when they let me create a gamertag and buy a bunch of shit from Xbox LIVE.  My Xbox is now the hub of my living room (just as Microsoft intended it to be) and I likely won't even be upgrading to a new console for a few years.  I'll never pay more than $300 for a videogame console...


----------



## xerodragon21 (Feb 24, 2013)

This is my biggest point here... Telling me a ps4 can't play its predecessors is like a pc that can play d3 but not runescape or a blueray player that can't play DVD/CDR's just because its older. I really should have just talked about this first but I got caught up in a needless rant sorry. Someone finally did say something about the architecture but I still don't see why something newer can't run something older and its not all a "they are disks so wtf) however the fact it is does bring some questions since its not a matter of the system can't read the disk of older games


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> This is my biggest point here... Telling me a ps4 can't play its predecessors is like a pc that can play d3 but not runescape or a blueray player that can't play DVD/CDR's just because its older. I really should have just talked about this first but I got caught up in a needless rant sorry. Someone finally did say something about the architecture but I still don't see why something newer can't run something older and its not all a "they are disks so wtf) however the fact it is does bring some questions since its not a matter of the system can't read the disk of older games


 
So you clearly just don't understand how hardware works.

Well that explains everything.


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Feb 24, 2013)

The only question is why you're still arguing about this.


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> This is my biggest point here... Telling me a ps4 can't play its predecessors is like a pc that can play d3 but not runescape or a blueray player that can't play DVD/CDR's just because its older. I really should have just talked about this first but I got caught up in a needless rant sorry. Someone finally did say something about the architecture but I still don't see why something newer can't run something older and its not all a "they are disks so wtf) however the fact it is does bring some questions since its not a matter of the system can't read the disk of older games


 
You *really* have no idea on how backwards compatibility works, do you?

PS4 CPU - x86 Architecture, the same architecture PCs use (Intel and AMD), easy to program
PS3 CPU - IBM Cell PPC architecture, a proprietary, hard-to-program language

The two architectures have no way of communicating with each other natively. Developers must find a way to write a program that allows the languages to communicate....this is way in over your head isn't it?  Let me know when you take computer science classes.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Feb 24, 2013)

p1ngpong said:


> This isn't big enough news to warrant its own USN thread separate of what is already being discussed in the front page PS4 thread. Besides there will be a way to stream ps1, ps2 and ps3 games to the ps4, the exact details about it have yet to be announced though. So moved.


 
Sounds like a terribly bad idea. Who is going to want to stream those insanely large games that came from Blu Ray discs? Sony fans are better off just keeping their PS3's.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 24, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> Sounds like a terribly bad idea. Who is going to want to stream those insanely large games that came from Blu Ray discs? Sony fans are better off just keeping their PS3's.


 
Because OnLive doesn't already stream large PC games?

EDIT: And technically size shouldn't matter. The games are essentially loaded and processed at a separate location. You just get sent a video feed of what's being processed and you send back inputs from your controller.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> This is my biggest point here... Telling me a ps4 can't play its predecessors is like a pc that can play d3 but not runescape or a blueray player that can't play DVD/CDR's just because its older. I really should have just talked about this first but I got caught up in a needless rant sorry. Someone finally did say something about the architecture but I still don't see why something newer can't run something older and its not all a "they are disks so wtf) however the fact it is does bring some questions since its not a matter of the system can't read the disk of older games


Ummm...  Architecture was mentioned in the first post after the OP...

http://gbatemp.net/threads/ps4-not-backward-compatible-with-ps3.343413/#post-4562212


----------



## xerodragon21 (Feb 24, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> So you clearly just don't understand how hardware works.
> 
> Well that explains everything.



I was kinda hoping for more of an explanation than just assuming I'm an idiot from a moderator... I understand hardware just fine at least in terms of a pc and I was under the impression a ps3 and pc weren't amazingly different esp since people have loaded Linux on their ps3 and were able to play current pc games.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> I was kinda hoping for more of an explanation than just assuming I'm an idiot from a moderator... I understand hardware just fine at least in terms of a pc and I was under the impression a ps3 and pc weren't amazingly different esp since people have loaded Linux on their ps3 and were able to play current pc games.


 
I didn't call you an idiot. And I'm not a moderator.

Fine, here's it at its basics. The way the PS4 makes things go is different then how the PS3 makes things go. So it can't make the PS3 go because the PS4 goes a different way.

It's still completely unconfirmed if it does or doesn't support PSX or PS2 games


----------



## Gahars (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> I understand hardware just fine


 
Evidently, you do not.

Also, the fact that you keep arguing your point despite pretty much everyone else in this thread telling you no, it does not work that way, isn't doing you any favors.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> I was kinda hoping for more of an explanation than just assuming I'm an idiot from a moderator...


 Guild?  A moderator?  That's the funniest fucking thing I've read yet today.

it's funny because it'll never happen...


----------



## xerodragon21 (Feb 24, 2013)

I 





wrettcaughn said:


> Ummm...  Architecture was mentioned in the first post after the OP...
> 
> http://gbatemp.net/threads/ps4-not-backward-compatible-with-ps3.343413/#post-4562212



I meant from the replies I'd gotten, I admit I didn't search or read this topic from scratch as I should have


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> I was kinda hoping for more of an explanation than just assuming I'm an idiot from a moderator... I understand hardware just fine at least in terms of a pc and I was under the impression a ps3 and pc weren't amazingly different esp since people have loaded Linux on their ps3 and were able to play current pc games.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Feb 24, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Because OnLive doesn't already stream large PC games?


 
And look how well OnLive has done, they filed for bankruptcy for crying out loud! Also, PC games generally aren't 30 GB's of uncompressed data, the average new PC game is still in the 9 GB range, some a bit bigger then others depending on the game. The largest games I have seen for the PC were Dragon Age Origins: CE and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed Sith Edition at over 20 GB.



p1ngpong said:


> Are you trolling or just smoking crack?


Smoking pot, judging by his avatar.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Feb 24, 2013)

Wiicho said:


> Come on people. This is sony we are talking about.
> 
> It won't surprise me if at launch sony decides to drop the streaming idea and few years after removes ps4 format support from the console. Then the ps4 will be another box collecting dust like my ps3 is now.
> 
> What sony gives, sony takes.


 

....did..did you ever eat paint chips when you were a kid...?


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 24, 2013)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> ....did..did you ever eat paint chips when you were a kid...?


 

Heheheheh.....why?


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> This is my biggest point here... Telling me a ps4 can't play its predecessors is like a pc that can play d3 but not runescape or a blueray player that can't play DVD/CDR's just because its older. I really should have just talked about this first but I got caught up in a needless rant sorry. Someone finally did say something about the architecture but I still don't see why something newer can't run something older and its not all a "they are disks so wtf) however the fact it is does bring some questions since its not a matter of the system can't read the disk of older games


Different architectures in computers are like different languages in the real world.  If you put a japanese-speaker into a french classroom, the japanese-speaker will not be able to interact with the french class due to the language being different.

"Well then get him a live translator" - That's what an emulator is, but there's no PS3 emulator because it's too complex, fast, and not well-understood enough for current hardware.
"Then have somebody translate things beforehand" - That's what porting a game is, that's something done by the original company that has access to the game's original source code.

Make more sense now?


----------



## xerodragon21 (Feb 24, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Guild?  A moderator?  That's the funniest fucking thing I've read yet today.
> 
> it's funny because it'll never happen...



Ya... Lol my bad wasnt even thinking about the fact his rank was from his posting amount just saw reporter so kinda assumed, shows how long its been since I've touched a forum.


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 24, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> And look how well OnLive has done, they filed for bankruptcy for crying out loud! Also, PC games generally aren't 30 GB's of uncompressed data, the average new PC game is still in the 9 GB range, some a bit bigger then others depending on the game. The largest games I have seen for the PC were Dragon Age Origins: CE and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed Sith Edition at over 20 GB.
> 
> 
> Smoking pot, judging by his avatar.


Yet OnLive is still going.

Again, it doesn't matter how much data is being processed, all that's being streamed to you is the video output of that data. The bandwidth required could be the same whether it's a 5Gb title or a 30Gb title.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> Sounds like a terribly bad idea. Who is going to want to stream those insanely large games that came from Blu Ray discs? Sony fans are better off just keeping their PS3's.


Here's how it works - a "super-server" actually plays the game and screencap's the video, then streams the video with the audio in packets which are interpreted by the app on the target device. In return, the target device sends packets with key presses back to the "super-server". No actual "game streaming" occurs, it merely streams the "end result" - the game proper is on the server.


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 24, 2013)

Scuba156 said:


> Yet OnLive is still going.
> 
> Again, it doesn't matter how much data is being processed, all that's being streamed to you is the video output of that data. The bandwidth required could be the same whether it's a 5Gb title or a 30Gb title.


 
Cloud/streaming gaming is severely flawed. If the connection drops or the company(ies) that host the severs goes down....best of luck to those who bothered to spend the money. Not everyone has a blazing fast OC-768 internet connection. I don't understand the appeal behind streaming games, you can't even keep a copy for yourself 

I'm sorry, but I didn't notice an exponential leap in difference between the PS3 and the PS4.


----------



## xerodragon21 (Feb 24, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Different architectures in computers are like different languages in the real world.  If you put a japanese-speaker into a french classroom, the japanese-speaker will not be able to interact with the french class due to the language being different.
> 
> "Well then get him a live translator" - That's what an emulator is, but there's no PS3 emulator because it's too complex, fast, and not well-understood enough for current hardware.
> "Then have somebody translate things beforehand" - That's what porting a game is, that's something done by the original company that has access to the game's original source code.
> ...



Amusing comparison but yes it does and I appreciate it, I think the big thing for me was the fact they were all optical disks, and as I said the whole being able to run an OS on a ps3 and I beleive people ran emulators from them or could anyways. But yes that helped Rydian thanks


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

xerodragon21 said:


> Amusing comparison but yes it does and I appreciate it, I think the big thing for me was the fact they were all optical disks, and as I said the whole being able to run an OS on a ps3 and I beleive people ran emulators from them or could anyways. But yes that helped Rydian thanks


Well the emulators they ran were for way older systems, like the SNES and stuff.  A PS3 is many, many times more powerful than an SNES.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 24, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> And look how well OnLive has done, they filed for bankruptcy for crying out loud! Also, PC games generally aren't 30 GB's of uncompressed data, the average new PC game is still in the 9 GB range, some a bit bigger then others depending on the game. The largest games I have seen for the PC were Dragon Age Origins: CE and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed Sith Edition at over 20 GB.


 
Well it was just bad business that bankrupted them, not because their tech wasn't solid. I played it quite a bit and it worked rather well for what it is.

Also, *size doesn't matter.* It's not sending you the actual game, it's sending you a video feed of the game. Basically it's the same as any type of online streaming service (Ustream, Twitch) except it also gets inputs from you.

I said this point earlier but you for some reason just didn't see it.


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

If you want to get really technical than due to compression types, some games will be smaller video streams than others, depending on the layout of the screen and how much is updated and the color gradients and shit.

But nobody really cares until it becomes an issue.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

Rydian said:


> If you want to get really technical than due to compression types, some games will be smaller video streams than others, depending on the layout of the screen and how much is updated and the color gradients and shit.
> 
> But nobody really cares until it becomes an issue.


Petty sure that the packet will be of standard size though - variable sizes of packets overcomplicate things so if there's less data than usual, they'll probably use padding to fill in the rest... Unless they'll use headers which will specify the sizes.


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Petty sure that the packet will be of standard size though - variable sizes of packets overcomplicate things so if there's less data then usual, they'll probably use padding to fill in the rest... Unless they'll use headers which will specify the sizes.


Nah video streaming (even youtube) accounts for this.  I could upload some various examples, but I'm too lazy to make a bunch of noise images flip constantly and then upload them.

There's probably some of those files out there anyways, they're good tests for how video codecs handle it, but I don't know of any sites offhand.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Nah video streaming (even youtube) accounts for this. I could upload some various examples, but I'm too lazy to make a bunch of noise images flip constantly and then upload them.
> 
> There's probably some of those files out there anyways, they're good tests for how video codecs handle it, but I don't know of any sites offhand.


Heh, I'm used to working with uncompressed data - compression algorithms are, like, black magic, at least to me.


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Heh, I'm used to working with uncompressed data - compression algorithms are, like, black magic, at least to me.


My raw video recordings with FRAPS are like in the 8 gigs for a few minutes range, then after running them through Handbrake they become like, 50 megs or less.

And there's that fake PSP CFW I made that was 17GB when you uncompressed it all, so I claimed you needed a 32GB MS Pro Duo (didn't exist)...

I loves me some compression (when done well).


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Feb 24, 2013)

Lemme break it down real simple-like. Just because the PS4 and the Ps3 are from the same company, it doesn't mean the hardware is the same, or even similar. The only similarities between the two is, it's Playstation brand, and it takes optical media. 

Crying about the PS4 not being able to play PS3 games is like crying that the 360 can't play PS3 games. They are two completely different architectures, and not at all compatible with one another. Emulation isn't even possible because you would need a rig even more powerful than a PS4 to do so. So, in reality, the only way to viably have any kind of backwards compatibility is to include PS3 hardware inside the PS4, effectively driving the price up, and now we're stuck with another "FIVE HUNDRED NINETY NINE DORRA!!!" situation, and everyone would be bitching about the price instead.


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 24, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Cloud/streaming gaming is severely flawed. If the connection drops or the company(ies) that host the severs goes down....best of luck to those who bothered to spend the money. Not everyone has a blazing fast OC-768 internet connection. I don't understand the appeal behind streaming games, you can't even keep a copy for yourself
> 
> I'm sorry, but I didn't notice an exponential leap in difference between the PS3 and the PS4.


Its flawed in practice due to some technical limitations, but does work remarkably well for the technology we have today. No need to tell me about poor internet connections either, I live in Australia where the speed isn't that great and where everything has a data limit.

The biggest difference was the psychics and the particle effects, which is what was expected and things will get better as the console continues.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Feb 24, 2013)

Summary of this thread in a single panel webcomic:









xerodragon21 said:


> This is my biggest point here... Telling me a ps4 can't play its predecessors is like a pc that can play d3 but not runescape or a blueray player that can't play DVD/CDR's just because its older. I really should have just talked about this first but I got caught up in a needless rant sorry. Someone finally did say something about the architecture but I still don't see why something newer can't run something older and its not all a "they are disks so wtf) however the fact it is does bring some questions since its not a matter of the system can't read the disk of older games


 
You clearly do not understand how these things work, yet to press on and on about them.



xerodragon21 said:


> Amusing comparison but yes it does and I appreciate it, I think the big thing for me was the fact they were all optical disks, and as I said the whole being able to run an OS on a ps3 and I beleive people ran emulators from them or could anyways. But yes that helped Rydian thanks


And there's a reason that my DVD player from 2003 can't play PS3 games by that logic. At least you do understand the point that everyone has been trying to make for the last 11 pages now, though.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 24, 2013)

Scuba156 said:


> The biggest difference was the *psychics* and the particle effects, which is what was expected and things will get better as the console continues.


 Holy Shit! Australia has psychic consoles?!?


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 24, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Holy Shit! Australia has psychic consoles?!?


We do! You guys are so far behind it's not even funny anymore. I guess that's what happens when we are living in the future timezone.

On a completely unrelated note though, the screen on my phone is cracked badly (waiting for a new screen to arrive) so I blame any mistakes on incorrect detection and autocorrect


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 24, 2013)

---


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

I am super-done with this thread.

_If you have PS3 games that you want to play, *in all likelyhood you have a PS3, so play them to your heart's content rather than cry*._

_If you don't have a PS3, in all likelyhood you don't have PS3 games so *stop crying, this isn't anything that should bother you*._

_Backwards Compatibility caters to a non-existant userbase or to people who want to trade in their PS3 for a PS4 plus it ramps up the price, this *is not profitable for Sony or beneficial to the end user who just wants an affordable NextGen.*_

/thread


----------



## emigre (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> Overall, it seems like the majority of ye are rich and don't have any money problems whatsoever, and are able to afford multiple consoles no problem, regardless of whether or not the world is in a recession. That's nice to know, but if you were to tell any average person to just keep their old console, they'll probably be really insulted and think you're an elitist rich snob who doesn't sympathise with normal people. Utterly disgraceful.


 
Gaming is a luxury pastime. People really need to remember this.


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Feb 24, 2013)

68% of it people say it doesn't matter/won't prevent them from buying/isn't a big deal: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/for...Backward-Compatibility-really-such-a-big-deal

That was easy.

For how much of a "big deal" you say everybody makes about BC, how often is it really used? I can't remember the last time I played GCN game on my Wii, I'm not sure I ever have. Sure, it's a nice convenience, but like Guild I still have a GCN if I wanted to hook it up. Similarly I haven't played that many Wii games on my Wii U. I have Wii U games to play.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 24, 2013)

---


----------



## emigre (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> Again, clearly you don't understand about different levels of income. A lot of people could probably purchase the PS4 once they sell off older hardware they don't need.


 
#FIRSTWORLDPROBLEMS


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> Again, clearly you don't understand about different levels of income. A lot of people could probably purchase the PS4 once they sell off older hardware they don't need.


Bet you a million bucks they would not, and here's why:

Let's _assume_ that including Backwards Compatibility would cost $100 per console

$529 PS4 - up to $100 for your old PS3 _(VERY optimistic estimate unless it's almost brand new)_ = $429
$429 PS4 = $429

DERP MIGHT AS WELL KEEP THE OLD PS3


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> You're right that Sony obviously did try it before, but why in that case would anyone ever bother with backwards compatibility if it didn't help sales?


In that case sales for BC are not sales for PS4 games.  Which means those sales are additional losses.



Peps said:


> If Sony doesn't want to have huge losses, then they really need to stop this "over-the-top" specs strategy that plain and simple, doesn't work. I don't think they really care about short-term losses really.


"Short-term"?  It was *years* before the PS3 was sold at a profit.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 24, 2013)

---


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> Sales for BC are for both PS4 and 2x PS3 games. That customer had been convinced to buy a PS4 and will buy PS4 games, and will continue to buy any new PS3 games that come out for the system (which will be the case for a few years because with those specs, it'll be ages before enough people have the console before developers stop supporting the PS3). And of course, the third party who has the old PS3 will purchase PS3 games now and any new titles that are released.
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you're arguing in the second point. You said that Sony wouldn't want huge losses, but clearly they care about the long-term, thus any point about huge losses in the short-term are irrelevant because Sony obviously doesn't care about it if they're willing to take a huge risk with the high specs.


The whole "They have a system so they will buy the games and we will profit instead of loss" idea was what made the PS3 sell for a loss.  And it sold for a loss for three and a half years.  I don't think Sony wants to  wait that long to turn a profit on the units.

You do remember that when you multiply a positive and a negative *the answer is negative*, right?

So let's say that Sony makes the PS4s non-BC and sells 10 million, at $5 loss each.
$50,000,000 loss that they need to make up with games.

Now let's say that they are BC, and they lose $55 each sale, but sell 15 million because of it (a 50% increase).
$825,000,000 loss that they need to make up with games... but only 50% more customers.

In addition, people who would refuse to buy a system because of a lack of BC (and so are in the extra sales because of it) _are people who want to play their existing games, so they're likely to buy less PS4 games_ (they didn't want the system in the first place).  So the individuals in the extra 50% are likely to contribute LESS than the individuals in the original 10 mil.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> I'm not quite sure what you're arguing in the second point. You said that Sony wouldn't want huge losses, but clearly they care about the long-term, thus any point about huge losses in the short-term are irrelevant because Sony obviously doesn't care about it if they're willing to take a huge risk with the high specs.


 No.  Sony most certainly cares about the short term.  They were simply forced to think long-term after the debacle that was the $600 BC PS3.

Also, who the hell are you going to get to pay $200 for a PS3 after the new hardware is out?  Maybe if you throw in a few games...but...then you won't have any PS3 games to play on your BC PS4...derr


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> Also, who the hell are you going to get to pay $200 for a PS3 after the new hardware is out?  Maybe if you throw in a few games...but...then you won't have any PS3 games to play on your BC PS4...derr


On the subject of old console sales...
http://norfolk.craigslist.org/vgm/3632480505.html
PS2, three controllers (2 wireless), a DDR mat, eye toy, and 27 games... and he's asking $100.  Less than $4 a game just for the games.

Trading in an old system for the money for a new one rarely works well unless you're dumping everything like this, and even then it only gets you part of the price.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 24, 2013)

Rydian said:


> On the subject of old console sales...
> http://norfolk.craigslist.org/vgm/3632480505.html
> PS2, three controllers (2 wireless), a DDR mat, eye toy, and 27 games... and he's asking $100. Less than $4 a game just for the games.
> 
> Trading in an old system for the money for a new one rarely works well unless you're dumping everything like this, and even then it only gets you part of the price.


No, Rydian.  We will not buy your PS2 lot...  Please stop linking to it everywhere...


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> No, Rydian.  We will not buy your PS2 lot...  Please stop linking to it everywhere...


Pft, not mine.  Ran across it earlier today looking for other stuff.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 24, 2013)

---


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> They weren't forced to think long-term, they planned on long-term. They had the choice to not go with over-the-top specifications. They had a choice not to have implemented such a crazy architecture that developers hated. They had a lot of choices, they were not forced in the least.
> 
> It's pretty easy to find third parties to sell to. Just sell at a competitive price against retail stores. If a retail store is selling a used console for $200, then sell your console for $250 with some games from your collection, not your whole collection obviously. Pretty handy stuff to be honest, and it's quite a common thing to do.


Hindsight really is 20/20... Why do you think Sony went with a more simple architecture and removed BC? They learned from previous mistakes.

Also, why the fuck would I buy a console from some schmoe on craigslist for $200 when I could go to a retailer and buy a used console for $200 that includes a 30 to 90 day warranty? Buying electronics on craigslist is retarded. You don't know what that shit has been through. It's not like they have carfax for consoles...

On top of that, I'd rather go manufacturer refurbished than straight used any day...


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

Idiot maths 101:

It's better to sell *1* system at a profit than *5* at a loss, when selling systems at a loss, the more you sell the _deeper_ is the sh*t you're in.


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> Your calculations are very misleading


I used the 50% and $50 numbers from earlier for an example.  In either case the issue is the same.  If BC makes the console sold at a loss and the additional console sales are from people who would only buy it if it has BC, *that is a net loss*.



Peps said:


> and really don't prove your argument because guess what? We don't know how much per unit it would cost to implement backwards compatibility


*Yeah, no.*

It would cost at least as much as the core PS3 parts, just like it did for the PS3's compatibility with the PS2... *and we have teardowns and cost analysis of the PS3 hardware*.
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/cr...als-hardware-changes-but-no-real-upgrades/871
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10414022-52.html
http://www.eetimes.com/design/other/4004628/-Teardown-finds-Sony-taking-a-bath-on-each-PS3

Those reports state that the original model was a $240 loss.  The redesigns with the PS2 hardware removed were down to $~40 loss before finally making a profit.  The reports state that the Cell was 11% of the PS3's cost, in 2006, etc.

Sorry for all the applied math, but... you know, it's sort of important for Sony to make a profit.   They make profits off of selling something for more than it costs, not from wishes.



Peps said:


> See where I'm going with this? Your figures are nonsense and don't prove your argument in the least.


My figures were examples to prove that selling more systems at a higher loss means more loss, not more profit.



Peps said:


> They weren't forced to think long-term, they planned on long-term. They had the choice to not go with over-the-top specifications. They had a choice not to have implemented such a crazy architecture that developers hated. They had a lot of choices, they were not forced in the least.


And their choices turned out to be shitty ones, which is why they're not doing it again.

Fucking Duh™.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

...can't we just assume that Sony's not a charity and they want to make money rather than include a feature that will ramp up the costs without increasing the price of the product, _especially in their current financial situation_ which resulted _specifically from PS3's high price and "difficult" architecture which is *still* hard to use and actually abandoned by its creators entirely with no plans on continuing its development because it's batshit crazy and hard to manufacture?_


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 24, 2013)

What Peps seems to be stuck on here is "hypothetical software sales" versus "actual hardware sales".

Sony isn't going to make the mistake again of assuming that BC = more software sales = more  $$$profits$$$

It is incredibly naive to think that a company is willing to take substantial losses while waiting on hypothetical revenues...


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 24, 2013)

---


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> So my point is, you can't adamantly state that backwards compatibility is automatic no. There is adequate logic to suggest that backwards compatibility is worth researching into. That's all I'm trying to argue here.


Let me state this again so that it's clear...

_Backwards Compatibility is more than welcome when the CPU/GPU lines are both continued so that including it causes virtually no additional costs, as in the cases of:_

Gamecube -> Wii -> WiiU
Master System -> Megadrive/Genesis
Game Boy -> Game Boy Colour
...which is not the case of PS3 -> PS4

Alternatively it also makes sense when the platform is strong enough to _emulate_ another, like in the case of:

N64 -> Wii
SNES -> Wii
PlayStation -> PSP
...which also is not the case of the PS3 -> PS4.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 24, 2013)

---


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Feb 24, 2013)

Your hypothetical customer is too poor to buy a ps4 without a trade in but can somehow afford 20 games? Does that make any sense whatsoever?


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

If Sony thought it was doable, they'd do it.  They tried it before.

With the PS3, the console was really expensive and even then was netting them a loss, and they eventually just took out the PS2 parts from the PS3 because it wasn't worth it. <- Facts.

Even if the PS4 could use it's GPU for the PS3 stuff (it's an API instead of hardware instructions so the calls can have a translation layer without emulation) and only need the CELL and other Misc. parts, if it was doable cheaply they'd have done it.

I don't see how you can sit here and say "It'll work!" when *it's been tried and it did not work*.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> This is about what the average consumer wants, and they couldn't give a toss about technical reasons.


The average customer doesn't give two flips because the average customer doesn't know what BC is. Nobody buys a washing machine with the intention of mowing a lawn, they buy a lawn mower. The average customers realize that PS3 games are played on a PS3 and will buy PS4's to play PS4 games.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 24, 2013)

---


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> And the average consumer expects their iPad 3 to run their iPad 2 software. Just like how they expect their Windows XP software to function in Windows 7. We've already been through this point. The average consumer will most likely expect the next iteration of a device to run software designed for the previous iteration. If the product was called something else entirely, then it's not natural to expect the previous iteration software to be runnable.


In that case the average consumer has to be pretty upset that 99,9% of DOS applications no longer work on Windows without DOS-Box, eh? Also - big difference between two consoles with different OS'es and two machines running the exact same OS. Your argument doesn't fly very high.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 24, 2013)

---


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> *On that note, Windows 1 software works perfectly in Windows 8 (assuming you're using a 32-bit version)*.


Not true. Even the jump from Windows 95 to Windows 98 caused compatibility issues. Not to look too far, you won't play Starcraft on XP without patches or copying some of Windows 95's system files.

Consoles are not computers, they are not smartphones, they're consoles.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 24, 2013)

---


----------



## Zetta_x (Feb 24, 2013)

I think Sony's reputation is more important than their profit. If they can endure the loss and if adding BC is proven to add good enough reputation, I would say go for it.

Sony is at an all time low in terms of investors; while greater profits will motivate investors, having a better reputation is much more valuable.

---

If my 2007 Wii goes out (which it's already having tons of problems), I have decided I'm going to buy a Wii-u. Do I have plans to buy any Wii-u games at the moment? Not right now, but the BC of the Wii-u will allow me to play all my Wii games and future proof for when I do buy Wii-u games.

Similar situation, if my PS3 goes out (which is a possibility) I would probably buy a PS4 if it had BC. Since the PS4 will not have BC, I'm most likely not going to buy it unless it's 3-4 years into the life span and it seems to be doing ok in terms of games.

By not including BC, they are breaking ties to the current userbase. Maybe a company like Sony will be able to rope them all back in, but if they cannot, they are putting a nail in the coffin in terms of reputation. But there are so many alternatives to gaming, there is no guarantee being able to make that connection.

---

I'm not saying including BC is a must, I'm saying if they can endure the loss, it may be better in terms of reputation and investors to include it.


===

I'm sure part of the reason why they are not including it is because PS3 firmwares and public keys are floating everywhere and they don't want to chance people being able to run unsigned code on PS4 (even if it's in a PS3 mode)


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> Why should consoles be exempt from the norm? Also I believe Sony have been advertising the PS3 as a computer (especially in Europe), and made the PS4 with a PC architecture.


Backwards compatibility while simultaneously changing architectures is not the norm.



Zetta_x said:


> I'm not saying including BC is a must, I'm saying if they can endure the loss, it may be better in terms of reputation and investors to include it.


They cannot endure the loss - they lost money on the PS3 for several years in a row, they're losing money on the PSVita and they need to start making money STAT if they want to stay in the game.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 24, 2013)

---


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> And historical consoles have been backwards compatible through some means with a minor cost.


You mean like the N64 games that were not compatible with the Gamecube, Sega CD games that were not compatible with the Sega Saturn, Sega Saturn games that were not compatible with the Dreamcast, NES games that were not compatible with the SNES... could you be more specific? Because the way I see it, it's pretty 50/50 and nobody seems to complain.



> And you don't know what Sony's financial situation is since you're not an accountant there. You only have little information, so shouldn't pretend that you do know what's going on there.


They release quarterly financial reports, silly.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 24, 2013)

---


----------



## J-Machine (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> Again, clearly you don't understand about different levels of income. A lot of people could probably purchase the PS4 once they sell off older hardware they don't need.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You must not understand what "luxury" then. A luxury is something in life that you interact with that IS NOT needed to survive. Food is needed to survive. An entertaining hobby like video games are not and thus are a luxury. If you cannot afford the new console without selling the old one that means you are sacrificing what you have for something else since you are not meeting the requirements to keep your current lifestyle and enrich it further at the same time.. There are many ways around this: Wait for the price drop/revisions, buy used, obtain a broken console that you are capable of fixing, buy the games you want and wait till the system becomes affordable before buying it.. ( I do this), get the console gifted, stick with what you have and not worry about what you don’t and finally, find a cheaper hobby that you find entertaining. The key here is that if you can't afford a luxury but still want it then you need to make sacrifices until it is obtainable and you are content with said sacrifices. I dunno about you but no longer watch cable or movies so that I can afford the internet. I also borrow games and books heavily, only buying what I liked when it's cheaper and the occasional gamble with games and books that are limited print.

Also your math of  people buying 20 games and sony making 10 dollar profit on each game is incorrect as 20x10 is only 200 per person going towards the potential profit that console can have. without knowing how much said BC would cost sony and how much of a loss they may or may not already be having with the unknown price point for the ps4 they are planning, it is impossible to tell how much profit those games will give them and even how long it will take for those games to be purchased since 20 games is rarely purchased same year AND having each game new enough for them to make that profit is also a rarity in itself, especially for people who need to sell the older console, knowing the system will have BC. This also only affects the parts and transportation of that console though and in no way reflects the years of research and development and the marketing they will use to entice customers into buying the new console. I doubt that 200 per person is enough tbh.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> Naming convention is important here. The only strange one is NES and SNES, and I'm pretty sure there would have been a lot of issues back then about that. Obviously it'll be really difficult to get information from that long ago, considering the internet wasn't very accessible back then.


So it's okay for Nintendo not to apply backwards compatibility in the SNES via a cartridge adapter due to technical difficulties but not okay when Sony does it? Alright.



> Link to a financial report please so I can provide a counter argument. What's more important, is the research with the price/demand curves and the research that's has been conducted into backwards compatibility. That's the information I'd be interested in.


Google doesn't bite.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/

The gaming division of the company posted a loss after a loss _for several years_ until the game licensing made up for the losses caused by selling the hardware for less than it was actually worth and only after a severe price drop of the PS3 which was only possible after the technology was perfected and cheaper to produce _(meaning late 2012)_. This caused investors to back out en-masse, worsening the company's financial status even more which is why their stock price is crap now. Fact.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> As for your second point, you clearly don't have a lot of friends...


 
Clearly.  Or maybe I just don't rip off my friends.  Could be that, too.


----------



## Zetta_x (Feb 24, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Backwards compatibility while simultaneously changing architectures is not the norm.
> 
> They cannot endure the loss - they lost money on the PS3 for several years in a row, they're losing money on the PSVita and they need to start making money STAT if they want to stay in the game.


 
Releasing a PS4 is somehow going to fix it? There are just way too many alternatives. The majority of the people who are going to buy a PS4 are PS3 people. Streaming PS1 ... PS3 games is a solution, but we don't even have details how this is going to be done or if it's going to be successful. They only have their reputation to go off of which is majorly influenced by it's userbase.

Why do you think the Vita is doing bad, it lacked an appeal to it's PSP customers. When they cut the ties from their userbase, they just expect it to go back. This was true decades ago because there weren't too many alternatives

It's no doubt that they are going to take a loss by adding BC as Rydian pointed out with his Math (although I think the proportion they lose with BC compared to without BC is way to high which is why the numbers were so far apart). However, the loss they lose could probably come from investors if they are willing to contribute the difference.

If I were to buy a Wii-U, eventually I'll start buying Wii-u games (cheaper than now). If I were to buy a Wii, there is no way I'm going to buy wii-u yet alone games.
Similar analogy to PS4. If I were to buy another PS3 (because PS4 simply won't play the games I still want to play on the PS3), there is no way in hell I'll buy a PS4 yet alone PS4 games. This is that connection they are killing.


---
CONCLUSION:
By not including BC, Sony's reputation is all they have for PS4 sales. Just like the Vita, this is a huge disadvantage. It may be popular for parents who want to buy their children expensive things, but they will put a dent into their userbase because of people like me.

Years ago, it was possible to create a new system without BC because nearly the entire userbase carried forward. Now is not the case. There are soooo many alternatives to gaming, if they don't appeal to the previous userbase, they are going to have a bad time.

PS. I have had a huge hangover this morning. My thought process is cloudy and may be inconsistent. If you take my post and start replying to each paragraph, you may find inconsistencies. This is a disclaimer.

Edit: Taken off the word used, counter productive to my argument.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Feb 24, 2013)

BC no BC, it doesn't matter every one is going to buy a Wii-U or 720 anyway... lol


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> Naming convention is important here. The only strange one is NES and SNES, and I'm pretty sure there would have been a lot of issues back then about that. Obviously it'll be really difficult to get information from that long ago, considering the internet wasn't very accessible back then.
> 
> Link to a financial report please so I can provide a counter argument. What's more important, is the research with the price/demand curves and the research that's has been conducted into backwards compatibility. That's the information I'd be interested in.


 
No one cared that the SNES didn't play NES games.  I know.  I was there...

And google is your friend.  Financial reports are easy to find.  Continuing to argue a point until someone else presents reports that you know exist and could easily seek out yourself just makes you look silly.  Also, "research that's been conducted into backwards compatibility"?  Are you really calling an online poll at Gamespot "research"?  You're using an online poll as the basis for your argument while everyone else here is citing financial reports and component breakdowns?  This is just getting silly...


----------



## Zetta_x (Feb 24, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> No one cared that the SNES didn't play NES games. I know. I was there...
> 
> And google is your friend. Financial reports are easy to find. Continuing to argue a point until someone else presents reports that you know exist and could easily seek out yourself just makes you look silly. Also, "research that's been conducted into backwards compatibility"? Are you really calling an online poll at Gamespot "research"? You're using an online poll as the basis for your argument while everyone else here is citing financial reports and component breakdowns? This is just getting silly...


 

This is part of my point. Decades ago was a complete different era. There was virtually no need to add BC because the entire customer base moved forward. There are people (like my girlfriend and many others) who still play PS2 games for entertainment. The difference between then and now is that the customer base is not going to move forward.

Once again, I'm not advocating adding BC. I don't know the true loss functions associated with having BC and not having BC. I'm just saying they will be cutting off their customer base if this streaming BC doesn't work out. For example, when they had BC on PS3 ... 600 dollar price tag. It was unpopular for being so expensive that many people bought PS2 anyways. When they reduced the price of the PS3, it no longer appealed to it's customer base. Thank god that the BC consoles did bring in some people and Sony had a pretty good reputation otherwise the PS3 wouldn't be in the stage it is in today.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 24, 2013)

---


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

Not _"no to it"_ automatically, Peps - no to it due to very real circumstances which prevent adding it.


----------



## J-Machine (Feb 24, 2013)

Zetta_x said:


> Releasing a PS4 is somehow going to fix it? There are just way too many alternatives. The majority of the people who are going to buy a PS4 are PS3 people. Streaming PS1 ... PS3 games is a solution, but we don't even have details how this is going to be done or if it's going to be successful. They only have their reputation to go off of which is majorly influenced by it's userbase...
> 
> 
> ...If I were to buy a Wii-U, eventually I'll start buying Wii-u games (cheaper than now). If I were to buy a Wii, there is no way I'm going to buy wii-u yet alone games.
> Similar analogy to PS4. If I were to buy another PS3 (because PS4 simply won't play the games I still want to play on the PS3), there is no way in hell I'll buy a PS4 yet alone PS4 games. This is that connection they are killing...


 
First sony wanted to keep the ps3 for a few more years but Nintendo is forcing them to act sooner because of the wii-u. knowing that the new xbox will also be around the corner, this further forces action. They are doing this to stay competitive amongst the alternatives that are preventing them from playing things safe and allowing them to make the money they need after years of losses. they simply can't afford to be left behind nor can they afford what ps3 BC will mean to them in the short term.

As for your wii-U argument. if what you said is true than nintendo will rarely see profit from you. the production run is usually over if you buy new at a reduced price and non existent when they are used. they only thing they can count on from you is online purchases and accessories if you buy them new. In other words you are not in their demographic and will not contribute to the success of the company.


----------



## Zetta_x (Feb 24, 2013)

J-Machine said:


> First sony wanted to keep the ps3 for a few more years but Nintendo is forcing them to act sooner because of the wii-u. knowing that the new xbox will also be around the corner, this further forces action. They are doing this to stay competitive amongst the alternatives that are preventing them from playing things safe and allowing them to make the money they need after years of losses. they simply can't afford to be left behind nor can they afford what ps3 BC will mean to them in the short term.
> 
> As for your wii-U argument. if what you said is true than nintendo will rarely see profit from you. the production run is usually over if you buy new at a reduced price and non existent when they are used. they only thing they can count on from you is online purchases and accessories if you buy them new. In other words you are not in their demographic and will not contribute to the success of the company.


 

Agreed about my Wii-U argument. The difference is that me playing the Wii-U will boost it's reputation which in return will boost sales for people who will buy new stuff. God, the amount of people that have bought Wii's after coming to my house is amazing. Even if they didn't know that you can pirate on it, it is still a hit at some of the parties I go to. I got one of my friends into Wii many years ago. He went to Berkeley and did his undergraduate there. His apartment roommates decided to buy the Wii after watching him play. Reputation is the key point here, don't underestimate it. I haven't seen anything about the Vita (other than on these forums). It nearly has no reputation like at all. All the people I know are sticking to PSPs (pirate or not).

Do you think, on average, kids will ask for Xboxes or the Vita more? Why is that? Maybe because all of their friends have Xboxes and not Vitas. We live in an era where multiplayer is a high selling point. Something that can only be done with reputation. Which is another reason why SNES did not need backwards compatibility because most of it's reputation was not focused on multi player and an upgrade was fully justified.

As for Sony being forced to upgrade, this is evidence they need better reputation more than ever.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 24, 2013)

ITT: Maths don't real.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Feb 24, 2013)

hey remember the nes, genesis, snes etc they WEREN'T BC and SHOCK people still bought them!


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

Bladexdsl said:


> hey remember the nes, genesis, snes etc they WEREN'T BC and SHOCK people still bought them!


To be fair, Genesis was backwards compatible, just via a cartridge adapter.


----------



## J-Machine (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> You're still missing the point. BC provides an incentive for people to purchase your device, especially since they're already heavily conservative and aren't going to splash out money so easily.
> 
> And I probably made a calculation error somewhere, you are correct, but the point isn't the figures. The problem is, basic calculations like that are nonsense and don't mean anything in the least. What's more important is the price/demand curves which obviously nobody has.


 
No I'm not missing the point. you are. A person of your financial background simply is not currently in the demographic needed to make a profit on the new system in question. This is the reason your needs as a consumer will not be met. Your money is not worth the effort. Others will be able to afford the pros and cons of this system and thus will buy the system and will contribute to sony making their money back. Once that happens you will see new revisions and or price drops. if the new price is something you can afford both monetarily and personally then you are free to buy into the system and contribute to sony's financial stability. if not wait till you can or make the sacrifices needed to have it, even if that means buying used after the system has already become obsolete.

This is a want, not a need. you can survive without it and as such you can avoid it if you can't have it.

Also the point is the figures. the figures are what make or break a company financially. if they are unknown then it is also unknown how well the company is doing with the decisions they made not that it matters in this case as they are providing a want and not a need. them no longer providing you with a medium for entertainment is not going to make you starve or keep you without shelter. you will live regardless of whether they succeed or not.


----------



## Zetta_x (Feb 24, 2013)

Bladexdsl said:


> hey remember the nes, genesis, snes etc they WEREN'T BC and SHOCK people still bought them!


 
I gave a good argument why they didn't need to be backwards compatible. Two decades make a difference.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Feb 24, 2013)

I blame Sony for spoiling people with BC, PS2 was BC launch PS3 was BC all the way back to PS1. I guess people just got used to the idea of keeping and playing the old library on the new systems.  That and I think one of the Sony mouth peices said something to the effect that all Playstations would be backwards compatible, or maybe I am just remembering wrong... lol


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> Err. The internet wasn't widely available back then, and our communication options on a worldwide basis weren't that great either. I don't think we'll truly ever know what the situation was like back then.
> 
> As for your second point, why should I waste my time trying to present the evidence that you talked about? That's the equivalent of saying "oh the prosecution has found evidence that shows the defense was at the scene, but it's up to the defense to find that evidence for us". What? Seriously?
> 
> Multiple polls have been linked in this conversation, and they all show a similar trend and have a respectable number of respondents. By all means feel free to provide better surveys, but I don't think we're going to get them. The problem with the financial reports that everyone are on about, is that they're not specific as to the cause of the issues, and present no real data as what predictions were made in regards to specific features. Aggregate data says nothing really.


 
You're talking about polling a bunch of people who want everything at an affordable price as to whether they want everything at an affordable price. Sometimes it's just not doable...

As far as your evidence analogy...why the fuck would I take the time to google and link something that a) has been posted ad nauseam on this very forum, and b) you would simply ignore anyway to continue your rant on how stupid Sony is? You're perfectly fine looking like an ill-informed jackass and you can count on me to help prolong it as much as possible.



Zetta_x said:


> This is part of my point. Decades ago was a complete different era. There was virtually no need to add BC because the entire customer base moved forward. There are people (like my girlfriend and many others) who still play PS2 games for entertainment. The difference between then and now is that the customer base is not going to move forward.
> 
> Once again, I'm not advocating adding BC. I don't know the true loss functions associated with having BC and not having BC. I'm just saying they will be cutting off their customer base if this streaming BC doesn't work out. For example, when they had BC on PS3 ... 600 dollar price tag. It was unpopular for being so expensive that many people bought PS2 anyways. When they reduced the price of the PS3, it no longer appealed to it's customer base. Thank god that the BC consoles did bring in some people and Sony had a pretty good reputation otherwise the PS3 wouldn't be in the stage it is in today.


What exactly makes you think that the customer base is not going to move forward? And what exactly has led you to believe that customers simply went with the flow 20 years ago?


----------



## Veho (Feb 24, 2013)

Peps said:


> Multiple polls have been linked in this conversation, and they all show a similar trend and have a respectable number of respondents.


And we all know online polls are 100% reliable, reflect the public opinion, and are to be trusted without question. I mean, they _obviously_ accurately reflect the will of the majority. 

Oh, I'm sure a lot of people would like to see backwards compatibility (it's a really neat feature), but if they're not willing to pay for it, the point is moot.


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 24, 2013)

I mentioned a lot of these arguments before, but they seemed to be of forgotten about and ignored...

I don't think I've face palmed this much while reading and commenting in a thread.

I do have to say though, this is the longest online argument about video games I've ever seen where no one has pulled the fanboy card. Congratulations internet! You have decided to throw away your with backwards compatibly with not using old and outdated internet insult guidelines, decided to put your efforts into having a proper argument instead, and maximizing your return out of this thread! :cheer:


----------



## J-Machine (Feb 24, 2013)

Zetta_x said:


> Agreed about my Wii-U argument. The difference is that me playing the Wii-U will boost it's reputation which in return will boost sales for people who will buy new stuff. God, the amount of people that have bought Wii's after coming to my house is amazing. Even if they didn't know that you can pirate on it, it is still a hit at some of the parties I go to. I got one of my friends into Wii many years ago. He went to Berkeley and did his undergraduate there. His apartment roommates decided to buy the Wii after watching him play. Reputation is the key point here, don't underestimate it. I haven't seen anything about the Vita (other than on these forums). It nearly has no reputation like at all. All the people I know are sticking to PSPs (pirate or not).
> 
> Do you think, on average, kids will ask for Xboxes or the Vita more? Why is that? Maybe because all of their friends have Xboxes and not Vitas. We live in an era where multiplayer is a high selling point. Something that can only be done with reputation. Which is another reason why SNES did not need backwards compatibility because most of it's reputation was not focused on multi player and an upgrade was fully justified.
> 
> As for Sony being forced to upgrade, this is evidence they need better reputation more than ever.


I agree with the power or reputation however I was talking on the individual's account. however lets be reminded that if you influence 10 people to buy the system and they take to their purchases the same way you do it is only going to change how much more Nintendo is hoping on online purchases and accessories to make a profit. Of course those 10 could also buy wheelbarrows full of new content and Nintendo is able to swan dive into the money they make but like all things this is an unknown and as such the value of the reputation is also unknown. this only changes the extremes of what can or cannot happen though it is a more exiting gamble that many would take.

as for BC in the past (no pun intended) When I was growing up I had a NES to begin my life in gaming. the first time I saw backwards compatibility was with the GBC but I never realized it was that until the GBA came out. after that it was the ps2. half my life went by before I saw BC in a console and that was only after I bought a slim and read the instruction manual for it. BC means nothing to me as until then I never had it and to be honest I never asked for it or expected it. I also very rarely capitalize on it. Then again there is a generation gap explaining my standpoint already and as such people who started with the PS2 may think differently. However we are the larger demographic as not only do we buy for ourselves now but we dictate what our children will get and if we don't care about BC then we wont care if it isnt there and will still happily buy into the new console unless we have no backbone and are simply walking atms for the family we have which is a whole other can of worms altogether...


----------



## Rizsparky (Feb 24, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> I blame Sony for spoiling people with BC, PS2 was BC launch PS3 was BC all the way back to PS1. I guess people just got used to the idea of keeping and playing the old library on the new systems. That and I think one of the Sony mouth peices said something to the effect that all Playstations would be backwards compatible, or maybe I am just remembering wrong... lol


Yeah, Im hoping Nintendo doesnt keep their BC tendencies too, I don't want the next handheld to be dual screened with 3D just so that it can play 3D games of the past..


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 24, 2013)

Scuba156 said:


> *I do have to say though, this is the longest online argument about video games I've ever seen where no one has pulled the fanboy card.* Congratulations internet! :cheer:


 _*WII*U AND 3*DS* R BACKWUR*DS* COMPATURRIBLE ERGO BETTUR NINTENDOH MASTUR RACE *WOOT!* _


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

Scuba156 said:


> I mentioned a lot of these arguments before, but they seemed to be of forgotten about and ignored...


Have you seen how long it took to convince Peps that BC is more expensive, the PS3 sold at a loss, more sales of a loss is a bigger net loss, etc.

Now it's on whether BC is actually wanted or not.

Any bets on the next subject, anybody? =D


----------



## Gahars (Feb 24, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Have you seen how long it took to convince Peps that BC is more expensive, the PS3 sold at a loss, more sales of a loss is a bigger net loss, etc.
> 
> Now it's on whether BC is actually wanted or not.
> 
> Any bets on the next subject, anybody? =D


 
How long a person can keep their head in the sand before they need to breath?


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Feb 24, 2013)

Gahars said:


> How long a person can keep their head in the sand before they need to breath?


 
My guess is it depends on how dry the sand is.... lol


----------



## Bladexdsl (Feb 24, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> I blame Sony for spoiling people with BC


rule number 1: always blame sony


----------



## Zetta_x (Feb 24, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> You're talking about polling a bunch of people who want everything at an affordable price as to whether they want everything at an affordable price. Sometimes it's just not doable...
> 
> As far as your evidence analogy...why the fuck would I take the time to google and link something that a) has been posted ad nauseam on this very forum, and b) you would simply ignore anyway to continue your rant on how stupid Sony is? You're perfectly fine looking like an ill-informed jackass and you can count on me to help prolong it as much as possible.
> 
> What exactly makes you think that the customer base is not going to move forward? And what exactly has led you to believe that customers simply went with the flow 20 years ago?


 
Number of competitive alternatives to gaming answers almost all of your questions.

We are in a generation of smart phones, tablets, PC's Xboxes, flippydees, flippydoos, and widdlewarts. There is so many god damn competitive things for entertainment, the probability of someone picking the Vita given they have not used a Sony gaming console is almost none. This is why the userbase is so low, it's primarily made up of Sony customers. That's where Sony is going to make all of their money off the Vita, from past customers. However, since they limited the number of people who can purchase, the flow is restricted.

The probability of buying a SNES given you have played the NES must have been amazingly high. Evidence for this is the large amount of sales, both the NES and SNES sold so many consoles that the probability of someone owning a NES and a SNES is much higher than someone who owned an NES and not an SNES. Again, because the lack of competitive alternative consoles, it was a no brainer to move forward.

How many people were still playing NES when the N64 came out? Not as much as how many people are playing PS2 when the PS4 comes out. This is evidence the flow will stop and does not have to move forward. Maybe PS2 people will buy a PS3 and move on when the PS4 comes out, but that's not SONY's objective.

My posts were not meant to advocate BC. My posts were to enlighten what they are sacrificing by not adding BC. I've even mentioned what BC did to the PS3 in the beginning and how that failed miserably (different times so I'm not making the assumption the PS4 would repeat said failures as I have no idea what the loss functions associated to each of them). I even mentioned that PS3 emulated firmware would have the same public keys as the PS3 now which is essentially a security risk if unsigned code can be ran in the PS4. There is so many god damn reasons why Sony should not add BC.

The equation is the balance between reputation and short term profits. If they were able to take a hit on short term profits, BC is a no brainer, more reputation => more investors => more sales => win. However, as been mention, we don't know the effect of reputation although I have outlined some portion of it. So we can not accurately say which one is stronger.


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 24, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Have you seen how long it took to convince Peps that BC is more expensive, the PS3 sold at a loss, more sales of a loss is a bigger net loss, etc.
> 
> Now it's on whether BC is actually wanted or not.
> 
> Any bets on the next subject, anybody? =D


Yeah I have, I was there man, I was freakin there! 

I said about Sony's stock and their financial position but I was told that apparently they should still take the loss.

My guess is it will be about whether it's the government's fault that it lacks BC


----------



## Jan1tor (Feb 24, 2013)

I never really cared if a system is backwards compatible or not in my decision to buy a new console. I simply keep my old unit to play on. I have a DS Phat, DS Lite, DSI, 3ds, 3ds Xl. Hell I still have my old Panasonic 3DO. So if you give up your old system that is your choice. If I was Sony I wouldn't build it in either, just to keep the cost down. It is nice when a company does it, but it is really not practical.


----------



## Rydian (Feb 24, 2013)

Well in some cases it's practical, like the Wii-GC and 3DS-DS, but not when there's an architecture change and the previous hardware is too expensive to be negligible.


----------



## Zetta_x (Feb 24, 2013)

Edit: Speaking out of my arsehoolllelelee

Don't reply to what I had posted here Rydian. Dear god please have missed it.


----------



## joelv6 (Feb 24, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> So like, how come Sony is so much against Backwards Compatibility? Retail games, yeah, I can understand, but digital games? There's really no excuse on that one.


 
Sony is a hater haha that all


----------



## Zetta_x (Feb 24, 2013)

joelv6 said:


> Sony is a hater haha that all


 
Really? Are you serious? Do you really think Sony doesn't add digital backwards compatibility just because they are haters? You are pretty new to GBAtemp, If I explain why it's not possible you'll probably never want to come back to GBAtemp. So I'm going to save the time...


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 24, 2013)

Zetta_x said:


> Number of competitive alternatives to gaming answers almost all of your questions.
> 
> We are in a generation of smart phones, tablets, PC's Xboxes, flippydees, flippydoos, and widdlewarts. There is so many god damn competitive things for entertainment, the probability of someone picking the Vita given they have not used a Sony gaming console is almost none. This is why the userbase is so low, it's primarily made up of Sony customers. That's where Sony is going to make all of their money off the Vita, from past customers. However, since they limited the number of people who can purchase, the flow is restricted.
> 
> ...


 
That does make a lot of sense.

However, from Sony's perspective, they would be banking on the "idea" that someone would be more inclined to purchase a BC console based on already owned PS1/PS2 and to some extent PS3 games.  PS1 and PS2 software sales are used-market-only.  PS3 software sales will eventually be there.  There is little, if any, money to be made from these transactions.

Another thing to note is that BC would ultimately lead to a potential loss of PS4 software sales in favor of the PS3 counterparts seeing as there will most certainly be simultaneous releases of things like Madden, CoD, and numerous other titles.  If PS3 and PS4 games are priced the same ($60) then PS3 users are going to be getting ripped off.  If PS4 games are priced at a premium ($70 let's say) then Sony is essentially competing with themselves as some customers may feel more inclined to purchase the cheaper PS3 version.

BC is exponentially more complex from a sales and marketing standpoint than a simple "let me play my old games" argument...


----------



## Zetta_x (Feb 25, 2013)

Agreed,

Which makes sense why they are doing the streaming service (it gives them a chance to make more sales on previous games without letting people use used games).

---

If Sony is going to be successful, they will have to focus on gaming innovation. It's clear that they will need to appeal not only to previous Sony customers but they need to be competitive so they can attract the people who have not owned a Sony console. In today's market, if someone where to go out and buy a product for entertainment, they will pick one of many different things. The way money works, they will most likely not buy every entertainment product available.

I'm sad because I'm really enjoying my PS3 and would like to continue to purchase Sony consoles. However, from what I have seen of the PS4, while it does appeal to me, it doesn't seem to have a significant amount of innovation for it's price. It's going to lose when competing with other products. I won't make an investment if I feel that SONY will not be able to follow up with the console.


----------



## Jayro (Feb 25, 2013)

I'm glad the PS4 will be x86-based. Makes hacker's jobs that much easier. Hopefully this thing will get cracked wide open faster than the PS3. Emulator ports to the PS4 would be super easy, compared to the Cell and RSX chips.


----------



## joelv6 (Feb 25, 2013)

Zetta_x said:


> Really? Are you serious? Do you really think Sony doesn't add digital backwards compatibility just because they are haters? You are pretty new to GBAtemp, If I explain why it's not possible you'll probably never want to come back to GBAtemp. So I'm going to save the time...


 
honestly dude, chill, i been going to gbatemp for quite a while lol i just recently wanted to join because of this awesome community.
i like joke around so yeah, just to letting you know
anyway, its my fault for not putting some sort signal that it was a joke so yeah
so my apologies sir


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 25, 2013)

---


----------



## Rydian (Feb 25, 2013)

So apparently history means nothing to you.


----------



## Yepi69 (Feb 25, 2013)

Lol figures this would happen.

After a few years they dropped the PS2 compatibility off the PS3 no wonder they would drop the compatibility with the PS4.

At least Nintendo keeps its compatibility


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 25, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> At least Nintendo keeps its compatibility


...along with their _mad outdated_ architectures.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 26, 2013)

---


----------



## Veho (Feb 26, 2013)

Peps said:


> History is very subjective. We'll never know the real reason as to why something has failed. We can theorise as much as possible, but ultimately we will never be able to jump into the minds of every single person in the world, and find out why they didn't purchase a particular item.


And yet, if the PS4 fails, you'll happily take it as proof of your particular theory.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 26, 2013)

---


----------



## Veho (Feb 26, 2013)

Here's some food for thought then: PS3 sales picked up after the backwards compatibility was removed.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 26, 2013)

---


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 26, 2013)

Peps said:


> Implying that x86 isn't mad outdated.


Implying that amd64 with an on-die integrated GPU is ancient.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 26, 2013)

---


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 26, 2013)

Peps said:


> The core fundamentals of the architecture is ancient. The stuff on top is obviously recent, but then the exact same argument can be used with the Wii U. If it's not dated to use a processor based on an old architecture with an integrated GPU on top, then the Wii U isn't used a dated architecture easy.
> 
> ARM all the way! Modern and efficient!


You don't seem to grasp what I meant.

For example, the WiiU's CPU carries the same stigma the Gamecube's CPU carried - crippled SIMD. It will always carry it for the sake of BC.

Changing the architecture for the PS4 means a farewell to CELL problems such as having to code in Assembly for particular cores. Coding for x86 is idiot-proof.

People should embrace change when change is for the better, and here it certainly is.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 26, 2013)

I don't know how efficient the Wii u architecture is in general, but , unless I'm misunderstanding something, couldn't they have fully emulated the Wii?


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 26, 2013)

---


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 26, 2013)

For the record, there is no evidence to say backwards compatibility really hampers sales.

However, time after time, it is evident that price does.

So when it comes between backwards compatibility and a lower price, everyone will choose the later option.

On the PS3, when it was backwards compatible, it had a high price and didn't sell. When it lost backwards compatibility for a lower price, it sold well. That's not just a coincidence.

When it comes to the PS4, between a lower price point and a backwards compatible device, everyone will want the lower price.

If the console is $599 and it's not backwards compatible then yeah, go complain about it, but otherwise, it's a trade off that everyone agrees on.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 26, 2013)

Everything depends on how you define efficiency. For a scientist "efficient" means "does the most at the lowest possible power consumption", but for a programmer, efficient would be "does the most with the lowest amount on input" and in this category, x86 obliterates all competition. It's fair to say that the architecture has a lot of legacy components to it that just keep stacking up, but more often than not, those components equate less pointless hurdles to deal with. Apple tried to incorporate PowerPC as a rival architecture for at least a decade and failed miserably because despite all the benefits PowerPC has, x86 "just works", and now better than ever with integrated GPU's so that it can lay off the floating point calculations at which it's crap to a more specialized unit, and not via a tunel all across the mother board but directly, via shared memory.


----------



## Veho (Feb 26, 2013)

Peps said:


> Again, subjective. Correlation does not mean causation. That's something a lot of you can't seem to understand whatsoever.


I was being facetious. And still am   

"Correlation does not imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there.'"

 Either way, since correlation does not mean causation, actual sales numbers don't reflect people's real motivations to buy (and, obviously, vice versa), so your backwards compatibility theory is irrelevant: it doesn't translate into sales.  



> Sales of the PS3 may have picked up due to the price decrease


That means people prefer a lower price point to backwards compatibility. 



> Like I said, backwards compatibility only matters for the first couple of years. No point keeping BC once the previous generation of the console has been phased out of retail stores.


You'd think backwards compatibility would be _more_ important after the older system is no longer available. 

BC  means the console has a large library at launch, but if you're selling the console at a loss you may not want to boost your sales _too_ much. And it's only a valid sales tactic if you have funds enough to buffer the losses for a year or two - and Sony doesn't. 

I am going to quote my awesome amazing self now: 


Veho said:


> a lot of people would like to see backwards compatibility (it's a really neat feature), but if they're not willing to pay for it, the point is moot.



Sony can't afford to have backwards compatibility and a low price tag at the same time (because they can't afford to eat the losses), and guess which one is more likely to bring in more sales.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 26, 2013)

---


----------



## Veho (Feb 26, 2013)

Peps said:


> Refer to my response to Guild.


It doesn't address any of my points. 



Peps said:


> See, that's not the issue here. You're over-simplifying it and you're completely ignoring the beginning of the life-cycle of a console. It's the beginning that's important here, not just the middle of the life-cycle which the majority of people seem to be looking at.


BC means the console has a large library at launch, but if you're selling the console at a loss you may not want to boost your sales too much. And it's only a valid sales tactic if you have funds enough to buffer the losses for a year or two - and Sony doesn't.  



Peps said:


> The question is, how much does the customer value backwards compatibility at the beginning of the console's life? I'd argue, a hell of a lot, and polls have shown that 50% of respondees on average would gladly pay at minimum $50 extra to get that backwards compatibility support.


50% of a small, non-representative sample comprising mostly of people with strong views on the subject on an anonymous website with no obligation to back their demands. But when the chips are down, how many of them would be willing to put their money where their mouths are? _Not enough. _

Online polls are not indicative of the real state of things. 



> It operates as an incentive to purchase the console. Let's assume someone offered you Product A for the cost of $200, and Product B for the cost of $400. Now if Product B came with Product A support for $450, which seems the most appealing here?


To people who already own product A, the former option, because why pay an additional $50 for something you already own?


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 26, 2013)

---


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 26, 2013)

I'm pretty sure early PS3 adopters bought it because it was "the new Playstation" and not specifically because it was backwards compatible...  People buy things when they're new...because they're new...


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 26, 2013)

What are we even arguing here?

If we're arguing that a lack of BC hurts console sales, statistics said otherwise. The more expensive, backwards compatible PS3 sold terribly. The cheaper, non-BC PS3 sold very well.

If we're arguing that it should be cheap AND backwards compatible, then I suggest you return to your land of triple rainbows and unicorns. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you're arguing that theoretically the PS3 sales would be worse if it was expensive AND wasn't BC, then no fucking shit. But it was expensive BECAUSE it was backwards compatible.

Like I'm thoroughly confused why we're arguing this point when it is *factually wrong.*


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 26, 2013)

---


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Feb 26, 2013)

At this point I don't think peps even knows anymore. I think he just doesn't want to be "wrong" so he keeps clinging to stuff.


----------



## Arm73 (Feb 26, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> What are we even arguing here?
> 
> If we're arguing that a lack of BC hurts console sales, statistics said otherwise. The more expensive, backwards compatible PS3 sold terribly. The cheaper, non-BC PS3 sold very well.
> 
> ...


OK, tell me something:
Let's say Sony and third party developers wouldn't let the PS3 die so soon and actually release good games still trough 2013 and possibly 2014. That would be good, right ?
Let's also say for the sake of argument that these developers or Sony themselves don't publish this games for the PS4, for a variety of reasons like increased development cost for example or maybe some publishers just wouldn't want to invest too much in bringing games to the PS4 because of the relatively small user base in the next couple of years and opt instead to still publish for the PS3 for better investment returns.
Basically, if a user wants to play a PS3 game ( or a PSN ) has to keep a PS3 alongside the PS4 and possibly PS2 (since PS3 also isn't BC with PS2, some people might care ).
Some also have a Wii, or a Wii U or an Xbox360/720
Are you suggesting to stuck each console on top of each other or on the side ? What about people who relies on selling the PS3 in order to buy a PS4, don't you think they'd be royally screwed over, not being able to play their games once they get the new hardware ?

I understand Sony reasoning and I accept the explanation. I know it's a complete hardware change and it is for the better in the long run ( I actually applaud them for it ), but it's hard to deny that BC is a _good thing to have_.
We don't have it. Fine.
But just because isn't there , there is no need to defend Sony and turn the tables around saying that BC is totally useless and redundant.
There are some people who care, and there are some scenario in which it can be considered _very useful_ .
There is no point in denying it.

As usual, your Sony glass of water is half full.......or is it half empty ? 

P.S.
I didn't buy a PS3 ( surprise  ) but I really like the PS4.
Too bad if I buy it, I won't be able to catch up on games that I always wanted to play like Uncharted and Infamous.
It's always nice to play old games between new releases on the new systems.
I guess I'll stick with my gaming PC and enjoy what I can.


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Feb 26, 2013)

The bottom line is BC is convient if its there but nowhere near a deal breaker if its not. If somebody doesn't buy a ps4 because of no bc they obviously didn't want one that much to begin with.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 26, 2013)

Peps is also ignoring my post the other day pointing out that were the PS4 to be backwards compatible, Sony would likely be competing with itself for software sales...  The PS3 and PS4 will most definitely have side-by-side releases of all the multiplatform games (Madden, CoD, etc...).  With little graphical difference (by "little" I simply mean not as huge a leap as this gen was) what's to stop people from just buying the cheaper, PS3 version of a game?


----------



## Veho (Feb 26, 2013)

Peps said:


> And again, you don't know how much it costs to implement BC, you have no idea what turnover it will bring in, you have no idea what impact it will have on sales


 And neither do you, and yet you're attacking Sony based on it. Perhaps their estimate is that it would boost sales but not as much as a lower price would, so they opted for the latter. 



> you have no idea what their strategy even is or why they decided not to implement it.


I know their strategy is to not include backwards compatibility in the actual hardware. They're working on getting PS2/3 titles available via streaming, meaning they acknowledge the benefits of BC but don't find it feasible to include it in the hardware. 



> Online polls are the only source of information we have. As long as they're from non-biased websites (eg. Nintendo based forum, or Sony based forum), then they're good general indicators as to how people feel. I doubt people are going to be dishonest about backwards compatibility


Unless the poll is obligatory for every visitor of the site, the sample isn't an accurate cross section of the site's population. It's not about honesty, it's about lethargy; if the poll is not obligatory, the only people who will vote in the poll are the people with opinions on the subject, and between "I want BC with all my heart" and "I don't really care either way", which one would you say is the stronger incentive to vote? 

And no, online polls can't be trusted. 



> the issue is _"what can Sony do to make the device more appealing to the consumer so that they'll want to purchase it no matter what?"_


 Give it away for free. But some things just aren't feasible. 



> Why pay an additional $50 for something you own? Like I said, so you can sell off the old one and save a lot of money. Easy.


I don't want to sell my stuff. And I don't want to pay more just so that someone else could save money.  



> Nobody is asking for something to be cheap and backwards compatible


Actually you did, a few pages ago. You said Sony should have included BC at the current price, and that software sales would make up for the losses in profit on hardware that BC would incur. 



> A small increase in price perhaps, but huge value for money means that sales would increase.


According to your own words, you don't know how much the price increase would be, so you can't claim it would be small. And the increase in value-for-money would be subjective and only "huge" for some people, while others wouldn't care. 



> There hasn't been a single fact presented that suggests that BC harms sales. All that has been presented is highly circumstantial and subjective evidence.


And there hasn't been a single fact presented that suggests BC increases sales enough to offset the increased development and manufacturing costs needed to implement it.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 26, 2013)

---


----------



## J-Machine (Feb 26, 2013)

This is gonna be the last post I make on this thread as It feels like arguing for the sake of arguing now. I may or may not be a "average consumer" but I can tell you my income is slightly above poverty thanks to a medical condition and taking care of a disabled parent. I work hard for this luxury and make many sacrifices for it. Here is a rundown of every system I ever bought.:

Ps2: bought star ocean 3 when it was 30 dollars but waited an extra year to buy the system with a side job I was almost to sick to do over a weekend selling leather jackets.

DS: waited for the lite and my only motivation was my gameboy advance was lost in a move and wanted something for my hour long bus rides to school. this time I was well enough to work though and had a job.

Wii: Only because it was cheaper than the competition, cause I never owned a gamecube or n64 and it was essentially having 3 systems at once still waited over a year to get it though.

360: only because I couldn't afford a ps3 and because my friends liked playing online far more than being in the same room as someone. Later found out my 19 inch crt made reading text near impossible, that online was not free and I could not afford it ( i payed for my internet). I ended up playing doom for 2 months then traded the system for a slim ps3

Ps3: was hoping I'd be able to read text on this, still couldn't so I let it collect dust for a year. cfw came out and I used it religiously for videos only until a year ago when a best buy promotion netted me an hdtv for a hundred bucks.

WiiU: My bucket list had "wait in line during a launch for a new console." It was one of those moments where I pretended I had the money to do these things and my credit card still has to be payed off from getting a deluxe console (was going to get a basic but it was sold out lol)

To iterate my software buying habits The only 2 games I bought day one were metroid prime three and ZombieU. Both were directly linked to A new experience with a freind and only metroid was a pre-order. Every other game I buy I wait for a price drop, good sale, get it used, borrow, or from a 5-20 dollar bin after researching the game extensively. In other words rarely am I a gamer who supports the people who make the consoles or games. Then again I can't afford to but hope someday I can.

Yes this is anecdotal evidence and should be taken with a grain of salt but I think it helps illustrate that people prefer cheap over substance as every time I bought a BC console, price paid a big role in my final decision as did all other purchases showing it's importance over BC (wii is the only exception) This is also from a financial standpoint where trading in a system would have greatly helped every time but wasn't done because I still enjoyed the systems I already had. In fact Without a hdtv I'd be only playing games on the wii and ps2 to this day as they would be he only real options available to me.

Then again not everyone takes this hobby with as much thought and acceptance of their limitations to enjoy it like I do if peps idea of the average consumer is actually correct and might explain why debt is such a big deal these days.

oh and BC only really became a thing because Japanese households are smaller than most countries and it was competing for living room space not only with other companies but also the previous offering they would have. allowing people to play those older system games while they waited for new offerings was an added bonus that complimented this. Not to mention similar architectures made this possible in most cases.


----------



## Veho (Feb 26, 2013)

> How many times does this argument have to be debunked? *The whole point of BC is to make people really want the bloody console.* You don't just add BC because "why not". You add it so that people have an incentive to purchase the thing.


 The whole point of BC is to *make people who want BC to really want the console, and it does absolutely nothing for anyone else*. You add it so that *some people, far from all* have an *added* (since it's not the only draw of the console) *incentive to buy*. So basically, it targets a tiny percentage of the potential market. *Why are we yelling?*



> In regards to poll, if that was the case, then we can never trust any form of research ever conducted by the human species.


You'd be amazed at the amount of research that aren't polls or surveys. But regarding polls, we _can_ trust research that uses good sampling. Trusting a poll with incorrect sampling is like looking at a petition and saying "wow, 100% of the population supports XYZ". Proper sampling eliminates bias. Online polls don't involve proper sampling. 

Online polls can't be trusted. 




> What I'm arguing is that BC is a perfectly viable business option, and that people shouldn't be going "LOL NO".


And "no BC" is also a viable business option. We are arguing that you are severely overestimating the impact of backwards compatibility, and you've done nothing to dissuade us.


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 26, 2013)

BC isn't something that can be magically added to a console, especially a system as complex as a PS3. If someone wants to look for all the documentation, reverse engineer and add backwards compatibility from a system that uses IBM Cell to a system that uses an x86 AMD architecture, be my guest.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 26, 2013)

Peps said:


> Nothing has been ignored. Your point has been irrelevant. And if you did bring up a point I missed, I apologise. It's hard to debate against multiple people at once here.
> 
> What's to stop people from buying the cheaper PS3 version of the game? Well nothing, but *eventually* that will be phased out for the newer product. You don't just stop supporting your old console when you release the next iteration, because that's just suicidal to a business. You slowly phase these things out and encourage people to buy the new product. Although do remember, Sony will still receive money from PS3 sales, and there will be games that are only released on PS3 and only released on PS4.


 
...

You're arguing that Sony needs to sell as many PS4s as possible, right out the gate, by any means necessary...and then you switch course and say you're not worried about the potential for poor PS4 software sales because they will *eventually* pick up?  You realize *eventually *is 2 to 3 years down the road, right?  It's starting to sound like Sony needs only to push consoles out the door and worry about supporting them later to satisfy your argument...

and yes, Sony will receive money from new PS3 software sales (though, likely less)...but if they're selling more PS3 versions and fewer PS4 versions it will certainly affect shipping numbers and strict "PS4 Revenue"...which means more doom and gloom forecasts Valwin threads in the USN about "OMGZZ DA PS4 IS FALEZZZ"

If you can justify paying more for BC by saying "people can sell off their old consoles to put towards the new" then why can't you justify paying for games again by saying "people can sell off their old games to put towards their digital counterparts"?  If your response is "they won't have the entire catalogue of games up on the marketplace" then my response is "that's what the PS3 is for".  If you're argument is "people should be able to sell their PS3 and put the money towards a PS4" my response is "it's entirely their choice whether or not they want to give up one system for another, but Sony has obviously done the research to recognize (and history has shown) that BC =/= successful launch."


----------



## Yepi69 (Feb 26, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> ...along with their _mad outdated_ architectures.


At least they keep their compatibility


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 26, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> At least they keep their compatibility


No, they don't. That's how the whole _"keeping"_ business looked like as of late:


Spoiler









*>Dropped Game Boy Advance Backwards Compatibility*
*>That's okay, at least it has cameras and an SD Slot*

_(I always argue that the DSi is actually a successor to the DS rather than a revision due to hardware differences and NOBODY on this forum ever agrees with me on this because "it has very little exclusive software" so here you go - suck it up, the "revision" does less than the original)_


*



*
*>Dropped Gamecube Backwards Compatibility*
*>That's okay, at least it's cheaper*


*



*
*>Dropped Gamecube Backwards Compatibility and Wi-Fi*
*>That's okay, at least it's cheaper*


*



*
*>Dropped PlayStation 2 Backwards Compatibility*
*>OUTRAGEOUS! *


*



*
*>Dropped PS3 Backwards Compatibility*
*>OUTRAGEOUS! *


----------



## emigre (Feb 26, 2013)

DAMN FOXI YOU'RE SUCH A SONY FAGTARDBOY!


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Feb 26, 2013)

@peps If I really want to make waffles, I'm not going to pass on getting a waffle maker just because it doesn't make pancakes. It's the same thing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 26, 2013)

mysticwaterfall said:


> @peps If *I really want to make waffles*, I'm not going to pass on getting a waffle maker just because it doesn't make pancakes. It's the same thing.




I'm sorry, opportunities for posting this are far more rare than you can imagine - gotta take each and every one.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 26, 2013)

mysticwaterfall said:


> @peps If I really want to make waffles, I'm not going to pass on getting a waffle maker just because it doesn't make pancakes. It's the same thing.


That was an awful, awful analogy...


----------



## rocktoto (Feb 26, 2013)

Well I hope you guys have fun on it me myself I'm done buying consoles unless its some truly ground breaking but I don't think that will happen 4 a while happy gaming . Ps I'm off 2 the basketball court


----------



## Yepi69 (Feb 26, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> No, they don't. That's how the whole _"keeping"_ business looked like as of late:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Fun fact: GBA compatibility was dropped when they released the DSi in 2008

2005 - 2008 RIP GBA

GCN compatibility was dropped when they released the ''new'' Wii in 2012

2006 - 2012 RIP GCN (Longer than the PS2 compatibility on the PS3)

Wi-Fi compatibility was dropped when they released the ''new'' Wii Mini in 2012 as well.

RIP Wi-Fi 2012-2013 (Not that I care anyways, a used Wii is cheaper)

PS1/PS2 compatibility was dropped when they released the ''different'' PS3 in 2008.

2006 - 2008 RIP PS1/PS2

You were saying?


----------



## Qtis (Feb 26, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> PS1/PS2 compatibility was dropped when they released the ''different'' PS3 in 2008.
> 
> 2006 - 2008 RIP PS1/PS2
> 
> You were saying?


The shit are you smoking? My 2011 PS3 plays PS1 games just fine.

While people with PS2s won't buy the PS2 games on PSN, many other people may. I've got a PS2 phat and a huge library of games for it (thanks especially to second hand games), but I've still bought quite a few games for the PS3 from PSN (FF1-FF9 (PSX) for example, even though I've got the originals for the PS). It's just more convenient to play them on the PSVita and while it'd be cool to be able to load the existing games on the newest handheld, I don't see it happening. Why? Because it doesn't have a CD-sized disk drive (thank god for that).

EDIT:
DS Lites were produced till 2011, WiFi Wiis are still in production and used consoles are sold quite cheap everywhere. If you can't get one of those for your need, I'm surprised. I've been able to get used consoles with quite a few games for dirt cheap vs the original prices.

EDIT2:
What about the Xbox360 that added Xbox compatibility along the way? Sony has yet to say that BC will never come to the PS4. Instead they've said that it won't support PS1/2/3 games *during launch* due to not having the hardware (the 360 has software emulations too).


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 26, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> No, they don't. That's how the whole _"keeping"_ business looked like as of late:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...








Boo-f***ing hoo


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 26, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Boo-f***ing hoo


Missed my point. What I'm saying is that Sony are not the only ones dropping BC when it can cut the costs - it's not _weird_ like some people tend to think.


Yepi69 said:


> You were saying?


I was saying that you happened to be wrong and provided evidence.


----------



## KingVamp (Feb 27, 2013)

AlphaOmegaSin is just a random person with a bit of a following. He talks/ rants mostly about things that are game related.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 27, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> AlphaOmegaSin is just a random person with a bit of a following. He talks/ rants mostly about things that are game related.


 
Oh Christ on a bike not this guy again.


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 27, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Oh Christ on a bike not this guy again.


Oh, he's one of_* those*_ people.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Feb 27, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Heheheheh.....why?



quote from the Peter Farley movie "tommy boy"

look it up 

Bumblebee also quotes it in one of the Transformer movies


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 27, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Oh Christ on a bike not this guy again.


He has a mug truly worthy of a beating... with a shoe.


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 27, 2013)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> quote from the *Chris* Farley movie "tommy boy"
> 
> look it up
> 
> Bumblebee also quotes it in one of the Transformer movies


 
I know that movie quite well, so that's where I got my response from.

"Does this suit make me look fat?"
"No, no, no , your face does"


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Feb 27, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> For example, the WiiU's CPU carries the same stigma the Gamecube's CPU carried - crippled SIMD. It will always carry it for the sake of BC.


 
I don't think that acronym means what you think it means... lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMD

Both PPC and X86 use it although on the X86 side you have to use the MMX extensions to get it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 27, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> I don't think that acronym means what you think it means... lol
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMD
> 
> Both PPC and X86 use it although on the X86 side you have to use the MMX extensions to get it.


GC's, Wii's and WiiU's Floating Point is carried out by 2x 32bit SIMD _(paired singles)_ which causes certain _"issues"_. Fortunately the WiiU can pass the Floating Point operation to the GPU, but not in vWii.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 27, 2013)

I'm guessing Peps is going to be pretty pissed about this
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/gamenews.php?id=100854

But at least it should eliminate most of the BC controversy from the PS5...


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 27, 2013)

---


----------



## Veho (Feb 27, 2013)

Peps said:


> BC does something for everyone. *It saves everyone money.*


How does it save money for people who for some reason or another, aren't interested in PS3 games? How does it save money for people who are only interested in PS4 titles? How does it save money for Xbox owners? How does it save money for people who have sold all their PS3 titles because they have no replay value? How does it save money for people who don't have a PS3? How does it save money for people who don't want to sell their PS3? All it does for them is add another $100 to the price tag. How is that saving money? 



> If you're not interested in saving money, that's fine, then you're just a very irrational consumer.


I am very interested in saving money. I want to pay less for the product, and if it's by sacrificing a feature I don't care about, even better. You keep talking about "value for money" and yet the value of each individual feature is highly subjective. Example: consoles in different colors. Some people don't give a crap. Others won't buy the console until a white/black/pink version comes out. 



> (see, I can come with made up statistics as well  )


I know, you've been doing it this whole thread. 



> We can also good polls that use good sampling.


Yes, a good poll is one that includes all the pupils in class, not just the ones jumping up and down on their chair with their hands raised yelling "pick me, pick me!" 

Online polls are not representative of the true majority.



> In this case, non-biased gaming community sites with a fairly large amount of respondents.


And the vast majority of the site's users can't be arsed to vote in polls or fill out surveys because they don't care either way, and the only ones who do vote in the poll are the ones who are invested in the topic, and unless the poll is obligatory for all users of the site, the result won't accurately reflect the average opinion. We covered this.  

Online polls are not a truly random sample.



> Being online is hardly a factor, it just means that the poll is far more accessible. If I were to go out in person and ask random people directly what they thought about BC, they can just as easily lie to me as they can online. You can't stop people from lying, but being online doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.


I never said anyone was lying, I just said the people who voted in the poll did not constitute a representative cross section of the market, i.e. the poll does not reflect the average consumer. 

Online polls are not reliable.



> In regards to research, some research says that gaming promotes violent behaviour, and some research says gaming doesn't, obviously both are not online based, but both are highly biased. Thus showing that offline or online hardly makes a difference. You're always going to have human behaviour no matter where you go, the medium doesn't affect the results in the least.


Both researches are based on the same set of data, only interprets them differently. If the data says "70% of violent people play violent games", there are two ways of interpreting that:
1) games make people violent 
2) violent people seek out violent entertainment. 

Both are interpretations of the same data set, only the cause and effect are a different way around. And they are completely unrelated to this discussion. 

The medium does affect the result because you have no way of monitoring the sample and no way of ensuring it's representative of the whole. And with voluntary online polls, it's not. 

Online polls don't work. Are you even reading these? 

Look, read up on sampling in statistics. It may explain a few things. 




> And if you don't understand my argument or understand how the average consumer behaves, then I recommend you don't start a business or become a manager in the least.


And my argument is that you don't represent the "average consumer", you're convinced everyone shares your opinions (when they demonstrably don't), you're cherry-picking data to confirm your bias, and you refuse to believe the average consumer might have a different view than you, and calling everyone who doesn't share your views "irrational". I understand your argument. Your argument is "everyone thinks like I do." 



> he said that even though it might seem like common sense, to a lot of people, they struggle to understand it for some reason. I honestly can't understand why, it's really easy stuff.


This is really ironic, really. 



> As we have seen with previous console launches, having a successful console launch is crucial to the success of the console.


 The PS3 had an incredibly slow start. So, no. 





You are overestimating the number of people who care about backwards compatibility at all. Of those people, you are overestimating the number of them who see a lack of it as a deal breaker; i.e. they care about it $50 but not $100, o use your numbers. It's a very narrow and specific subset of potential buyers, and you're overinflating its significance. At the same time, you are grossly underestimating the draw of a lower price point, and how many people see a higher price tag as a deal breaker. For every person who would pay $50 more (and that's an _extremely_ optimistic estimate on the price increase) for BC, how many people will hold back on their purchase until the price drops?


----------



## Yepi69 (Feb 27, 2013)

Qtis said:


> The shit are you smoking? My 2011 PS3 plays PS1 games just fine.
> 
> While people with PS2s won't buy the PS2 games on PSN, many other people may. I've got a PS2 phat and a huge library of games for it (thanks especially to second hand games), but I've still bought quite a few games for the PS3 from PSN (FF1-FF9 (PSX) for example, even though I've got the originals for the PS). It's just more convenient to play them on the PSVita and while it'd be cool to be able to load the existing games on the newest handheld, I don't see it happening. Why? Because it doesn't have a CD-sized disk drive (thank god for that).
> 
> ...


Calm down, I have a DS Lite and I have a Nintendo Wii which I bought in 2011 when it still had GC compatibility.
Not to mention Sony MAKES you buy games that you actually owned on physical copy on PSN. Such as PSP UMD games on the Vita and PS1/PS2 games on the PS3.



Foxi4 said:


> Missed my point. What I'm saying is that Sony are not the only ones dropping BC when it can cut the costs - it's not _weird_ like some people tend to think.
> I was saying that you happened to be wrong and provided evidence.


Oh goodie, did I found an Sony fan boy? YAY!!!


----------



## emigre (Feb 27, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Calm down, I have a DS Lite and I have a Nintendo Wii which I bought in 2011 when it still had GC compatibility.
> Not to mention Sony MAKES you buy games that you actually owned on physical copy on PSN. Such as PSP UMD games on the Vita and PS1/PS2 games on the PS3.


 
I was playing my physical copy of Crash Bandicoot on my PS3 on Friday. And despite the game being available on PSN, nobody from Sony put a gun to my head and forced me to buy it again.


----------



## Yepi69 (Feb 27, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Missed my point. What I'm saying is that Sony are not the only ones dropping BC when it can cut the costs - it's not _weird_ like some people tend to think.
> I was saying that you happened to be wrong and provided evidence.





emigre said:


> I was playing my physical copy of Crash Bandicoot on my PS3 on Friday. And despite the game being available on PSN, nobody from Sony put a gun to my head and forced me to buy it again.


 
 Again, some PS3's editions HAVE PS1/PS2 compatibility, not all unfortunately.


----------



## emigre (Feb 27, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Again, some PS3's editions HAVE PS1/PS2 compatibility, not all unfortunately.


 
All PS3s have PS1 compatibility.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 27, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Calm down, I have a DS Lite and I have a Nintendo Wii which I bought in 2011 when it still had GC compatibility.
> Not to mention Sony MAKES you buy games that you actually owned on physical copy on PSN. Such as PSP UMD games on the Vita and PS1/PS2 games on the PS3.


 
Nintendo also physically forces you (ie Reggie comes to your house and puts you into a chokehold with his strong thighs) to buy NES, SNES, and N64 games for your Wii.

Sony is not the bad guy here. They cut backwards compatibility because it was expensive. Simple as that. They then offered PS2 games and PSX games to those who don't have them or really want to rebuy them.

Let's not mention the HD Collections which are really solid deals and come with updated graphics, trophy support, and other little goodies.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Feb 27, 2013)

Peps said:


> Honestly not sure what you're on about referring to digital counterparts, that's a different discussion entirely and is out of scope of the debate. We can discuss the argument of encouraging people to buy digital counterparts another time. As for your last point, you're again assuming that BC automatically equates to poor launch. *Correlation does not mean causation.* It could be an entirely different reason as to why BC was not included in the least. Perhaps they tried to implement BC but couldn't due to time constraints, or perhaps they encountered some sort of huge technical limitation (not because of different processors), or perhaps they had issues with IBM and didn't want to work with them anymore. You don't know what the situation was, neither do I, and that's why I'm highly interested in finding out what the rational behind it was.
> 
> Why would I be pissed about that? That's good news? Am I missing something?



No where am I assuming that BC equates to a poor launch.  I wrote BC =/= a successful launch...  But you are certainly assuming that BC will lead to a successful launch.

And if you read the link I posted closely, it says that all PS4 games will be availble for digital download while only SOME will be available on disc.  So chances are, if theres ever a PS5, arguing for BC for it will be even more futile than it is now... (Though at that point it'll be cost effective to implement it anyways since they'll likely be sticking to a similar architecture)


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 27, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Again, some PS3's editions HAVE PS1/PS2 compatibility, not all unfortunately.
> _*Sony wants to make money*_





Spoiler











That's sort of what _companies do._



Yepi69 said:


> Oh goodie, did I found an Sony fan boy? YAY!!!


How does stating _a fact_ and supporting it with irrefutable evidence make me a fanboy? You insult me without knowing me - for your information, I've played on Nintendo consoles before you were even born.


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 27, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Oh goodie, did I found an *Sony fan boy*? YAY!!!


And then someone has to go use that word. Congratulations! GBATemps wanker of the day! Stiff competition!


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 27, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your joking right? Then they must be doing it wrong obviously...


----------



## emigre (Feb 27, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> That's sort-of what _companies do._


 
Foxi, you don't understand Bro. Nintendo practice altruism and fairness, as illustrated by their price fixing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 27, 2013)

emigre said:


> Foxi, you don't understand Bro. Nintendo practice altruism and fairness, as illustrated by their price fixing.


You mean to say that the production costs of the 3DS _didn't magically drop by $80 dollars_ after _less than 6 months_ since its release? 

...my god.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 27, 2013)

-


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 27, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> You mean to say that the production costs of the 3DS _didn't magically drop by $80 dollars_ after _less than 6 months_ since its release?
> 
> ...my god.


 
You forget, at least the 3DS has outsold the Vita 10;1 in sales.


----------



## McHaggis (Feb 27, 2013)

...pretty much sums up my attitude towards this thread.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 27, 2013)

Peps.gif


----------



## Veho (Feb 27, 2013)

Peps said:


> I'm well aware that online polls aren't perfect. No form of research is perfect either and are entirely prone to human error.


  But none as much as online polls. 



> Unfortunately, we have nothing else to go on, yet you claim so adamantly that your opinion is correct.


We have nothing to go on at all, yet _you_ claim so adamantly that _your_ opinion is correct, and everyone else is "irrational" for disagreeing or daring to have a differing opinion. 

No, wait, in fact we have several other examples you refuse to take into consideration because "correlation doesn't imply causation", yet you insist on pushing a source that's demonstrably flawed. 



> Here's food for thought, what if these polls are *underestimating* the amount of people who care about backwards compatibility? Ever thought about that? Now provide proof that these numbers are in fact overestimated.


Oh yes, I spent many an hour considering the possibility that people who don't care about the issue would take time and effort to vote in the poll, while enthusiastic people with a strong opinion on the subject (and since the choice is between "I want BC" and "I don't care", only one choice will have the enthusiastic supporters) couldn't be arsed to voice the opinion they happily voice everywhere else. I considered it, and decided it wasn't very probable. 

Now provide proof that these numbers are valid, other than "they support me so they must be true".  




> You have provided no proof that BC will drop launch sales.


I never said it would. I said a higher price would drop launch sales. You seem to think it wouldn't.  



> You have provided no proof that people don't want BC.


I never said people didn't want BC. 



> You have provided no proof that BC is very expensive to implement.


You have provided no proof that BC is cheap to implement. And your entire argument hinges on the assumption it would cost less than $50 on the outside, but closer to zero. Now prove that assumption. 



> You have provided no proof of anything you are saying, and you are instead trying to dismiss the only evidence we have, because it doesn't align with your opinion.


I'm not "trying", I explained in detail, several times over, with links and examples, why it's not valid. The only "evidence" we have is horribly flawed, unreliable, biased and tangential. Show me a poll that asks "what would you rather have, a lower price tag or BC". That's a poll with equally motivating choices, and one more likely to yield valid results. 

And I have provided proof for everything I actually said. Stop pinning other people's arguments on me and demanding I "prove" them. 



> That's highly hypocritical. So either provide proof of your statements, or stand down.


Pot, kettle, black. Your only argument is "I think so and so should everyone else", and refuse to acknowledge other people's opinions because yours is the only one that matters. That, and ignoring 90% of everyone's points because they're too hard to argue.   

Now, if that's the only problem you have with my post, how about you address the rest of it? Or should I assume you acknowledge the rest and agree with it?


----------



## Qtis (Feb 27, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Calm down, I have a DS Lite and I have a Nintendo Wii which I bought in 2011 when it still had GC compatibility.
> Not to mention Sony MAKES you buy games that you actually owned on physical copy on PSN. Such as PSP UMD games on the Vita and PS1/PS2 games on the PS3.


You actually skipped all the questions I posed. Also you do know how wrong the second line is if you consider every company is offering legacy game downloads via VC (Nintendo), PSN (Sony) and Xbox emulation (Microsoft). None of the companies actually give you the download for free even though you may own the games.

You got it all wrong. Sony gives you* the possibility of buying games on PSN* that aren't manufactured and sold new anymore. Also considering the prices of the games ($5-10 for PSX classics and most PSP games ($50 for the complete FF saga)), I can't see anyone wanting to pay the extortionate prices of some of the used games. Also sometimes it's just more convenient to buy the games from PSN vs buy physical copies. By the way, a fun fact about the PSP to PSVita UMD transfer: Sony could give you the choice of transferring the games for free, but the publishers/developers of the games don't want it to happen.

Buying PSP games for the PSVita on PSN is the only option for playing the games on the console (not counting hacking). It's not like you can stuff discs into carts or something in their current form? It's just normal moving forwards in technology. I don't get the problem of being able to buy PSP games, since quite a few people never have had PSPs and don't want to buy yet another console when the money can be used to buy the games. 

Also as many people have pointed out, the PS3 still supports PS1 games just like before. They haven't removed it and probably never will. No real reason for that.

PS2 support was dropped mainly due to the wide availability of PS2 and that the console was already dirt cheap to buy (new and used) and of course the obvious point of the PS2 support being a nice addition, but not a necessary deal breaker feature. 

All in all, not everyone wants certain features on consoles. The Wii online will be dead for most games in a matter years and after that the last games will die quite quickly when the WiiU versions are released. If there is no online available, why the need for online capabilities on a gaming console? Netflix&Co is a nice bonus for the Wii, but considering the console can't produce HD picture for Netflix and everything and the kitchen sink have an ability to play Netflix content (dedicated client or via a web browser), it's irrelevant. Kinda like having a DVD player when everything starts supporting BluRay and you buy a compatible device. 

Just my 5 cents.


----------



## TheDarkSeed (Feb 27, 2013)

They should at least give it ps1 compatibility. I have one game for the ps1 and it would be nice to know that I could load it in and play it.


----------



## Rydian (Feb 27, 2013)

"You have provided no proof that BC is very expensive to implement."
Yet I and others have posted teardowns and cost analysis of the PS3/PS2 backwards compatibility as precedent, outlined a bare minimum of which of the PS3 parts would need to be in the PS4 for backwards compatibility, and then linked teardowns with estimates of the costs of those parts.

Peps, you're either a very patient troll, or somebody who can never admit when they're wrong.
I'd report you for trolling, but knowing the GBAtemp mods, they'll tl;dr it and either remove ALL the posts, or do nothing.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Feb 27, 2013)

18 pages and the debate rages on lol 

If you ask me BC is one those nice selling points. 

On Sony's side yeah BC isn't doing them any favors. It's expensive and difficult to implement, it cuts sales of new games and resale of old games. 

On the consumer side they really like BC, it saves them money and provides them with entertainment. Also its nice to know those 50 and 60 dollar games are playable on your new shiny. There's a nice feeling I get when I look through my library of PS1 and PS2 games and play them on the PS3. Sort of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

Which one is right? Both, but in my opinion this is the best time for Sony to cut BC. 

Coming off the sales of the PS1 BC for the PS2 was a good way to retain those customers, same thing with coming from the PS2 to the PS3. The problem was the PS3 just cost so much it almost killed the company and the entire brand. So there are a lot less customers to piss off this time around. (Not trying to get into how the PS3 has 50% less customers than the PS2 did.) In a nutshell this is how Sony can lower the price of the unit and try to lure some of those lost customers back into the fold. How well it will work remains to be seen.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 27, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> You forget, at least the 3DS has outsold the Vita 10;1 in sales.


How is that in any way related to price fixing?

You and me both know that if not for the underwhelming sales and the PSVita looming on the horizon, the price cut would not come so early and would not be as severe.


----------



## mechagouki (Feb 27, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Nintendo also physically forces you (ie Reggie comes to your house and puts you into a chokehold with his strong thighs) to buy NES, SNES, and N64 games for your Wii.


 
I didn't pay a cent for the Virtual Console 8, 16 and 64-bit games I have on my Wii. Anyone who can read, and has access to the internet could be in the same position in under an hour.

I would say the only systems where BC made a significant difference were DS/DSL and PS2. Playing PS1 games was the only reason I bought a PSP, but I'm really old and owned a PS1 almost at launch. I don't think it was a feature that contributed in any really significant way to PSP sales.


----------



## Scuba156 (Feb 27, 2013)

mechagouki said:


> I didn't pay a cent for the Virtual Console 8, 16 and 64-bit games I have on my Wii. Anyone who can read, and has access to the internet could be in the same position in under an hour.
> 
> I would say the only systems where BC made a significant difference were DS/DSL and PS2. Playing PS1 games was the only reason I bought a PSP, but I'm really old and owned a PS1 almost at launch. I don't think it was a feature that contributed in any really significant way to PSP sales.


Piracy is irrelevant as your not a customer, your not the target market, and contribute to nothing.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Feb 28, 2013)

> what.the.fuck.


 < TwinRetro
This is getting really annoying. I was having a good time chewing on popcorn for the past few pages, and then I got frustrated, bro.
1. - PS3 Slim doesn't support PS2 games, which I believe. The PHAT/FAT version does.
- 
Thread's topic > 
I knew it. The PS3 is a powerful system and it's games weren't even supposed to work for the PS4. PS3 games are too major, and it's too hard to explain what to say now.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 28, 2013)

TheDarkSeed said:


> They should at least give it ps1 compatibility. I have one game for the ps1 and it would be nice to know that I could load it in and play it.


 
They probably will honestly. It's really easy to emulate now so there's no reason not to.


----------



## xist (Feb 28, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> They probably will honestly. It's really easy to emulate now so there's no reason not to.


 
Loathe as i am to join in with this 19 page diatribe of indignation verging on righteousness, the PS4 doesn't support CD's in it's Optical drive - ergo no native PS1 disc support.

_RARARARARA RAGE GRRRRRRRRR BREAK STUFF I LOVE LAMP!_


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Feb 28, 2013)

-


----------



## Veho (Feb 28, 2013)

The reply, if you'd care to read it, spoilered because it's rather lengthy: 



Spoiler






Peps said:


> I have never stated that my opinion is correct.


You kind of did. And called anyone who disagreed "irrational", "ignoring the truth" and "idiots". 



> You have provided zero examples of where BC has single-handily without a doubt decreased turnover and sales. Nothing, zilch.


_I am not saying that. _I never claimed that, so I really don't have to "prove" it. Stop pinning weird opinions on me and demanding I prove them. 

You, on the other hand, provided zero examples of where a lower price has single-handedly decreased sales. Nothing, zilch. Now what? 



> You haven't proved that the validity of online polls are wrong


Except, you know, by linking to a number of online polls that show just how flawed an unsupervised online polling system is, and pointed you in the direction of a more detailed explanation of why they aren't a reliable source of data, _while other kinds of research are_. 



> you have shown that all forms of research are prone to human error.


You have no idea how proper research works, do you? 




> You just don't like what the polls are saying, thus you'll attack their validity without providing anything as a replacement.


Actual sales figures of the PS4 would be a replacement, however they're not available at the moment. As for "attacking the validity of sources you dislike", it's all you've been doing this whole thread. 



> People who don't care about the issue would still most likely vote in a poll, because as you said, it might increase the cost of the console.


Not if it's not part of the poll question. Default assumptions and all that.   



> You claim that those who want BC are more enthusiastic, yet what do you call yourself?


I haven't voted in the poll, so that would make me lethargic. I would vote in a poll that asked "would you like a significantly cheaper console". That one would be heavily skewed in favour of a cheaper console.  

You obviously have no idea what I'm getting at here. 



> Like I said, it's quite possible that the numbers are underestimated, which is a possibility you seem to be ignoring, because again, it doesn't align with your opinion.


It's theoretically possible. It's just not probable in the least. 



> I have never once stated that the numbers provided are 100% valid. I stated that it gives us a general indicator as to how people feel about BC, and it's very possible that the numbers can be *overestimated or underestimated*.


Let me illustrate it with an example that might be easier for you to understand. Look at threads discussing a particular game, right here on the Temp. Let's say it's even a relatively popular game. Not everyone likes this game, only some people do; most don't care. But in the thread, there's tons of people who like the game, discussing it, exchanging experiences, tips, tricks, hacks, saying how much they liked it, etc. etc. People who don't care about it don't even enter the thread because they can't be bothered, there's only Guild McCommunist who only dropped in to say how he doesn't like it and that it's overrated. Now, looking at the thread, you'd think only one of several dozen people dislikes it, and you'd say the game is liked by 95% of the population. But looking at sales numbers, you see that even the most popular titles are only bought by, at most, 10% of the user base. Thing is, people who don't care about the game won't participate, because they don't care. The only participants will be those who like the game, those who absolutely hate the game and actively oppose it (as a minority), and Guild. So the thread doesn't reflect the average consumer, it only reflects a biased subset. And Guild. 



> However, it's the only evidence we have. Now provide proof that your argument has validity behind it.


 No, it's the only evidence you're willing to accept, because it's the only "evidence" that supports your side. Proof that _my argument_ has validity? PS3 sales jumped after the price cut. Don't see how that proves my point? That means you're missing the point entirely. Stop pinning weird opinions on me and demanding I prove them. 




> You have stated a huge amount of people don't care about BC, now prove it.


PS3 sales doubled after BC was removed. It seems they don't care about it _enough_. 





> Prove that please. You said that _"I never said people didn't want BC"_, but you just did right there.


Nope. I even said BC is a neat feature. What I actually said is that _most_ people aren't willing to pay too much extra for it. People want BC, for no extra cost. Ain't gonna happen, sadly. 




> _"And I have provided proof for everything I actually said"_. You have provided zero proof of that.  And that's your own argument.


I provided zero proof of the ridiculous claims you continue to ascribe to me, _because I didn't have to_. Why would I have to prove something I never said? 



> My argument is against those who state that BC is an automatic no, to which it isn't.


Nobody said it's an automatic "no". It's a deliberate, carefully weighed, and well thought out "no". It was not an easy decision to make. 



> You can't state that it's completely infeasible without actually having access to the research that states that.


Likewise, you can't state it's feasible without actually having access to the research that states that. Now, let's weigh the options, shall we? 

a) BC costs nothing and Sony decided to omit it and instead waste tons of money trying to get it to work via streaming for the lulz because they are staffed and run by untrained chimps, or;
b) Implementing BC has a significant cost that would hurt sales more than BC would boost them. 

And we know BC costs _something_. 



> I swear, you people are idiots who can't read.


This is ironic, really. 



> Teardowns are useless, they provide no real information about costs and implementations.


You're right, they only provide hardware costs of all the extra hardware built in to allow BC, they don't tell us anything about the implementation costs and the extra labor involved. And I _suppose_ that if that part has a _negative_ cost, the total cost _could_ be less than the cost of the hardware alone. Mathematically. 'Cuz values can be negative. But somehow I doubt that's the case here. 

Remember the OLPC project? The $100 laptop? It ended up costing $210. Pandora? Same. Turns out hardware is not the only component of the end cost. 



> Unless you have access to decapped images and other architectural information and designs, you can't state that in the least. Similarly, you haven't provided any cost analysis.


Here's all the analysis you need: added hardware = added cost. Period.  



> and what if launch sales would have reduced because of the lack of BC.


And what if launch sales would have increased because of a lower price tag? Prove that they wouldn't. 




> you're all thinking I'm trying to argue that "$0NY are idi0ts and should 4dd BC!!!11!!", but instead I'm trying to argue "wait, there's a strong possibility that BC can increase sales drastically, and we have no precedent that says otherwise"


If that's what you're trying to say, how come you keep saying "everyone in the world wants BC more than they want a cheap console, Sony are idiots for opting to offer a cheaper console instead"? That, and there is a _very very slight_ possibility BC at a higher price would increase sales "drastically", and a much higher possibility that it would only increase them _only slightly_, whereas a lower price has a definite and undeniable effect of increasing sales _significantly_.



But since I know you'll either ignore or horribly misinterpret everything I said, here are the bullet points: 


Adding BC would cost money, stop trying to deny it. 
Increased cost hurts sales, stop trying to deny it. 
Increased cost would detract more people than BC would attract. 
People, on average, would like to have BC, _but_;
People, on average, would like a cheaper console _even more_ 

Sony is trying to bring BC via streaming, so obviously they recognize the draw of the feature. It's not like anyone here is against it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 28, 2013)

KazSony2013 said:


> Nintenbabys cant seen to get that THIS IS THEY YEAR OF THE SONY NO USE GAMES NO PS3 GAME so what ?
> PS4 IS NEXTGEN EAT IT UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP


PS4 supports used games Cesar/Valwin.  The rest is correct.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 28, 2013)

KazSony2013 said:


> http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/pre-owned-games-block-on-ps4-is-a-publisher-decision/0111344
> 
> is not like we need use games


In other words, it's entirely up to the game creators as it is today.


----------



## mechagouki (Feb 28, 2013)

Scuba156 said:


> Piracy is irrelevant as your not a customer, your not the target market, and contribute to nothing.


 
 I don't consider it piracy when I own the original games on 1 or more systems already, I do consider it piracy to take money from somone for something they already paid you for.


----------



## Foxi4 (Feb 28, 2013)

mechagouki said:


> I don't consider it piracy when I own the original games on 1 or more systems already, I do consider it piracy to take money from somone for something they already paid you for.


Technically you didn't pay for the emulator bit, so unless you're using homebrew emulators, you're still pirating a part of the software... but I digress.


----------



## Scuba156 (Mar 1, 2013)

mechagouki said:


> I don't consider it piracy when I own the original games on 1 or more systems already, I do consider it piracy to take money from somone for something they already paid you for.


Sorry, I didn't realise it's not piracy when you don't own a licence for the software on that hardware.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 1, 2013)

Scuba156 said:


> Sorry, I didn't realise it's not piracy when you don't own a licence for the software on that hardware.


It's highly country-specific. In Poland for example, the license concerns just the software, not the medium or the platform it was meant for. In fact, you are allowed to do_ "whatever is necessary to launch the appliction on a desired platform"_ within the limits of other laws, which practically allows game dumping, emulation and whatnot _"as long as the software is used simultaneously on an amount of platforms that is not exceeding the amount specified in the license"_ which in case of video games is one platform at a time.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Mar 1, 2013)

Peps said:


> That's the opposition in my eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You realize that all you've done is shout "Circumstantial!" at everyone who's stated anything regarding the difficulty and cost issues in implementing BC in the PS4 while offering nothing but "circumstantial" evidence yourself, right?  Maybe that's why no one takes you seriously...


----------



## Scuba156 (Mar 1, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> It's highly country-specific. In Poland for example, the license concerns just the software, not the medium or the platform it was meant for. In fact, you are allowed to do_ "whatever is necessary to launch the appliction on a desired platform"_ within the limits of other laws, which practically allows game dumping, emulation and whatnot _"as long as the software is used simultaneously on an amount of platforms that is not exceeding the amount specified in the license"_ which in case of video games is one platform at a time.


Of course, it's just that the tapatalk app doesn't show locations


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 1, 2013)

wrettcaughn said:


> You realize that all you've done is shout "Circumstantial!" at everyone who's stated anything regarding the difficulty and cost issues in implementing BC in the PS4 while offering nothing but "circumstantial" evidence yourself, right? Maybe that's why no one takes you seriously...


 
Well in all fairness the fact that high prices equate to low sales and low prices equate to better sales is, well, a fact.

He's just kinda drifting into the "everything is relative" state of mind where facts can be opinions and houses are walruses.


----------



## mechagouki (Mar 1, 2013)

Scuba156 said:


> Sorry, I didn't realise it's not piracy when you don't own a licence for the software on that hardware.


 
Either you're trolling, or you don't understand what you're taliking about, I didn't enter into any license agreement with Nintendo when I bought my first NES in 1989, I was 17. I own my Wii hardware, I bought it used and have never downloaded any software for it from Nintendo, so I've certainly not
agreed to any licensing requirements for that console. I own both GCN Zelda compilations, but I chose to install OoT and MM (both of which I also own on N64 game pak) using WADs so I could play without using the optical drive.

So tell me, how have i broken the law?


----------



## Qtis (Mar 1, 2013)

mechagouki said:


> Either you're trolling, or you don't understand what you're taliking about, I didn't enter into any license agreement with Nintendo when I bought my first NES in 1989, I was 17. I own my Wii hardware, I bought it used and *have never downloaded any software for it from Nintendo*, so I've certainly not agreed to any licensing requirements for that console. I own both GCN Zelda compilations, but* I chose to install OoT and MM* (both of which I also own on N64 game pak) *using WADs* so I could play without using the optical drive.
> 
> So tell me, how have i broken the law?


I highlighted the answer to your question. While you may own the old games, if you didn't make the WADs out of your physical copies (with your own hardware), you've downloaded the installer from the internet. Also depending on how you acquired the games, you may have been uploading the data too, which I do believe is illegal. I'm not 100% sure about the Canadian legislation to the fine details in the matter, but I'd imagine it's frowned upon nevertheless. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone piracy per se in the situation you're in, but I do see the law breaking part if I had to look into the matter


----------



## Rydian (Mar 1, 2013)

mechagouki said:


> I own both GCN Zelda compilations, but I chose to install OoT and MM (both of which I also own on N64 game pak) using WADs so I could play without using the optical drive.
> 
> So tell me, how have i broken the law?


You seem to be confusing "law" with "morals".

See: US Prohibition.


----------



## BORTZ (Mar 1, 2013)

Cant believe this is still going on.


----------



## mechagouki (Mar 2, 2013)

Qtis said:


> I highlighted the answer to your question. While you may own the old games, if you didn't make the WADs out of your physical copies (with your own hardware), you've downloaded the installer from the internet. Also depending on how you acquired the games, you may have been uploading the data too, which I do believe is illegal. I'm not 100% sure about the Canadian legislation to the fine details in the matter, but I'd imagine it's frowned upon nevertheless. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone piracy per se in the situation you're in, but I do see the law breaking part if I had to look into the matter


 
I think you're being pedantic, but I'll play: I did indeed obtain the WAD files from the internet, though not through P2P, and the installer I used to put them on my Wii was freely available homebrew. The only code I'll put my hands up to having 'stolen' would be the few kilobytes that display the game channel in the system menu, if someone can put a dollar value on that, they can bill me. An emulator that runs (specifically) the N64 games is included on the Zelda GCN discs, though I'm led to believe Nintendo may have developed the Wii  emulator from a freeware emulator already in circulation. The irony of your argument is that by your standards if I ripped my own ROM files and ran them through a legal homebrew emulator (as I do on PSP) I would not be doing anything wrong?

This argument will churn on and on, and is actually kind of OT in this thread, but I will finish by saying that Nintendo has not lost a cent through my actions, had I not been able to mod my Wii and play the games this way I would certainly never have paid for the VC editions through the Shop Channel, I would just have used my original copies. With that in mind, I'll reply to Rydian's comment:



> You seem to be confusing "law" with "morals".


 
Do you really believe what I did is morally wrong? I won't be losing any sleep over it.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 2, 2013)

mechagouki said:


> Do you really believe what I did is morally wrong? I won't be losing any sleep over it.


No, I'm saying that it was legally wrong, even if you think it's not morally wrong.

Christ.

The emulator itself (which, BTW, was not from an open-source one) is included in the WAD, and you didn't make or rip that, it's Nintendo's property.  In addition, downloading the ROMs is illegal in many countries even if you own the game.  Most laws state that YOU may MAKE a backup copy, and no distribution must happen.


----------



## Yepi69 (Mar 2, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Nintendo also physically forces you (ie Reggie comes to your house and puts you into a chokehold with his strong thighs) to buy NES, SNES, and N64 games for your Wii.
> 
> Sony is not the bad guy here. They cut backwards compatibility because it was expensive. Simple as that. They then offered PS2 games and PSX games to those who don't have them or really want to rebuy them.
> 
> Let's not mention the HD Collections which are really solid deals and come with updated graphics, trophy support, and other little goodies.


Sure sure, like PS1 games and Neo-Geo and arcade games they released the PSN, Sony its just as guilty as Nintendo.
I just wonder why you're so quit to defend Sony.



Scuba156 said:


> And then someone has to go use that word. Congratulations! GBATemps wanker of the day! Stiff competition!


Except nobody is caring.



Scuba156 said:


> And then someone has to go use that word. Congratulations! GBATemps wanker of the day! Stiff competition!





Qtis said:


> You actually skipped all the questions I posed. Also you do know how wrong the second line is if you consider every company is offering legacy game downloads via VC (Nintendo), PSN (Sony) and Xbox emulation (Microsoft). None of the companies actually give you the download for free even though you may own the games.
> 
> You got it all wrong. Sony gives you* the possibility of buying games on PSN* that aren't manufactured and sold new anymore. Also considering the prices of the games ($5-10 for PSX classics and most PSP games ($50 for the complete FF saga)), I can't see anyone wanting to pay the extortionate prices of some of the used games. Also sometimes it's just more convenient to buy the games from PSN vs buy physical copies. By the way, a fun fact about the PSP to PSVita UMD transfer: Sony could give you the choice of transferring the games for free, but the publishers/developers of the games don't want it to happen.
> 
> ...


 
Really? PS3 has got PS1 compatibility? Does it even support PS1 memory cards with the usb memory card reader for the PS3?Cool, looks like I was bad informed at that point of view, sorry about that.
Either way it would be cool to have PS2 on the PS3 as well.

[/quote]How does stating _a fact_ and supporting it with irrefutable evidence make me a fanboy? You insult me without knowing me - for your information, I've played on Nintendo consoles before you were even born.[/quote]

Excuse me but, should I care?


----------



## mechagouki (Mar 2, 2013)

Rydian said:


> No, I'm saying that it was legally wrong, even if you think it's not morally wrong.
> 
> Christ.
> 
> The emulator itself (which, BTW, was not from an open-source one) is included in the WAD, and you didn't make or rip that, it's Nintendo's property. In addition, downloading the ROMs is illegal in many countries even if you own the game. Most laws state that YOU may MAKE a backup copy, and no distribution must happen.


 

Not sure why you're cursing, your "you seem to be confusing" line was somewhat ambiguous. As to the legalities of the situation, I'm fortunately not at the mercy of state laws, being resident in that great frozen no-mans-land to the North of the USA, I honestly don't know what Canadian law has to say on the subject, but as I said, I could have ripped the games myself and used a freeware emulator to similar ends, I can't see exactly who I've hurt doing it the way I did, and essentially, morally, legally or any other way I might consider the matter, no fucks are being given today.


----------



## Scuba156 (Mar 2, 2013)

mechagouki said:


> Either you're trolling, or you don't understand what you're taliking about, I didn't enter into any license agreement with Nintendo when I bought my first NES in 1989, I was 17. I own my Wii hardware, I bought it used and have never downloaded any software for it from Nintendo, so I've certainly not
> agreed to any licensing requirements for that console. I own both GCN Zelda compilations, but I chose to install OoT and MM (both of which I also own on N64 game pak) using WADs so I could play without using the optical drive.
> 
> So tell me, how have i broken the law?


Buying used hardware doesn't mean a thing, the licence transfers between owners. The software licences are what I was talking about anyway. It's neither here nor there.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 2, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Sure sure, like PS1 games and Neo-Geo and arcade games they released the PSN, Sony its just as guilty as Nintendo.
> I just wonder why you're so quit to defend Sony.


Because earlier you said that Sony is forcing you to re-download your titles and Nintendo does not when in fact they do.


> Except nobody is caring.


It was pointed out, so clearly someone cared. Now, this doesn't offend me since I've been a Nintendo fan for a long time now, I'm just objective and capable to criticise things companies do wrong rather than follow them blindly like sheep. Constructive criticism is more desirable than blind praise.


> Really? PS3 has got PS1 compatibility? Does it even support PS1 memory cards with the usb memory card reader for the PS3?Cool, looks like I was bad informed at that point of view, sorry about that.
> Either way it would be cool to have PS2 on the PS3 as well.


It would be, but the feature was crippled, ramped up costs and was eventually dropped.


> Excuse me but, should I care?


You should before you insult someone.


----------



## Yepi69 (Mar 2, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Because earlier you said that Sony is forcing you to re-download your titles and Nintendo does not when in fact they do.
> It was pointed out, so clearly someone cared. Now, this doesn't offend me since I've been a Nintendo fan for a long time now, I'm just objective and capable to criticise things companies do wrong rather than following them blindly like sheep. Constructive criticism is more desirable than blind praise.
> It would be, but the feature was crippled, ramped up costs and was eventually dropped.
> You should before you insult someone.


 
Me insulting someone lol.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 2, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Me insulting someone lol.


You called me a fanboy. That's an insult.


----------



## Yepi69 (Mar 2, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> You called me a fanboy. That's an insult.


If you take it seriously then its an insult, if you don't its a compliment, your call.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 2, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> If you take it seriously then its an insult, if you don't its a compliment, your call.


I'm going to take it as a compliment as a fanboy of _gaming_ in general.

_Screw you, *books*!_


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 2, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Sure sure, like PS1 games and Neo-Geo and arcade games they released the PSN, Sony its just as guilty as Nintendo.
> I just wonder why you're so quit to defend Sony.


 
...Because you're attacking them unjustly? You accused them of forcing you to rebuy digital copies of games you already own when truth is A) they're not forcing you to do anything and B) no one offers free physical-to-digital conversions.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 2, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> ...Because you're attacking them unjustly? You accused them of forcing you to rebuy digital copies of games you already own when truth is A) they're not forcing you to do anything and B) no one offers free physical-to-digital conversions.


Well, to be fair, there's the UMD Passport program in Japan...

It's Sony's. _They're the only ones who do this_.

Hmm...


----------



## mechagouki (Mar 2, 2013)

Scuba156 said:


> Buying used hardware doesn't mean a thing, the licence transfers between owners. The software licences are what I was talking about anyway. It's neither here nor there.


 
Actually, I had the opportunity to ask a lawyer about this a couple of years ago, he was a patent lawyer, working for companies like Nokia and Oakley, going after the manufacturers of knock-off goods. He was well versed in IP law and explained to me that most software licensing agreements are only valid if it can be clearly proven that the licensee can be proven to have understood and voluntarily agreed to all the terms of the license, he actually went so far as to say that he would feel confident challenging most EULAs in court on the simple basis that the average person doesn't read them, or if they do read them, don't fully understand what they are agreeing to.

I certainly didn't agree to any terms and conditions when I bought my used Wii, and I never checked a "I have read and understood" box on any of my cartridge based software. Software companies might like us to think we are in tacit agreement with their requirements, but legally their stance is weak.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 2, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, to be fair, there's the UMD Passport program in Japan...
> 
> It's Sony's. _They're the only ones who do this_.
> 
> Hmm...


 
Still doesn't make up for Sony's incompetence and sheer disregard for its customers by not putting a UMD drive on the Vita.

Because everyone wants a big fucking UMD drive on their Vita.

Because everyone wants UMDs.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 2, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Still doesn't make up for Sony's incompetence and sheer disregard for its customers by not putting a UMD drive on the Vita.
> 
> Because everyone wants a big fucking UMD drive on their Vita.
> 
> Because everyone wants UMDs.


I too believe that the battery life of the PSVita is too long, it could use a UMD Drive to cut it in half.


----------



## Yepi69 (Mar 3, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> ...Because you're attacking them unjustly? You accused them of forcing you to rebuy digital copies of games you already own when truth is A) they're not forcing you to do anything and B) no one offers free physical-to-digital conversions.


Lol what? Since when I'm attacking someone? I accused Sony of FORCING players to rebuy digital copies of physically owned games in order to play them on the console.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 3, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Lol what? Since when I'm attacking someone? I accused Sony of FORCING players to rebut digital copies of physically owned games in order to play them on the console.


Which is something _every company does_ when direct compatibility is impossible.


----------



## emigre (Mar 3, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Lol what? Since when I'm attacking someone? I accused Sony of FORCING players to rebut digital copies of physically owned games in order to play them on the console.


----------



## Yepi69 (Mar 3, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Which is something _every company does_ when direct compatibility is impossible.


Damn, I can't find Gamecube games on the Wii Shop Channel, and I can't find XBOX titles on XBOX live either :/




emigre said:


>


lol @ the effort taken.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 3, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Damn, I can't find Gamecube games on the Wii Shop Channel


NES, SNES and N64 on the Wii. Game Boy, Game Boy Advance and NES on the 3DS.


> and I can't find XBOX titles on XBOX live either :/


...nor do you have perfect Backwards Compatibility - only select titles.

I did say _"when native Backwards Compatibility is impossible", did I not?_



> lol @ the effort taken.


lol @ technologially-illiterate.


----------



## Yepi69 (Mar 3, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> NES, SNES, N64 on the Wii, Game Boy, Game Boy Advance, NES on the 3DS.
> ...nor do you have perfect Backwards Compatibility - only select titles.
> 
> I did say _"when native Backwards Compatibility is impossible", did I not?_
> ...


 
 lol @ the defending of an console and bashing another one.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 3, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> lol @ the defending of an console and bashing another one.


lol @ not understanding what an example is and refusing to admit that you are wrong despite clear evidence that you are. Also, not bashing - stating facts.



If you haven't noticed yet, I'm merely talking with you using your _(fanboy-ish)_ terms. Elevate the conversation to a normal level and we'll talk normally.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 3, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Lol what? Since when I'm attacking someone? I accused Sony of FORCING players to rebuy digital copies of physically owned games in order to play them on the console.


Nintendo doesn't have any way to turn your NES/SNES/N64 carts into Virtual Console games.

So they did it first.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 3, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Nintendo doesn't have any way to turn your NES/SNES/N64 carts into Virtual Console games.
> 
> So they did it first.


As of today, the currently sold Wii's and Wii Mini's don't even have Gamecube BC.

Remember when the PS3 had its Backwards Compatibility removed? The whole internet went nuts. When the Wii dropped Gamecube Backwards Compatibility very little people even cared and the decision was deemed entirely acceptable. Fairness prevailed once more.


----------



## Yepi69 (Mar 3, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Nintendo doesn't have any way to turn your NES/SNES/N64 carts into Virtual Console games.
> 
> So they did it first.


Exactly, BUT Sony has the ability to let PS2 games run on the PS3 for example, why rebuy them?

They could also put a transfer feature (like Wii - Wii U) which can transfer your games from the PSP to the Vita, so you wouldn't have to rebuy them, in order words, it would transfer the UMD game you had on your PSP's UMD to your Vita game folder, along with the save file.

Why don't they do that for example?

Nintendo did it with the Nintendo DSi and the Wii, and Microsoft kept their XBOX compatibility on the Xbox 360.



Foxi4 said:


> As of today, the currently sold Wii's and Wii Mini's don't even have Gamecube BC.
> 
> Remember when the PS3 had its Backwards Compatibility removed? The whole internet went nuts. When the Wii dropped Gamecube Backwards Compatibility very little people even cared and the decision was deemed entirely acceptable. Fairness prevailed once more.


Because Nintendo kept their GC compatibility for a long time, can't say the same about Sony 


Foxi4 said:


> lol @ not understanding what an example is and refusing to admit that you are wrong despite clear evidence that you are. Also, not bashing - stating facts.
> 
> 
> 
> If you haven't noticed yet, I'm merely talking with you using your _(fanboy-ish)_ terms. Elevate the conversation to a normal level and we'll talk normally.



''The Wii has more Mario Central, it has like 15-16 Mario games for the Wii''


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 3, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Because Nintendo kept their GC compatibility for a long time, can't say the same about Sony


The Nintendo Wii requires zero extra hardware to achieve backwards compatibility - the CPU is natively compatible as it is, all that changes is the stepping. The PS3 required additional chips to achieve it - practically putting a PS2 inside the PS3 - it caused additional costs, didn't work very well and was eventually dropped. If anything, Nintendo dropped backwards compatibility only not to have to put Gamecube ports on their systems. That's literally the only expense required. At the end of the day, both consoles were stripped of Backwards Compatibility, so you don't have a point.


----------



## Minox (Mar 3, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Lol what? Since when I'm attacking someone? I accused Sony of FORCING players to rebuy digital copies of physically owned games in order to play them on the console.


Sony isn't forcing anyone to re-buy anything. If you want to buy games you already own again to play on their new console then that's something you've decided to do yourself, it's not something they forced you to do.


----------



## Yepi69 (Mar 3, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> The Nintendo Wii requires zero extra hardware to achieve backwards compatibility - the CPU is natively compatible as it is, all that changes is the stepping. The PS3 required additional chips to achieve PC - practically putting a PS2 inside the PS3 - it caused additional costs, didn't work very well and was eventually dropped. If anything, Nintendo dropped Backwards Compatibility only not to have to put Gamecube ports on their systems. That's literally the only expense required. At the end of the day, both consoles were stripped of Backwards Compatibility, so you don't have a point.


Because Sony's too poor to increase the ''additional'' costs just to please their fans.
They released their first PS3 model which costed 600$ when it came out and people kept buying it, and you say I don't have a point? lol ok.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 3, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Because Sony's too poor to increase the ''additional'' costs just to please their fans.


Because Sony made a console three times as powerful as the Wii and already sold it at a loss.


> They released their first PS3 model which costed 600$ when it came out and people kept buying it, and you say I don't have a point? lol ok.


It was actually worth the $600. Just because something's expensive doesn't mean that it's unjustified, you get what you pay for.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 3, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Exactly, BUT Sony has the ability to let PS2 games run on the PS3 for example, why rebuy them?


Have you even been reading?

The PS3 DID have PS2 backwards compatibility, and you did not need to rebuy them.

Then when PS2 backwards compatibility was removed... well, you can't play them.



Yepi69 said:


> They could also put a transfer feature (like Wii - Wii U) which can transfer your games from the PSP to the Vita, so you wouldn't have to rebuy them, in order words, it would transfer the UMD game you had on your PSP's UMD to your Vita game folder, along with the save file.


I think the Vita versions are ports.



Yepi69 said:


> Nintendo did it with the Nintendo DSi and the Wii, and Microsoft kept their XBOX compatibility on the Xbox 360.


The first two are because the newer systems were upgraded versions of the older ones.



Yepi69 said:


> Because Nintendo kept their GC compatibility for a long time, can't say the same about Sony


That's because the WIi U is an upgraded Wii, which is an upgraded GC.

Now that I'm done repeating shit you've already been told... How the hell do you cross the street without getting hit by cars?


----------



## emigre (Mar 3, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Because Sony's too poor to increase the ''additional'' costs just to please their fans.
> They released their first PS3 model which costed 600$ when it came out and people kept buying it, and you say I don't have a point? lol ok.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 3, 2013)

This thread:


Sony drops BC with the PS3 = DISGRACEFUL!
Nintendo drops BC with the Gamecube = HONOURABLE!

Sony asks people to re-buy PSOne and/or PS2 games because they cannot offer perfect BC due to technological limitations and have to port/emulate = DISGRACEFUL!
Nintendo asks people to re-buy NES, SNES, N64, GB and GBA games plus no longer offers Gamecube BC in any form due to technological limitations and have to port/emulate = HONOURABLE!

Liking Sony = DISGRACEFUL!
Liking Nintendo = HONOURABLE!

Sony releases strong hardware for a high price, selling it at a loss = DISGRACEFUL!
Nintendo releases weak hardware for a low price, selling it at a profit = HONOURABLE!

Stay classy and technologically-illiterate, GBATemp.


----------



## Yepi69 (Mar 3, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> This thread:
> 
> 
> Sony drops BC with the PS3 = DISGRACEFUL!
> ...


I tried putting an NES cartridge on my Wii, it didn't work.



emigre said:


>


Again, lol @ the effort you made.


Rydian said:


> Have you even been reading?
> 
> The PS3 DID have PS2 backwards compatibility, and you did not need to rebuy them.
> 
> ...


So Sony removed PS2 compatibility to reduce costs which, many fan boys bought without complaining uh?
 ''How the hell do you cross the street without getting hit by cars?''


----------



## xist (Mar 3, 2013)

What do you actually want? A console with an increased cost point, increased risk of failure, total back compatibility or else reimbursement of costs, reduced security allowing you to transfer old games you already own into digital formats, but at the same time putting off developers from creating new content?

More or less it sounds like you'd complain whatever Sony did...if they had a console with BC you'd complain it cost too much or wasn't compatible enough, if they had a transfer scheme but then the system was hacked immediately and developers abandoned ship you'd complain about new games not appearing?

By and large you're not understanding competitive market forces and a company which is trying to recover from it's financial meltdown and internal restructuring. If/when you ever try to set up your own company i'm willing to bet you'll re-evaluate your ideas about "what's fair".


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 3, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> ''The Wii has more Mario Central, it has like 15-16 Mario games for the Wii''



Super Paper Mario
Mario Strikers Charged
Mario Party 8
Super Mario Galaxy
Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Dr. Mario Online Rx _(Dr. Mario and the Germ Buster)_
Mario Kart
Mario Super Sluggers
New Play Control! Mario Power Tennis
Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games
New Super Mario Bros. Wii
Super Mario Galaxy 2
Mario Sports Mix
Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition
Mario and Sonic at the London Olypic Games
Mario Party 9
And more. When trying to troll me using my own words, try harder.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Mar 3, 2013)

On the whole backwards compatibility skerfuffle, while it would be nice if I could play PS3 games on the PS4 (rather than having to buy both systems so I can play PS3 and PS4 exclusives), the lack of it isn't exactly a dealbreaker for me.



Foxi4 said:


> *It was actually worth the $600.* Just because something's expensive doesn't mean that it's unjustified, you get what you pay for.








Yeah...there's a lot of people who beg to differ on that.


----------



## Yepi69 (Mar 3, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Have you even been reading?
> 
> The PS3 DID have PS2 backwards compatibility, and you did not need to rebuy them.
> 
> ...





Foxi4 said:


> Super Paper Mario
> Mario Strikers Charged
> Mario Party 8
> Super Mario Galaxy
> ...


 

 And then again, ''Trolling'' you by quoting your own words, lmao.
Sure boy, sure. 


Super Paper Mario - Sequel
Mario Strikers Charged - Sequel
Mario Party 8 - Sequel
Super Mario Galaxy - New experience
Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games - Not only Mario game.
Super Smash Bros. Brawl - Definately not only Mario game.
Dr. Mario Online Rx _(Dr. Mario and the Germ Buster) - _Classic WiiWare game (Are you even kidding me?)
Mario Kart - Sequel
Mario Super Sluggers - New game
New Play Control! Mario Power Tennis - Sequel
Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games - Sequel
New Super Mario Bros. Wii - Sequel
Super Mario Galaxy 2 - Sequel
Mario Sports Mix - New game
Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition - Re-release
Mario and Sonic at the London Olypic Games - Sequel
Mario Party 9 - Sequel
 Are you even trying?
Not to mention the Wii has more 1st party games than the PS3

And most of the PS3 games use the same engine say:

Uncharted 1,2,3
Infamous 1,2


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Mar 3, 2013)

Have you guys ever ask yourselves, _"Why do I even bother?"_


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 3, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> Are you even trying?
> 
> Not to mention the Wii has more 1st party games than the PS3


Not sure what point you're trying to make.



> And most of the PS3 games use the same engine say:
> 
> Uncharted 1,2,3
> Infamous 1,2


How is that a bad thing when the engine is factually good?


----------



## xist (Mar 3, 2013)

It's easy to forget now that prices have plummeted, but around/after it's launch the PS3 was a super way to bag yourself an entry level Blu Ray player. People even bought them for that as a primary use rather than gaming, so whilst it was expensive it was also desirable.


----------



## Yepi69 (Mar 3, 2013)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Have you guys ever ask yourselves, _"Why do I even bother?"_


I do lol, someone is just being a little stub born thats all.
This will end soon.



Foxi4 said:


> Not sure what point you're trying to make.
> 
> How is that a bad thing when the engine is factually good?


Point of the Wii having more sequels and 1st party games than the PS3.

And no it isn't a bad thing, but almost every game with that engine for the Wii looks the same, kill kill kill kill and kill.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Mar 3, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> This thread:
> 
> 
> Sony drops BC with the PS3 = DISGRACEFUL!
> ...


If I could like this entire post a trillion times I would.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Mar 3, 2013)

xist said:


> It's easy to forget now that prices have plummeted, but around/after it's launch the PS3 was a super way to bag yourself an entry level Blu Ray player. People even bought them for that as a primary use rather than gaming, so whilst it was expensive it was also desirable.









Bah, PS3 scum with Blu-ray. HD-DVD is where it's at!


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 3, 2013)

Yepi69 said:


> And no it isn't a bad thing, but almost every game with that engine for the Wii looks the same, kill kill kill kill and kill.


Please tell that to all the games made with the Unreal Engine that vary greatly. They're not even all shooters. Similarily think of the Havoc engine and its use with a variety of titles ranging from Action Adventure to Puzzle.

It's not _weird_ that three Uncharted games look and play like Uncharted games, nor is it odd that two Infamous games look and play like Infamous games.



soulx said:


> Bah, PS3 scum with Blu-ray. HD-DVD is where it's at!


I AGREE THIS WILL SURELY BE APPLIED TO EVERYDAY LIFE UNLIKE THE PESKY BLURAY! RED RAYS FTW! _;O;_


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 3, 2013)

Yepi, you've been factually wrong on so many fronts and you're making a huge double standard for Nintendo.

I'm not saying Nintendo is guilty of anything bad, no company is here. Whether you want to buy older games for your new console is _your own fucking decision_. Sony isn't forcing you, Nintendo isn't forcing you, Microsoft isn't forcing you. The option is there. Sony didn't remove BC because they're mean, evil businessmen. They removed it because it was expensive and between a $600 price tag with BC and a $300 price tag with no BC, the choice was obvious. And it paid off, if it wasn't for that the PS3 could have been dead years ago.

Also, the Xbox 360 DOES sell Xbox games (not ones that aren't BC but you can buy them) and not a lot of people were buying a $600 PS3, hence why they made the Slim model. If Sony could see $600 PS3s in the quantity they're selling Slims you bet your ass they would. That PS3 was $600 and made a profit. The Slims were $300 and made a loss. Clearly one is more favorable than the other.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 3, 2013)

Mixed up the last two there.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 3, 2013)

Yepi, how many times do you have to be told a spade is a spade before you finally accept that, yes, it's a spade?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 3, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Yepi, how many times do you have to be told a spade is a spade before you finally accept that, yes, it's a spade?


I should be allowed to mow a lawn with a spade - when I had a lawn mower, this was not a problem. I upgraded to a spade and it's all nice that I can dig holes, but what the hell am I supposed to do with the lawn, huh? 

I sure as hell ain't gonna buy a separate lawn mower! Mowing should be a feature of this new product!


----------



## Qtis (Mar 4, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I should be allowed to mow a lawn with a spade - when I had a lawn mower, this was not a problem. I upgraded to a spade and it's all nice that I can dig holes, but what the hell am I supposed to do with the lawn, huh?
> 
> I sure as hell ain't gonna buy a separate lawn mower! Mowing should be a feature of this new product!


I bought a Bus that was supposed to be a train. It won't run like it's suppose to on train tracks! Why did they market it as a transport when it doesn't work everywhere? Stupid companies!  

I've found an excellent solution for the issue's I've been having, though the tracks are still out of bounds for my transport. Pic or it didn't happen?


----------



## slingblade1170 (Mar 8, 2013)

Sony, will just start a cloud service to play these games and to squeeze more money out of your wallet.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 9, 2013)

slingblade1170 said:


> Sony, will just start a cloud service to play these games and to squeeze more money out of your wallet.


I'm sure that's the reason, not the fact that the hardware is in no way compatible with them nor powerful enough to emulate their native architecture _(as we don't have such powerful hardware available to the public to begin with)_.

Greedy Sony, they're worse than the mafia.


----------



## BasedKiliK (Mar 9, 2013)

Is it even viable to stream games properly to the PS4? I mean, I know nothing about Gaikai or its services, or what their method will be, but I just don't see that being an enjoyable way to play those games. The amount of bandwidth needed would be *HUUUGE* I'd assume, which wouldn't be feasible over our current internet infrastructure afaik (unless you've got Google Fiber). Not to mention the amount of people that would be streaming the games. How many people out there would even have the proper Internet speeds for something like this? And then there's the data usage from ISPs.  But I dunno, maybe I'm just out of the loop with how fast network and internet technology has grown.

It just sounds like something that's hyped up and in the end means nothing really, kinda like when Sony hyped the shit out of the Cell.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Mar 9, 2013)

demonicstrife said:


> Is it even viable to stream games properly to the PS4? I mean, I know nothing about Gaikai or its services, or what their method will be, but I just don't see that being an enjoyable way to play those games. The amount of bandwidth needed would be *HUUUGE* I'd assume, which wouldn't be feasible over our current internet infrastructure afaik (unless you've got Google Fiber). Not to mention the amount of people that would be streaming the games. How many people out there would even have the proper Internet speeds for something like this? And then there's the data usage from ISPs. But I dunno, maybe I'm just out of the loop with how fast network and internet technology has grown.
> 
> It just sounds like something that's hyped up and in the end means nothing really, kinda like when Sony hyped the shit out of the Cell.


Video is likely compressed in H264 in 720p, which cuts down the bandwidth requirement. Streaming H264 in 720p is perfectly doable.


----------

