PS4 NOT backward compatible with PS3

[Rydian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Summary of this thread in a single panel webcomic:

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.

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.

 

[retKHAAAN]

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]

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]

---

 

[Foxi4]

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]

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]

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]

---

 

[emigre]

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]

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]

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.

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]

---

 

[Rydian]

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.

 

[retKHAAAN]

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]

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.