PS4 Backwards Compatibility
Sony removed backwards compatibility in the PS3 for the PS2 a third of the way into the generation of the PS3 and what for? Was it to save that extra $30 on manufacturing costs? Or was it a much deeper reason?
When the PS3 first released Sony took the high ground and started slating the Xbox 360 stating “Microsoft don’t even care about their consumers, they didn’t even implement full backwards compatibility!” It’s quite funny reading that now; Microsoft never once promised backwards compatibility and yet they added software emulation for a large number of games. Sony Promised “full” backwards compatibility and the reality was that yes a large number of games would play but a handful had serious problems. Then as the years went by, compatibility was significantly reduced when they removed the emotion chip used in the PS2 and then finally removed all together when they removed software emulation.
So, here we are now with our new slim looking PS3s that only play PS3 and PS1 games. Nostalgia is good and all but it just looks ugly on a big 1080p TV, it’s best reserved for handheld systems like the PSP or PS Vita where the resolution is low and screen size is small and to be honest I personally don’t play anything last generation anymore. At first it was an issue for me but I just couldn’t play another PS2 game after the first month of owning a PS3. The graphics were horrible; sound was even worse and no online play! The appeal of backwards compatibility just wasn’t there anymore. Alas I sold all my PS2 games and bought a couple of PS3 games. Well worth the trade in my eyes.
I will probably feel the same once I own a PS4. I’ll get sick of the last generation graphics and will be won over by the extra features the PS4 has over the PS3, sell my PS3 and games and non-compatible accessories and invest in the PS4. So is there really any need to include backwards compatibility at all? Even in the first generation PS4s?
Let’s look at it from a development point of view. If, best case scenario for backwards compatibility, Sony used a more powerful Cell and an NVidia GPU and kept the basic architecture the same (probably won’t happen) then all they have to do is create software emulation. Which should be fairly simple since the architecture is the same; they can just put some code in to tell the new CPU and GPU how to handle legacy code but that isn’t perfect. Games that use a lot of the PS3’s power will probably not work, like Uncharted for example. Also the software emulation coding costs Sony man hours and man hours cost money, money Sony would rather not spend. Let’s not forget what financial climate we are currently in and the fact that during its life time the PS3 still hasn’t broke even.
If Sony developed the PS4 with backwards compatibility in mind they wouldn’t be able to innovate and develop faster and better architectures. This could be a dangerous situation to be in since Microsoft is very likely to change their CPU and GPU architecture, possibly creating a better game console. Sony could be left behind and possibly fail at a generation which could bankrupt it.
However I’m sure Sony won’t do this. They are a company known innovation. Back when the PS3 was released it was so original and in many ways it still is.
Worst case scenario is that the new CPU and GPU are completely different architectures and software emulation isn’t possible. Sony will have to include the both the current Cell and RSX in the PS4! Cost to consumer would be huge! The hardware would be big and consume a lot of power, sales would be low and Sony would lose a lot of money.
I believe backwards compatibility is just a waste of time and money to give away for free as an incentive to buy the console and therefore should be paid for or be part of the PlayStation plus subscription. It would also be a great way to encourage people to subscribe to PlayStation Plus. That way those who want it can have it and therefore pay for its development and its long term improvement.
Let me know what you think in the comment section below.
Related Articles:
Navigation
Poll
Should Sony incorporate motion controls into the PS4?
Popular Articles
PS4 Comments
- seriously?
5 hours 8 min ago - ps4
10 hours 32 min ago - i agree about everything but blue-ray. blue ray is just stupid.
13 hours 6 min ago - Too soon
15 hours 22 min ago - used games
18 hours 44 min ago - Well, not really that cheaper.
18 hours 57 min ago - PS4-PS5
18 hours 48 min ago - So True
19 hours 43 min ago - Idea For Sony
19 hours 49 min ago - HELL YEA!
20 hours 17 min ago
Comments
remake
maby they should just remake some of the old games no bad grapics better game play and same story line
There won't be a PS4 or PS5
Consoles are dead. Any decent Console game goes to PC. World of Warcraft by Blizzard has made more money than sells of PS3 consoles combined. Sony will make a PC computer to hook up to your PC, and that's the end of consoles. Software developers will make games for intel chip PC and the Cell Processor is dead. 9 cores? 3.0 ghz? come on. Who wants to buy a PS3 or XBOX 360 thats going to burn out in three years? Not me and not you.
RE there won't be a PS4 or PS5
you padre are a dumbass game consoles are very far from dead, with the wii 360 and ps3 alone its over 100 million gamers worldwide an thats not counting handhelds its more prefernce on console type. I play games on all formats an use my pc for wow an swtor an consoles for GOW, MW, FF etc most console games do go to the pc first but thats nothing new its not as if most gamers don't know this so try to understand its PREFERENCE as yours is obviously PC. An you might be suprised considering your a dumbass but there will be a PS4 an a new xbox and a new Wii cause hey suprise suprise theres a HUGE demand for them!!!!
I think that ps4 should have
I think that ps4 should have backwards capability. I have a lot of ps3 games that I wouldn't be able to play if I traded in my ps3, and got a ps4. I don't like how Sony is trying to force us to toss our old games and just re buy them on ps4 and download them on the system. I wouldn't mind downloading them if I can get them for free on psn. For an exchange for the sameones I own. But that waste a lot of memory on the system the only way I would do that is if Sony put a 1tb memory on their and then I wouldn't have to worry about the memory.
Keep it...
As a player and a parent of little players...We have grown up with play station 1, 2, & 3. We purchased alot of games when the PS1 came out, and we loved it, and then the PS2 came out and again, we purchased alot of games, but the reason why we purchased the PS2 is because Any and all games made by Sony is considered an "Investment" by kids and parents. Why scrap all those games??? So we purchased PS2 because it played PS1 as well... We purchased the PS3 for this reason as well...We were bummed out because we have developed quite a collection of games over the years....I hope the PS4 will play "EVERYTHING" ...WHY? No other system will do this... Game systems are expensive these days and a customers hard earned money should count for something...Why make someone purchase the next generation system, and then Re-purchase the Games which are also expensive... THINK OF IT!!! THE SYSTEM THAT DOES EVERYTHING!!! Everybody would want one! I would purchase the PS4 that played everything TOMORROW simply because I could take it home...open it...and play games...Then I could purchase new generation games being on a limited income these days...More competitive with the up and down economy this way.
Shallow
I honestly think the statement that, "personally, I won't even play last generation console games anymore" is SO shallow. That's like saying, "golly, I won't even sit in the passenger seat of a 90s car!" I had more fun playing Resident Evil 1 on my PS3 than I had playing many, many, many PS3 games. It's just a silly supposition that graphics are the most important factor in a game. If it's not the graphics then what? The fact that it's "current". The fact is that some PS2 games were made AFTER some(some) PS3 games. So which one is "last generation?"
Your right it is shallow
Your right it is shallow thinking. Infact this whole article was a joke.
The writer needs to go and buy over 450 PS3 titles at first run cost. and then tell me its just ok to toss those out for ps4 only.. Not having BC would be nuts. It would also make having dlc from psn now worthless. and it would also make trophies worthless. I would consider trading my ps3 games and 4 systems in to whoever offers current generation bc in next generation.
Totally Agree
I agree with you on this one. It’s bad enough that in order to play a lot of games you have to buy and own multiple different consoles like Xbox, Playstation, Wii, etc. But to have to own multiple of the same console just to be able to play your favorite last gen games is ridiculous.
I really want backwards
I really want backwards compatibility. I can't afford to get every next-gen console, so I never got a PS3. If there is backwards compatibility, I will be able to finally play the PS3 games I've wanted to get in addition to the PS4 releases.
PS4
To be honest, I think PS4 doesn't need to innovate at all that was the problem with PS3: it was so vastly different to PS2 the developing for it has had it's many downfalls and the price of the system was massive. Sony needs to think more logical and be more like PC but allow BC too.
Sony needs to do what they did with the vita and make the system easy to develop for and porting would be fine. PS4 needs 500GB harddrive, 1GB of ram at least and a way better graphics unit and a slightly better CPU or upgraded cell processor and 4x speed blu-ray drive and they're in business as they wouldn't have to worry about installs.
PS4 heavily needs a better graphics card and at least 1GB of ram memory everything else they can fiddle around with. Backwards capable would still work with PS3 games and i think it definitely has a place as long as they follow the same hardware structure but make it easy to develop for.
Backwards Compatibilty Has It's Place
I see your point and it is a good one however, backwards compatibility will always have its place for very good reasons. One of the reasons people upgrade to the new and improved electronics is so they can eliminate the old ones. However, when it comes to video games both new and old, it doesn’t matter how awesome they get, the legacy games will always have a place in the hearts of most gamers. That’s why a lot of people kept their PS2 and still buy PS2 games. Still, most people would rather have one system that does everything. That’s the beauty of a computer. Even though it gets better and better, there are still ways to get the older games and programs to work with a little time and know how. I can still play the first pc version of Tomb Raider on my brand new core I7 system running windows 7.
When PS3 first came out I couldn’t afford it and I wanted one bad. I am a huge Grand Theft Auto and Tomb Raider fan. I wanted a system that will allow me to play the entire of both series on one system along with all my other PS1 and PS2 games. The fact that the PS3 was able to do that is the reason I saved up my money so that I could afford to buy one. By the time I could afford a PS3, the new systems that were out did not have backwards compatibility so that reason alone made me not want one. I figured I already have a PS2 and I didn’t want to buy a second hand PS3 because you have no warranty and you never know what you’re getting so instead I bought an Xbox 360 which too had backwards compatibility issues but still offered it for most of the games that I cared about so I figured I could just live with that and get the rest of the GTA and Tomb Raider series along with any other games I wanted on Xbox 360.
A problem that popped up was that since some games are exclusive to certain consoles, some of the ones that were exclusive to the PS3 were ones I wanted to play. Thankfully a few months ago a friend of mine who had one of the first backwards compatible PS3's did what you did (got rid of all his older PS2 games) and bought a new PS3. He then sold me his old PS3 for a song (like $50.00) and it plays all my older legacy PS1 & PS2 games no problem. To be quite honest, the picture and sound quality in my opinion isn’t all that bad. I have a 60” Sony LCD with 5.1 surround sound and my PS3s connected via HDMI and I’m quite satisfied. Granted, the picture and sound quality doesn’t compare to the newer PS3 games but who cares. I mean you cannot expect an older generation game to look as good as a newer generation game no matter what you do so, get over it.
Getting to what you said about the cost as well as Sony and consumer expense, even the possible sacrifice of better gaming features pertaining to the CPU and GPU; you make a very valid point. However, it would be nice if Sony could offer two products, one PS4 with and one without backwards compatibility so that way those who didn’t care about backwards compatibility could have an awesome system and those who did want backwards compatibility could have it at a higher cost. Or, maybe Sony could go ahead and develop the PS4 without backwards compatibility allowing them to make it the best system in the world, but have an upgrade option as well, where the consumer would either special order upon purchase or send in their system to have this option added at their own cost including shipping.
For one thing, the fact that Sony didn’t have to make a direct up front financial investment into the system by adding backwards compatibility in the first place, would save them some money and allow them to develop and distribute a better system. Then as an option, if I chose to purchase backwards compatibility, all the expense would then fall to me and I would more than likely have no problem paying the extra money to have that option and I’m sure that a few others out there wouldn’t mind either. If not, then they didn’t spend any money for nothing. You do have a good idea about having legacy gaming be a part of PlayStation Plus. However, I already pay for X-box live and really don’t want to pay a second subscription charge. Instead, I would just rather pay one upfront cost for an added option of backwards compatibility on to my system and call it done.
By the way, if I sound long winded and seem to ramble on in my sentences, that’s the ADHD in effect LOL.
PS3 has everything
HD quality sound and picture, can do 3d as well, so its not going to be much diffs in visible quality in games which are most important for us gamers, so imho compatibility between PS3 and PS4 is a must. EoS
AMD
There is a possibility and a rumour going around that AMD is either:
a) making a CPU for the PS4
or
b) making a GPU for the PS4
or
c) making a SOC for the PS4
If any one of those three points is true, it is highly unlikely any chance of backward compatibility could ever possibly exist.
It's either nVidia and Rambus (and therefore Cell), or there is no way backward compatibility can exist.
I just heard a rumor about AMD
I just heard a rumor that AMD is developing a setup that supports backwards compatibility. So, if that happens and the new PS4 does go the AMD way, we should still be set.
I also found a link that kind of discusses this topic and seems to claim that AMD can produce backwards compatibility. They are talking about the new Xbox though. With that said, I am sure if the new Xbox 720 is going to be backwards compatible, there is no way that Sony is going to leave this option out and chance loosing Playstation fans and consumers to its competition.
http://n4g.com/news/411024/amd-deal-for-xbox-720-makes-sense-for-backwards-compatibility/com
And here is a link talking more about Xbox 720 not only including backwards compatibility but also improving upon it.
http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/10/16/xbox-720-to-have-backwards-compatibility-with-bells-on/
Scaled Back
I think it's fairly clear at the moment that Microsoft's "tight lip" with the Next Xbox hangs on one thing -
"Should we design an Xbox720 with exclusive and full backward compatibility, or not."
"We have Kinect 2.0 to think about here."
There is also the fact that Kinect is heading toward PC - and therefore x86.
If they do but they need the costing to support a powerful design, it would make sense to create two types of Next Xbox -
Type I - Casual Next Box
(backward compatible to Xbox360 and x6 the power = 1.5 Teraflops)
Type 2 - UE4-, CE3-level Next Xbox
(no backward compatibility but x10 the power = 2.5 Teraflops)
AMD's Trinity series of SoC chip designs (released in 2013) can achieve 1 Teraflop per 100watts, so that lends credence to the suggestion made here.
But you can't have a x86 AMD CPU in there for the Xbox Next without some kind of complication - which you really do not need.
With IBM's PowerPC7 architecture in there instead, or some form of it being in there from a Xbox360 point of view, it should retain RISC "non-x86" features.
And be much more powerful.
Casuals want backward compatibility.
The "High Flying Club" doesn't care for it.
Either way, there are 50 Million users on each end of that scale.
With all of the above, it has probably done the rounds at Microsoft and AMD a few times, and I really don't see two forms of Next Xbox.
Which is probably why you won't see anything until next year.
I agree
I agree with launching multiple types of systems. I think both Playstation, Xbox, and all other console systems could and should come in different options for people to choose from. If you think about it, the best products do like cars, appliances, and tools. Why not game systems.
RISCs need to be taken
I think this problem is more in line of x86 - or no x86.
Microsoft's Windows 8 uses ARM.
ARM is not x86. It's RISC.
Playstaiton is RISC.
Xbox360 is RISC.
Now all of a sudden, Sony announces an x86 architecture with likely RISC "DNA" in it?
That doesn't even make sense.
The only reason x86 even exists is it is a predominantly Server-based platform and Intel is as smart as the players at IBM. They both know what they're doing, and if any competition turns up, they have this dial they turn; it's called the "panic dial" - it goes from "who gives a crap" to "step on it with a boot and make it disappear".
However, Intel and AMD have a problem.
Power per Watt.
CISC x86 designs consume an absolute crap load of energy. And their only performance difference over RISC/ARM/et al is multi-Gigahertz frequencies.
RISC and ARM does not.
nVidia know this.
AMD know this.
They also know that merging RISC ARM into their GPU architecture can massively reduce Power per Watt and in turn, Performance per Watt, by a factor of x5 (outside of x86).
Technically, nVidia and AMD won't have GPUs that are designed for x86 architectures in the very near future; just hybrids - but the way the interconnect PCI-E bus works is that the GPU is completely independent of the x86 architecture.
But still, it's a complete waste of GPU compute performance on x86 architecture - it's what PC owners know that they also know about games console that worries them so much.
PC gaming is coming to an end.
Gabe Newell knows it - look at the insane push of the Steam Service that overrides any consideration for *NEW* PC game development. Their Source Engine is so old, I can't even recall when it was first developed.
And John Carmack knows it. IdTech5 is, and will remain, a technological disaster. It doesn't fit in with x86. Although it highly likely would with RISC/ARM. Isn't that interesting...
Epic know it. I mean what do they do? License their game engine? Anything else for for x86? No. Nothing
Crytek know it. Why? Because all PC gamers do is complain at them when their residual developements quite clearly show a "game console" bent.
Intel know it's happening too. Their Knight's Corner for the past few years has been waiting in the background ready for when every SERVER and EVERY GAME DEVELOPER, and Microsoft, give the big finger to x86 architecture. IBM will likely follow shortly after - but not before then; this will be explained later...
25 years is long enough to put up with little progress other than MEGAwatt platforms.
IBM's RoadRunner was predominantly RISC and IBM's Cell architecture being the first computer platform to break the PetaFLOP barrier against all other x86-based systems with x86 GPUs (and even other RISC systems).
The next step in compute evolution is there, it's just the likes of Intel bullying everyone that holds tradition in place for far too long. AMD is just a business that managed to get in there enough to compete.
IBM has something called the PowerXCell 8i that asbolutely thrashes any x86 CPU from Intel or AMD - and yet, they don't use it anywhere else.
I know why this is.
IBM does not want to upset the "x86 Apple-cart".
And so they focus on the game console with their PowerPC part (with Cell DNA in it). And not their revolutionary PowerXCell 8i part that makes a complete mockery of the most powerful commercial Intel CPU at this current time.
Multi-versions of Games consoles.
The only versions I can think of would be x86 and RISC versions.
It wouldn't be because one had a deficit over the other in terms of "affordable features".
i want backwards compatability.
i think that all ps3s and ps4s should have backwards compatability. when the ps4 comes out i dont want to have to own both a ps3 and ps4 to play both games. i want to be able to play all of my games on 1 system. i dont want to see a ps5 noone can afford to have 500 game systems because unneccesarry upgrades. im perfectly happy with my ps3 and when ps4 comes out i might buy one. but im getting tired of HAVING to upgrade just to play my favorite games. if a new game comes out that i want to play i dont want to have to buy a new system just to play it. stop upgrading. ONLY upgrade when youve absolutely perfected EVERYTHING. when there is NO room for improvement then make your ps4 and then stop making more systems. until then leave well enough alone.
About the PS3 backward's compatibility...
What I don't understand is the problem with backwards compatibility of PS3 games, I mean if the PS4 is probably going to use a Cell processor except with more SPE's included, why couldn't it just use those as hardware emulation for the backwards compatibility of PS3 games since they are the same architecture? Also I never owned a PS3 until Thursday, February the 2nd, 2012, it was the original 60GB PS3 (CECHA01) and I was glad to get it with its original packaging too for a steal, just $139.99 USD! The best aspect to it is that it offere me full backwards compatibility with all PS2 games that I currently own, I can't afford the new PS3 games, heck I managed to get only 2 PS3 games: Ratchet & Clank - All 4 One for just $14.99 and the original Motorstorm from 2007 for just $4.99, so all in all it was a great investment this is the first 7th generation console that I have ever owned that I've used for the first time and although I'm over 5 years late, I hope this platform lasts many years to come!
Compatability Over Cost.
Personally, being a gamer like myself, I enjoy the nostalgia of playing older games. Not everyone would be comfortable having multiple systems of different generations of the same line. And yes the older games with their low graphics and sounds to this day and age are disappointing, but putting those games on a smaller handheld system only isn't any better. Growing up with siblings, who have impaired vision, who also enjoy those kind of games like I do, can't see anything on the small screen compared to a television. With all that being said, if Sony doesn't wish to make their systems 100% backwards compatible (dealing with the few issues with graphics and sound stated above), and do not want to lose the business of a good many consumers with this in mind, may want to think about revamping every game made in the past to current standards.
Look at it from the customer's Perspective
Henry, though you have a valid argument, not everybody is a techie as me and you are. Parents buy these things for their children. If you're a consumer who doesn't care about backward compatibility then yes you do win; but if you're a parent who has a kid who wants the new console and it doesn't play any of the games that you spent hundreds of dollars for, you just wasted a lot of money. For the first several months a console has been released there aren't that many games out there. At best when a parent buys their kid a new Playstation they get 3 or 4 games. You also have about 25 to 30 games sitting by your PS3. When you sell games you don't get back for what you paid for. A parent typically doesn't know a thing about how a PS works so when your kid says, "mom, you have to get the "..." so I can still play my old games on the PS4" that's extra money they have to spend in their mind. If you want a smooth transition from an old console to the new one, backwards compatibility is an absolute must. A console can have the best graphics and the games can have the best gameplay, but if you don't stay true to the consumer; you'll have an amazing console that absolutely nobody is playing.
Very Good Comment
I agree with you on this. Also like the story mentioned, PS3 came out after Xbox 360 so not only did Xbox have a good head start on PS3, I also remember people making comments about how the PS3 was so much more expensive than the Xbox 360 and the picture quality wasn't much better. That was because the games that had just came out weren’t able to fully tap into the potential of what the PS3 could do. This in turn only boosted sales for Xbox. The usability in a system regardless of how old or new it is, especially with regards to the lack of new compatible games and accessories is very big deal and producing a system that can do it all is a major selling point. You are right, backwards compatibility is a must and if a product is good enough and does everything the consumer wants it to do; they will buy it regardless of the cost.
backwards compatability
it better have this function! its the psn network so everything should carry over into this system, cause if not, y are we paying now for content, that in due time, the very system we play it on will be obsolete.... what if I'm a PSN+ member for ps3, your gonna tell me i have to pay more for a psN4+ member? Don't do the comsumer dirty, after all, at the end of the day, we are the ones that put the food on your table!!!
Consumer Wins!
I meant no such thing. Everything should carry over for example trophies and PlayStation Plus subscription. I was merely stating that PlayStation 3 games are playable if you purchase the backwards compatibility software.
Not everyone wants to have to pay for backwards compatibility, so the console should be cheaper and the backwards compatibility software a paid add-on for those who want it. Nobody loses out, in fact I'd say the consumer wins. With a cheaper console and if they want backwards compatibility they can pay for it and therefore Sony can afford to improve it in the long term.
Post new comment