PS4 NOT backward compatible with PS3

[retKHAAAN]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[retKHAAAN]

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]

I

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]

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]

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.

Are you trolling or just smoking crack?

Smoking pot, judging by his avatar.

 

[NostalgicMillennial]

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]

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

Heheheheh.....why?

 

[Rydian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.