PS4 NOT backward compatible with PS3

[Veho]

Refer to my response to Guild.

It doesn't address any of my points.

See, that's not the issue here. You're over-simplifying it and you're completely ignoring the beginning of the life-cycle of a console. It's the beginning that's important here, not just the middle of the life-cycle which the majority of people seem to be looking at.

BC means the console has a large library at launch, but if you're selling the console at a loss you may not want to boost your sales too much. And it's only a valid sales tactic if you have funds enough to buffer the losses for a year or two - and Sony doesn't.

The question is, how much does the customer value backwards compatibility at the beginning of the console's life? I'd argue, a hell of a lot, and polls have shown that 50% of respondees on average would gladly pay at minimum $50 extra to get that backwards compatibility support.

50% of a small, non-representative sample comprising mostly of people with strong views on the subject on an anonymous website with no obligation to back their demands. But when the chips are down, how many of them would be willing to put their money where their mouths are? Not enough.

Online polls are not indicative of the real state of things.

It operates as an incentive to purchase the console. Let's assume someone offered you Product A for the cost of $200, and Product B for the cost of $400. Now if Product B came with Product A support for $450, which seems the most appealing here?

To people who already own product A, the former option, because why pay an additional $50 for something you already own?

 

[Deleted-185407]

---

 

[retKHAAAN]

I'm pretty sure early PS3 adopters bought it because it was "the new Playstation" and not specifically because it was backwards compatible... People buy things when they're new...because they're new...

 

[Guild McCommunist]

What are we even arguing here?

If we're arguing that a lack of BC hurts console sales, statistics said otherwise. The more expensive, backwards compatible PS3 sold terribly. The cheaper, non-BC PS3 sold very well.

If we're arguing that it should be cheap AND backwards compatible, then I suggest you return to your land of triple rainbows and unicorns. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you're arguing that theoretically the PS3 sales would be worse if it was expensive AND wasn't BC, then no fucking shit. But it was expensive BECAUSE it was backwards compatible.

Like I'm thoroughly confused why we're arguing this point when it is factually wrong.

 

[Deleted-185407]

---

 

[mysticwaterfall]

At this point I don't think peps even knows anymore. I think he just doesn't want to be "wrong" so he keeps clinging to stuff.

 

[Arm73]

What are we even arguing here?

If we're arguing that a lack of BC hurts console sales, statistics said otherwise. The more expensive, backwards compatible PS3 sold terribly. The cheaper, non-BC PS3 sold very well.

If we're arguing that it should be cheap AND backwards compatible, then I suggest you return to your land of triple rainbows and unicorns. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you're arguing that theoretically the PS3 sales would be worse if it was expensive AND wasn't BC, then no fucking shit. But it was expensive BECAUSE it was backwards compatible.

Like I'm thoroughly confused why we're arguing this point when it is factually wrong.

OK, tell me something:
Let's say Sony and third party developers wouldn't let the PS3 die so soon and actually release good games still trough 2013 and possibly 2014. That would be good, right ?
Let's also say for the sake of argument that these developers or Sony themselves don't publish this games for the PS4, for a variety of reasons like increased development cost for example or maybe some publishers just wouldn't want to invest too much in bringing games to the PS4 because of the relatively small user base in the next couple of years and opt instead to still publish for the PS3 for better investment returns.
Basically, if a user wants to play a PS3 game ( or a PSN ) has to keep a PS3 alongside the PS4 and possibly PS2 (since PS3 also isn't BC with PS2, some people might care ).
Some also have a Wii, or a Wii U or an Xbox360/720
Are you suggesting to stuck each console on top of each other or on the side ? What about people who relies on selling the PS3 in order to buy a PS4, don't you think they'd be royally screwed over, not being able to play their games once they get the new hardware ?

I understand Sony reasoning and I accept the explanation. I know it's a complete hardware change and it is for the better in the long run ( I actually applaud them for it ), but it's hard to deny that BC is a good thing to have.
We don't have it. Fine.
But just because isn't there , there is no need to defend Sony and turn the tables around saying that BC is totally useless and redundant.
There are some people who care, and there are some scenario in which it can be considered very useful .
There is no point in denying it.

As usual, your Sony glass of water is half full.......or is it half empty ?

P.S.
I didn't buy a PS3 ( surprise ) but I really like the PS4.
Too bad if I buy it, I won't be able to catch up on games that I always wanted to play like Uncharted and Infamous.
It's always nice to play old games between new releases on the new systems.
I guess I'll stick with my gaming PC and enjoy what I can.

 

[mysticwaterfall]

The bottom line is BC is convient if its there but nowhere near a deal breaker if its not. If somebody doesn't buy a ps4 because of no bc they obviously didn't want one that much to begin with.

 

[retKHAAAN]

Peps is also ignoring my post the other day pointing out that were the PS4 to be backwards compatible, Sony would likely be competing with itself for software sales... The PS3 and PS4 will most definitely have side-by-side releases of all the multiplatform games (Madden, CoD, etc...). With little graphical difference (by "little" I simply mean not as huge a leap as this gen was) what's to stop people from just buying the cheaper, PS3 version of a game?

 

[Veho]

And again, you don't know how much it costs to implement BC, you have no idea what turnover it will bring in, you have no idea what impact it will have on sales

And neither do you, and yet you're attacking Sony based on it. Perhaps their estimate is that it would boost sales but not as much as a lower price would, so they opted for the latter.

you have no idea what their strategy even is or why they decided not to implement it.

I know their strategy is to not include backwards compatibility in the actual hardware. They're working on getting PS2/3 titles available via streaming, meaning they acknowledge the benefits of BC but don't find it feasible to include it in the hardware.

Online polls are the only source of information we have. As long as they're from non-biased websites (eg. Nintendo based forum, or Sony based forum), then they're good general indicators as to how people feel. I doubt people are going to be dishonest about backwards compatibility

Unless the poll is obligatory for every visitor of the site, the sample isn't an accurate cross section of the site's population. It's not about honesty, it's about lethargy; if the poll is not obligatory, the only people who will vote in the poll are the people with opinions on the subject, and between "I want BC with all my heart" and "I don't really care either way", which one would you say is the stronger incentive to vote?

And no, online polls can't be trusted.

the issue is "what can Sony do to make the device more appealing to the consumer so that they'll want to purchase it no matter what?"

Give it away for free. But some things just aren't feasible.

Why pay an additional $50 for something you own? Like I said, so you can sell off the old one and save a lot of money. Easy.

I don't want to sell my stuff. And I don't want to pay more just so that someone else could save money.

Nobody is asking for something to be cheap and backwards compatible

Actually you did, a few pages ago. You said Sony should have included BC at the current price, and that software sales would make up for the losses in profit on hardware that BC would incur.

A small increase in price perhaps, but huge value for money means that sales would increase.

According to your own words, you don't know how much the price increase would be, so you can't claim it would be small. And the increase in value-for-money would be subjective and only "huge" for some people, while others wouldn't care.

There hasn't been a single fact presented that suggests that BC harms sales. All that has been presented is highly circumstantial and subjective evidence.

And there hasn't been a single fact presented that suggests BC increases sales enough to offset the increased development and manufacturing costs needed to implement it.

 

[Deleted-185407]

---

 

[J-Machine]

This is gonna be the last post I make on this thread as It feels like arguing for the sake of arguing now. I may or may not be a "average consumer" but I can tell you my income is slightly above poverty thanks to a medical condition and taking care of a disabled parent. I work hard for this luxury and make many sacrifices for it. Here is a rundown of every system I ever bought.:

Ps2: bought star ocean 3 when it was 30 dollars but waited an extra year to buy the system with a side job I was almost to sick to do over a weekend selling leather jackets.

DS: waited for the lite and my only motivation was my gameboy advance was lost in a move and wanted something for my hour long bus rides to school. this time I was well enough to work though and had a job.

Wii: Only because it was cheaper than the competition, cause I never owned a gamecube or n64 and it was essentially having 3 systems at once still waited over a year to get it though.

360: only because I couldn't afford a ps3 and because my friends liked playing online far more than being in the same room as someone. Later found out my 19 inch crt made reading text near impossible, that online was not free and I could not afford it ( i payed for my internet). I ended up playing doom for 2 months then traded the system for a slim ps3

Ps3: was hoping I'd be able to read text on this, still couldn't so I let it collect dust for a year. cfw came out and I used it religiously for videos only until a year ago when a best buy promotion netted me an hdtv for a hundred bucks.

WiiU: My bucket list had "wait in line during a launch for a new console." It was one of those moments where I pretended I had the money to do these things and my credit card still has to be payed off from getting a deluxe console (was going to get a basic but it was sold out lol)

To iterate my software buying habits The only 2 games I bought day one were metroid prime three and ZombieU. Both were directly linked to A new experience with a freind and only metroid was a pre-order. Every other game I buy I wait for a price drop, good sale, get it used, borrow, or from a 5-20 dollar bin after researching the game extensively. In other words rarely am I a gamer who supports the people who make the consoles or games. Then again I can't afford to but hope someday I can.

Yes this is anecdotal evidence and should be taken with a grain of salt but I think it helps illustrate that people prefer cheap over substance as every time I bought a BC console, price paid a big role in my final decision as did all other purchases showing it's importance over BC (wii is the only exception) This is also from a financial standpoint where trading in a system would have greatly helped every time but wasn't done because I still enjoyed the systems I already had. In fact Without a hdtv I'd be only playing games on the wii and ps2 to this day as they would be he only real options available to me.

Then again not everyone takes this hobby with as much thought and acceptance of their limitations to enjoy it like I do if peps idea of the average consumer is actually correct and might explain why debt is such a big deal these days.

oh and BC only really became a thing because Japanese households are smaller than most countries and it was competing for living room space not only with other companies but also the previous offering they would have. allowing people to play those older system games while they waited for new offerings was an added bonus that complimented this. Not to mention similar architectures made this possible in most cases.

 

[Veho]

How many times does this argument have to be debunked? The whole point of BC is to make people really want the bloody console. You don't just add BC because "why not". You add it so that people have an incentive to purchase the thing.

The whole point of BC is to make people who want BC to really want the console, and it does absolutely nothing for anyone else. You add it so that some people, far from all have an added (since it's not the only draw of the console) incentive to buy. So basically, it targets a tiny percentage of the potential market. Why are we yelling?

In regards to poll, if that was the case, then we can never trust any form of research ever conducted by the human species.

You'd be amazed at the amount of research that aren't polls or surveys. But regarding polls, we can trust research that uses good sampling. Trusting a poll with incorrect sampling is like looking at a petition and saying "wow, 100% of the population supports XYZ". Proper sampling eliminates bias. Online polls don't involve proper sampling.

Online polls can't be trusted.

What I'm arguing is that BC is a perfectly viable business option, and that people shouldn't be going "LOL NO".

And "no BC" is also a viable business option. We are arguing that you are severely overestimating the impact of backwards compatibility, and you've done nothing to dissuade us.

 

[the_randomizer]

BC isn't something that can be magically added to a console, especially a system as complex as a PS3. If someone wants to look for all the documentation, reverse engineer and add backwards compatibility from a system that uses IBM Cell to a system that uses an x86 AMD architecture, be my guest.

 

[retKHAAAN]

Nothing has been ignored. Your point has been irrelevant. And if you did bring up a point I missed, I apologise. It's hard to debate against multiple people at once here.

What's to stop people from buying the cheaper PS3 version of the game? Well nothing, but eventually that will be phased out for the newer product. You don't just stop supporting your old console when you release the next iteration, because that's just suicidal to a business. You slowly phase these things out and encourage people to buy the new product. Although do remember, Sony will still receive money from PS3 sales, and there will be games that are only released on PS3 and only released on PS4.

...

You're arguing that Sony needs to sell as many PS4s as possible, right out the gate, by any means necessary...and then you switch course and say you're not worried about the potential for poor PS4 software sales because they will eventually pick up? You realize eventually is 2 to 3 years down the road, right? It's starting to sound like Sony needs only to push consoles out the door and worry about supporting them later to satisfy your argument...

and yes, Sony will receive money from new PS3 software sales (though, likely less)...but if they're selling more PS3 versions and fewer PS4 versions it will certainly affect shipping numbers and strict "PS4 Revenue"...which means more doom and gloom forecasts Valwin threads in the USN about "OMGZZ DA PS4 IS FALEZZZ"

If you can justify paying more for BC by saying "people can sell off their old consoles to put towards the new" then why can't you justify paying for games again by saying "people can sell off their old games to put towards their digital counterparts"? If your response is "they won't have the entire catalogue of games up on the marketplace" then my response is "that's what the PS3 is for". If you're argument is "people should be able to sell their PS3 and put the money towards a PS4" my response is "it's entirely their choice whether or not they want to give up one system for another, but Sony has obviously done the research to recognize (and history has shown) that BC =/= successful launch."

 

[Yepi69]

...along with their mad outdated architectures.

At least they keep their compatibility

 

[Foxi4]

At least they keep their compatibility

No, they don't. That's how the whole "keeping" business looked like as of late:

Spoiler

>Dropped Game Boy Advance Backwards Compatibility
>That's okay, at least it has cameras and an SD Slot

(I always argue that the DSi is actually a successor to the DS rather than a revision due to hardware differences and NOBODY on this forum ever agrees with me on this because "it has very little exclusive software" so here you go - suck it up, the "revision" does less than the original)

>Dropped Gamecube Backwards Compatibility
>That's okay, at least it's cheaper

>Dropped Gamecube Backwards Compatibility and Wi-Fi
>That's okay, at least it's cheaper

>Dropped PlayStation 2 Backwards Compatibility
>OUTRAGEOUS!

>Dropped PS3 Backwards Compatibility
>OUTRAGEOUS!

 

[emigre]

DAMN FOXI YOU'RE SUCH A SONY FAGTARDBOY!

 

[mysticwaterfall]

@peps If I really want to make waffles, I'm not going to pass on getting a waffle maker just because it doesn't make pancakes. It's the same thing.

 

[Foxi4]

@peps If I really want to make waffles, I'm not going to pass on getting a waffle maker just because it doesn't make pancakes. It's the same thing.

I'm sorry, opportunities for posting this are far more rare than you can imagine - gotta take each and every one.