PS4 NOT backward compatible with PS3

[Foxi4]

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]

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.

 

[retKHAAAN]

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]

---

 

[Scuba156]

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]

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]

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]

[...]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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Kotaku's poll from 2006

poll from 2006

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]

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]

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?

I have one.

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

 

[MelodieOctavia]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Indeed.

That's because:

1. Backwards Compatibility actually made the games look worse than they have on their native hardware
2. People prefered to buy cheaper PS2's than expensive PS3's when they had PS2 games in mind
3. 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.

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]

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]

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]

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.