PS4 NOT backward compatible with PS3

[retKHAAAN]

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.

No, Rydian. We will not buy your PS2 lot... Please stop linking to it everywhere...

 

[Rydian]

No, Rydian. We will not buy your PS2 lot... Please stop linking to it everywhere...

Pft, not mine. Ran across it earlier today looking for other stuff.

 

[Deleted-185407]

---

 

[retKHAAAN]

They weren't forced to think long-term, they planned on long-term. They had the choice to not go with over-the-top specifications. They had a choice not to have implemented such a crazy architecture that developers hated. They had a lot of choices, they were not forced in the least.

It's pretty easy to find third parties to sell to. Just sell at a competitive price against retail stores. If a retail store is selling a used console for $200, then sell your console for $250 with some games from your collection, not your whole collection obviously. Pretty handy stuff to be honest, and it's quite a common thing to do.

Hindsight really is 20/20... Why do you think Sony went with a more simple architecture and removed BC? They learned from previous mistakes.

Also, why the fuck would I buy a console from some schmoe on craigslist for $200 when I could go to a retailer and buy a used console for $200 that includes a 30 to 90 day warranty? Buying electronics on craigslist is retarded. You don't know what that shit has been through. It's not like they have carfax for consoles...

On top of that, I'd rather go manufacturer refurbished than straight used any day...

 

[Foxi4]

Idiot maths 101:

It's better to sell *1* system at a profit than *5* at a loss, when selling systems at a loss, the more you sell the deeper is the sh*t you're in.

 

[Rydian]

Your calculations are very misleading

I used the 50% and $50 numbers from earlier for an example. In either case the issue is the same. If BC makes the console sold at a loss and the additional console sales are from people who would only buy it if it has BC, that is a net loss.

and really don't prove your argument because guess what? We don't know how much per unit it would cost to implement backwards compatibility

Yeah, no.

It would cost at least as much as the core PS3 parts, just like it did for the PS3's compatibility with the PS2... and we have teardowns and cost analysis of the PS3 hardware.
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/cr...als-hardware-changes-but-no-real-upgrades/871
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10414022-52.html
http://www.eetimes.com/design/other/4004628/-Teardown-finds-Sony-taking-a-bath-on-each-PS3

Those reports state that the original model was a $240 loss. The redesigns with the PS2 hardware removed were down to $~40 loss before finally making a profit. The reports state that the Cell was 11% of the PS3's cost, in 2006, etc.

Sorry for all the applied math, but... you know, it's sort of important for Sony to make a profit. They make profits off of selling something for more than it costs, not from wishes.

See where I'm going with this? Your figures are nonsense and don't prove your argument in the least.

My figures were examples to prove that selling more systems at a higher loss means more loss, not more profit.

They weren't forced to think long-term, they planned on long-term. They had the choice to not go with over-the-top specifications. They had a choice not to have implemented such a crazy architecture that developers hated. They had a lot of choices, they were not forced in the least.

And their choices turned out to be shitty ones, which is why they're not doing it again.

Fucking Duh™.

 

[Foxi4]

...can't we just assume that Sony's not a charity and they want to make money rather than include a feature that will ramp up the costs without increasing the price of the product, especially in their current financial situation which resulted specifically from PS3's high price and "difficult" architecture which is still hard to use and actually abandoned by its creators entirely with no plans on continuing its development because it's batshit crazy and hard to manufacture?

 

[retKHAAAN]

What Peps seems to be stuck on here is "hypothetical software sales" versus "actual hardware sales".

Sony isn't going to make the mistake again of assuming that BC = more software sales = more $$$profits$$$

It is incredibly naive to think that a company is willing to take substantial losses while waiting on hypothetical revenues...

 

[Deleted-185407]

---

 

[Foxi4]

So my point is, you can't adamantly state that backwards compatibility is automatic no. There is adequate logic to suggest that backwards compatibility is worth researching into. That's all I'm trying to argue here.

Let me state this again so that it's clear...

Backwards Compatibility is more than welcome when the CPU/GPU lines are both continued so that including it causes virtually no additional costs, as in the cases of:

• Gamecube -> Wii -> WiiU
• Master System -> Megadrive/Genesis
• Game Boy -> Game Boy Colour

...which is not the case of PS3 -> PS4

Alternatively it also makes sense when the platform is strong enough to emulate another, like in the case of:

• N64 -> Wii
• SNES -> Wii
• PlayStation -> PSP

...which also is not the case of the PS3 -> PS4.

 

[Deleted-185407]

---

 

[mysticwaterfall]

Your hypothetical customer is too poor to buy a ps4 without a trade in but can somehow afford 20 games? Does that make any sense whatsoever?

 

[Rydian]

If Sony thought it was doable, they'd do it. They tried it before.

With the PS3, the console was really expensive and even then was netting them a loss, and they eventually just took out the PS2 parts from the PS3 because it wasn't worth it. <- Facts.

Even if the PS4 could use it's GPU for the PS3 stuff (it's an API instead of hardware instructions so the calls can have a translation layer without emulation) and only need the CELL and other Misc. parts, if it was doable cheaply they'd have done it.

I don't see how you can sit here and say "It'll work!" when it's been tried and it did not work.

 

[Foxi4]

This is about what the average consumer wants, and they couldn't give a toss about technical reasons.

The average customer doesn't give two flips because the average customer doesn't know what BC is. Nobody buys a washing machine with the intention of mowing a lawn, they buy a lawn mower. The average customers realize that PS3 games are played on a PS3 and will buy PS4's to play PS4 games.

 

[Deleted-185407]

---

 

[Foxi4]

And the average consumer expects their iPad 3 to run their iPad 2 software. Just like how they expect their Windows XP software to function in Windows 7. We've already been through this point. The average consumer will most likely expect the next iteration of a device to run software designed for the previous iteration. If the product was called something else entirely, then it's not natural to expect the previous iteration software to be runnable.

In that case the average consumer has to be pretty upset that 99,9% of DOS applications no longer work on Windows without DOS-Box, eh? Also - big difference between two consoles with different OS'es and two machines running the exact same OS. Your argument doesn't fly very high.

 

[Deleted-185407]

---

 

[Foxi4]

On that note, Windows 1 software works perfectly in Windows 8 (assuming you're using a 32-bit version).

Not true. Even the jump from Windows 95 to Windows 98 caused compatibility issues. Not to look too far, you won't play Starcraft on XP without patches or copying some of Windows 95's system files.

Consoles are not computers, they are not smartphones, they're consoles.

 

[Deleted-185407]

---

 

[Zetta_x]

I think Sony's reputation is more important than their profit. If they can endure the loss and if adding BC is proven to add good enough reputation, I would say go for it.

Sony is at an all time low in terms of investors; while greater profits will motivate investors, having a better reputation is much more valuable.

---

If my 2007 Wii goes out (which it's already having tons of problems), I have decided I'm going to buy a Wii-u. Do I have plans to buy any Wii-u games at the moment? Not right now, but the BC of the Wii-u will allow me to play all my Wii games and future proof for when I do buy Wii-u games.

Similar situation, if my PS3 goes out (which is a possibility) I would probably buy a PS4 if it had BC. Since the PS4 will not have BC, I'm most likely not going to buy it unless it's 3-4 years into the life span and it seems to be doing ok in terms of games.

By not including BC, they are breaking ties to the current userbase. Maybe a company like Sony will be able to rope them all back in, but if they cannot, they are putting a nail in the coffin in terms of reputation. But there are so many alternatives to gaming, there is no guarantee being able to make that connection.

---

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.


===

I'm sure part of the reason why they are not including it is because PS3 firmwares and public keys are floating everywhere and they don't want to chance people being able to run unsigned code on PS4 (even if it's in a PS3 mode)