Ben-DutkaMuch is being made about the backward compatibility for Xbox One and it got me thinking:
How many PlayStation 4 fans would really love to see the same feature? And how many really couldn't care less?
Perhaps strangely, I find myself in the latter group. When the PS2 and PS3 came out, b/c was absolutely the biggest selling point for me; I hated the idea of not being able to play my older games on the new systems. It even bugged me back in the day when there was no such thing as backward compatibility. And trust me, it bugged many a parent as well, each of whom was convinced that it was a sneaky ploy on the part of Sega and Nintendo to never make a new system that would play games from the previous system. They all believed that.
But anyway, I've always loved this feature. It's only recently that I haven't cared much about it. I honestly have no idea what Xbox 360 games I'd have any interest in playing on Xbox One at this point and that remains true for PS3 and PS4. Oh, there might be a few PS3 exclusives like Heavy Rain I'd like to play through again but for the most part, I don't mind. Maybe it's because there are remasters and reboots and HD upgrades all over the place, or maybe it's because this generation's games are pretty much exactly like last generation's games, only with better graphics.
If I want to play games with substantially different gameplay, I have to go back to the days when entirely different mechanics were actually the norm. But gameplay hasn't really changed in the past decade or so; why would I play Uncharted: Drake's Fortune when Uncharted 4: A Thief's End is out? Why would I want to play the original Gears of War now? I mean, seriously? I just wonder how many PS4 owners are shrugging their shoulders at this grand new feature for Xbox One, going, "eh…don't care if PS4 ever gets it."
It's a nice feature to have. Not only does MS have an advantage they're allowing you to play your digital owned Games with Gold on XO.
Personally I like rebuying my favorite last gen games as remasters on new hardware. Here's the thing. The hardware we have now with consoles will likely stick with the same ISA and general structure so backwards compatibility will likely be in the cards in the future on upcoming platforms.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/4/2015 10:10:32 PM
It was so awesome when the PS3 was fully backwards compatible. Just imagine if the PS4 was.
The one downside about how this XO BC works is that it emulates the games. which means 360 games on XO won't feel exactly the same, usually for the worse.
I could careless. I barely revisit old games. After I realized this, I quickly got rid of my ps3 games and ps3 even though I miss having my collection.
I don't care at all. Really I don't
There are to many new games out there every week and I like to play the newest thing, so I wouldn't use it.
Actually I don't know if my XO has it already or not. I'm looking for Tomb Raider and QuantummBreak
So instead of playing good and fun games, you'd prefer mainstream, hand holding titles instead. Boy are you tweeny boppers missing out.
Normally I would care. But there are so many good games coming out I dont now.
Oh, so all the games in the past are terrible because only new games are good. Yeah, THAT makes sense.
This backwards compatibility feature is two years too late. That feature is really only useful during the transition period for early adopters – so put me in the "I couldn't care less" camp.
Personally, I would rather have an HD remastered version if I were to go back to a PS3 game.
I'd still buy the remasters as they are the games I love, slightly improved.
It's a nice feature to have, but not a selling point for me. I'm still going through my PS3 backlog and hitting "input 2" on my remote isn't that much of a hassle. It would be nice to free up some shelf space and have everything on one console. There's also a lot of great games that will probably never get remastered.
In other words, I wouldn't start a petition for it, but I'd sign one.
What is this, a trick question? Of course I would! It's the #1 reason stopping me from getting a PS4 right now.
i wouldnt care.
I care, seriously I want to play all my old game on one console, no need for me to hook all my console into one TV…
If it weren't for the remasters, backwards compatibility would be more of a necessity as they use to be. HD remakes that were intended for the popular PS2 games to be playable with actual trophies and updated graphics so it'd be playable on the PS3. Now PS3 games are given the same treatment, but not with as much benefits as the PS2 to PS3 upgraded games did. With this sort of pattern.. what would the PS5 do with PS4 games?
I still favour it, not only because I still occasionally play the older games (and no, you don't have to "live in the past" to do so) since there's some genres and gameplay styles that cease to exist anymore. But also because for the benefit of the company, it's much more positive to say "The PS4 CAN play previous gen games too." than "No, but you can pay extra to rent select older games through this service."
There are a number of gamers who still refuse to upgrade because of this lack of feature, since it's quite possible for them to enable it and as Fareez mentioned, that's quite a fire hazard to be having 3+ consoles nearby ready to be hooked up.
Last edited by VampDeLeon on 8/4/2015 11:45:24 PM
Only if I was too poor to buy the latest games. Our any game. Then I would use the crap out of it backward compatibility.
I agree with you, Ben, when you talk about the need to play my older games on the newest console or the fact that the game play is so similar that I don't see my self in the need to play a older FPS.
But I think that a lot of people don't see the true purpose of BC.
And that it the potential value it create for NEWER games vs the PS4?
Fallout 3 is offered with fallout 4
Just cause 2 with Just cause 3
The whole Gears of war Saga with Gears ultimate
Etc.
That is the kind of offer that can translate in more sales.
Let me end my rant with a Question.
If a future consumers wants to buy a multi platform game, which version will he choose?
The PS4 version at 1080P or the XB1 version at 900P bundle with free games?
Man for real. When I heard Just Cause 3 comes with Just Cause 2 on Xbox One…I myself kind of said "Now that's a sweet deal"
I'm sure some people would like it. I don't care.
I care and I will most likely get a one this holiday season.
I didn't care for the one at the begining of this gen but now that it can play my xbox 360 catalog, it is a fully featured multimedia box and Xbox Live is way more robust than PSN not to mention that the one will get to play the free 360 games with gold (AAA games) on top of the one's freebies, I think Live is a better value than PS+.
I wish Sony could improve things on their end but now that they are in the lead, I don't think that they care.
I'd actually care very much. Simplicity is priceless. I can launch ps3 games then a ps4 game by just going to the home ui? Yes please. Every time I go turn on the ps3, it just feels outdated and slow.
I'd want it. But mostly for space saving. Then I'd have 2 systems, not 4.
Not bothered now by it. I buy remastered if I really liked the game. Got my ps3 n never use it.
Couldn't care less. Everything that was good on ps3 was already released as Remaster on ps4.
I'm finding myself wanting to play new games, not old.
Yes, it would allow me to play my backlog of PS3 games on my PS4, and put my PS3 away.
It is the main reason I have not purchased a PS4. I have a large collection of games that span back to the PS1. No bc was a huge letdown for me since I still play my old games along with the new ones. If they would announce bc, I would a PS4 this very minute.
Backwards compatibility should be a requirement for new consoles, not a selling point. With the push towards digitally purchasing games, Sony have put a shelf life on those purchases. They want us to buy the new console and not allow us to play the games you've purchased unless you keep the old console which they'll stop supporting over time (which is fair enough) but you shouldn't have to repurchase your games. The only reason, the absolutely only reason there's no backwards compatibility on PS4 is because of the money Sony have pumped into PS Now. They're a company out to make money, this makes sense to them and I get it. If MS weren't behind in sales versus PS4 sales, maybe they wouldn't be offering the feature. But right now I believe MS are making the right moves though I expect that to be lost on the majority of people posting on a Playstation centric website. But if MS and Sony's positions where reversed this gen, Sony would be doing the exact same thing MS are doing now. Since Sony are in the lead this generation though, they're not under any pressure to do anything 'For the Players'.
Last edited by frostface on 8/5/2015 8:01:58 AM
You're mostly right, I think. But you're a bit off, in my opinion, when it comes to not wanting to do anything 'for the players' just because they're winning. The idea that any company exists in order to serve is naive, I think. Doing things "for gamers" is a good vision, for sure since that drives profits, but is that the same thing as doing "whatever gamers tell us to do"? I don't think so. Business is a compromise. It always is.
That said, I don't like the current model either. Especially if my PS3 eventually breaks down. (I'm not replacing it now.) I don't see value in PSNow, so at this point, I don't see myself buying a subscription. So if something happens to my PS3, I'll have a lot of useless games.
What I think makes the most sense is for gamers to have "free" and "subscribed" options for PSNow… Access to games you already own only for free accounts (maybe even an ad or two tossed in) and unlimited access for subscribers. You could then also play around with lots of different package deals for trilogies, etc. That would be a fair business "compromise".
But to simply throw in BC? Well, making concessions is something you have to do to strengthen sales. Obviously, for reasons you stated (as well as other more complete reasons) it's a hit for them to bring in backwards compatibility. It's a hit for them to "do" anything. The metric comes in with "does this change cost us money or will it bring more in". When you are in a lead and are selling well, you have the luxury to pick your battles. And it makes sense to me that they would make choices for the customer that are mutually beneficial to both consumer and company. First priority for any business should be to reward the shareholders, afterall.
For example, in my opinion, it makes more sense for a company in their position to say… move away from the backwards compatibility and make more of an effort to provide better first party experiences soon.
Microsoft isn't becoming backwards compatible "for gamers". They're doing it to make the transition from XBOX360 to XB1 easy for their existing market that already existed. And Microsoft sees it as a distraction and a necessary evil… not a "service". (As does Sony)
I'd own a PS4 today had it been compatible with my current collection of PS3 games. Of that there is not a shadow of doubt.
I hate to start all over.
I'd care it would let me clear some shelf space near my TV seeing as I still have my PS3 setup for my large backlog.
Yep. There's no denying that. It also adds incentive for late adopters. They now have a good reason to trade or sell their old hardware for the new.
It's a nice feature and the Xbox side rightfully should brag about this FREE advantage. It's always been a perk and I can't pretend it doesn't matter.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/5/2015 10:00:11 AM
My PS3 recently just stopped reading games so it sucked.
I'm getting my PS4 in October but I still love my PS3 and all its games.
If the PS4 could play PS3 games that would be great but sadly it doesn't, it means that either I get my PS3 fixed or I get a new PS3 but both options are pointless if I'm getting a PS4.
What about games that I already have? Do I sell it?
Remaster? Remakes? HD upgrade?
When I already played the game on PS3, HD upgrades or whatever are useless to me.
So yea, BC is an important feature and I do give a damn about it.
I use to think BC was an important feature when I bought the 60GB PS3 for $600. I played two PS2 titles on it and never used the feature again. Once the novelty of the feature wears off it's forgotten. A PS3 costs $100 used and $200 new so there is no way I would burn hours on my $400 game console when I could put those hours on cheaper hardware. When my 60GB PS3 took a dump I really regretted putting all those hours of FFXII on it.
Let me ask the people that think BC is so important a question. If your $400 PS4 has a Netflix app and your $50 Blu-ray player has the Netflix app would you still do all your Netflix streaming on the PS4?
Last edited by Evil Incarnate on 8/5/2015 10:00:06 AM
I know what you mean, I actually use my laptop, xbox one, or ps3/vita for netflix. I only game on my PS4 primarily. I guess it's kind of like the everyday car vs the sunday driver car 😀
in a word yes
Why would I want something that should be a standard feature when I can re-purchase all my old games with slightly higher resolution and a frame rate it should have had to begin with for the low low price of $40?
Because we are glorious console remaster race and $ony is our master…
hehehe 'console remaster race'
nice
I think it would be nice to have. But here's something I struggle with… WHY should it be a standard feature? My Super Nintendo didn't play NES games… in fact, I think I bought Super Mario Allstars, too… lol
Wasn't the PS2 kinda the first console to do that? And since then, no one has really done it completely. Only some Wiis, only some PS3s, and only a few games for 360. (Nintendo's handheld market's been good at it I guess)
I guess I'm just having a hard time discerning where in gaming history this became the expectation.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/5/2015 10:24:30 AM
Well Underdog, the current market situation with Sony is like this. They ship countless remasters for a "new" profit, so why would they make the ps4 BC? I hate this new emphasis on remasters…expecially from ps3 games. Its a rip off if you ask me. I'd rather not use a ps3 anymore in order to clean up my entertainment center.
In Ben's case, he said he can't imagine a game that he would hope to revisit from previous generation. I know that myself personally, I'd like to replay the old fable games and Lost Odyssey. I like what Microsoft did with their decision on B/C.
If roles were switched, I'd imagine that most of the members of PSX would be toting this announcement as a win over the Xbox One. Seems like a bit of fanboyism going on.
It makes it expecially more important when genres of games aren't being made with the same quality as last gen. Games like rainbow six vegas aren't here yet, so in order to get my 3rd person tactical shooter fix you mean to tell me I have to repurchase a ps3 or 360? I call foul.
It's an appreciable bonus meant to coax fence setters imo.
I expect though that with a common scaleable archecture found in our current gen systems, going forward the new console platforms will remain backwards compatible, maybe with added immediate res gains.
It's a benefit of using more standardized processing.
B/C really should be standard because of all of this. Plus, once a new generation hits it would make the transition much quicker and smoother if most of the early adopters made the jump, and more development would go into new games since there would be no need to develop for the old gen because of their bigger market share. Not to mention usually the first few games in a new generation also runs on the old hardware, thus slightly hampering the overall quality on the newer systems. Just look at COD ghosts and COD AW as an example.
I hate having to buy the same game twice with only slight graphical improvements and/or DLC. Its easy to emulate old equipment to run on newer hardware (or so I imagine). Forcing me to buy old games all over again is beyond greedy…unless its from the ps2 era or before.
Last edited by PS3_Wizard on 8/5/2015 11:12:44 AM
PS3wizard. Backwards compatibility is likely here to stay. It is after all the major reason windows PC's didn't move away from x86 processors.
If thats the case, why hasn't Sony announced any plans to incorporate B/C?
I mean from here on out. They settled on a standardized archecture with PS4. Where future Playstations will likely operate on beefed up versions of the underlying tech. I think it likely they'll stick with that from here on out. The nice thing about this is that future systems may NOT have to emulate PS4 games. They'll run natively.
PC has been doing it for years.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/5/2015 11:55:38 AM
Wizard, I'm aware of the business of it. But that doesn't answer my question. One could argue that if it's 3rd person shooters you want to play, why would you sell a system that has them? It's not like they promised BC then changed their minds on you.
(Also, see higher that I agree the current system is flawed. I just disagree with the BC ultimatum entitlement theory.)
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/5/2015 12:02:15 PM
It should be a standard feature because it has always been one on PC. That consoles took forever to even come up with the idea, and then dropped it becauze they make absurd hardware choices in the name of saving money, doesn't change the fact that buying newer systems shouldn't invalidate games you already own. I can still play PC games from 1996 on my current laptop, but if I want to play any PS1/2/3 games on PS4 I'd better hope they get remasters or are available on PSN. That's dumb.
But that's not true, Bio.
Do you have any idea how nearly impossible it is go get Halo and Halo 2 running on Windows 7?
Believe me… it took forever to get Halo 2 to run, and it doesn't run well. And I can't get Halo to run at all. Tried last month.
I tried getting Civilization 2 to run as well, but it only runs with super messed up color.
Oddly enough, it's far easier to set up an emulator on my PC to play my PS1 and PS2 disks than it is to play some older PC games.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/7/2015 9:28:14 AM
Oh man, Can't wait to play Uncharted 4 remaster on Ps5. I know it will happen…
Yeah I could retire my PS3 for all the ps3, ps2, and ps1 games i play.
It's not surprising many don't care about BC when many gamers today trade in as soon as they're done with a game.
If you like supporting certain devs that have remasters it's your money, but I refuse to pay twice for the same game. I especially refuse to pay for PS Now which isn't a very good value when I can buy ps3 discs cheaper than renting them from Sony for a week or whatever.
Sony is a business like any other, but that doesn't mean they should treat their customers like a bully hanging you upside down to get all your spare change.
The PS3 would be hard to emulate just because of it's architecture, but other than that it's just about keeping the manufacturing cost as cheap as possible.
Never mind how the BC PS3s went for some hefty prices once they were phased out, showing there is a niche market of people willing to pay for the feature.
Like others have said, with Sony gaining the top market-share they have no reason to change their stance on BC.
As much as I have been with Sony since PS1, and therefore have quite the library of classics, it would be nice if I could clear the clutter of 4 consoles that aren't even different brands.
There are hardly any exclusives I really care about these days until eventually the next game from Santa Monica comes.
If I wasn't on such a budget at the moment I would build myself a new desktop and become one of those annoyingly smug "master race" guys.
Last edited by Nerull on 8/5/2015 4:50:03 PM