PS4 NOT backward compatible with PS3

[Foxi4]

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]

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]

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]

-

 

[iNFiNiTY]

'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]

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]

-

 

[retKHAAAN]

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]

-

 

[trumpet-205]

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]

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

 

[Deleted-185407]

-

 

[trumpet-205]

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]

-

 

[tbgtbg]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You

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

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]

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...