PS4 NOT backward compatible with PS3

[Foxi4]

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.

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]

---

 

[Foxi4]

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]

---

 

[J-Machine]

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.



And the remaining 32% is a HUGE number of customers to be losing out on, especially for people like Sony. Not to mention, I'm sure once the price of the PS4 is announced, people will be saying otherwise. So I'll be interested to see what the sales figures out and what the opinion of backwards compatibility is at that point. That'll be very interesting.

As for when you use it, if you haven't been reading, the first couple of years of the life-span of the new console. I'm pretty sure you played a lot of PS1 games on your PS2 when that first launched.

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]

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.

 

[retKHAAAN]

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]

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]

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

 

[retKHAAAN]

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]

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]

---

 

[Foxi4]

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

 

[J-Machine]

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]

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]

ITT: Maths don't real.

 

[Bladexdsl]

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

 

[Foxi4]

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]

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]

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.