Ben-DutkaRemember when the PlayStation 3 launched with full backwards compatibility? Considering the gigantic size of the PS2 lineup and the very few PS3 titles available, it was a huge deal.
It slowly went away, though. Ensuing models of the machine began cutting down on b/c capabilities until finally, we have the machine that doesn't play PS2 games at all (although it still can play PS1 games). That being said, b/c at the start of any generation is an appreciated feature, and that point was driven home in a GameSpot survey concerning next-generation consoles.
A whopping 83% of those who participated in the survey said backwards compatibility is either "very important" or "somewhat important" when considering a new console purchase. 80% said better graphics were important and perhaps surprisingly, nearly half (49%) said the ability to download full games was a big-time plus. About 32% want "better integration of motion controls." But getting back to the b/c, although 83% want it, only 24% actually expect to see it in next-gen machines.
Well, that's understandable. Neither of the Xboxes have ever been fully backwards compatible, and it cost Sony a big chunk to make the first PS3s b/c with both PS2 and PS1 titles. It was a cost they couldn't wait to drop for the sake of manufacturing costs. After all, it was getting to the point where a lower PS3 price tag was far more important to gamers.
What do you say? Do you want b/c? Me, I just keep a PS2 hooked up…although that may prove problematic when the next generation comes. Having the PS4, PS3, and PS2 hooked up at the same time? Eh…
I'd like it, but it's not necessary. Still have two PS2s and two PS3s (although one of my PS2s and one of my PS3s are near death), so I'd be ok if PS4 wasn't, which it probably won't be. But it was, that'd be pretty sweet.
I'm not really worried about FULL b/c. I could really care lessif the ps4 can play ps1 and ps2 gamesn I've got a thin ps2 that can do that. The only time I play ps1 games anymore though. Is on my psp or if I've dl'ed them from psn.
BUT, I do want the ps4 to be b/c with ps3 games. I think that's a really big must, and could potentially be either a big selling point or a pretty bad disaster.
I think it would be a good idea for it to be able to play ps3 games for the fact its like ben said. It would be troublesome to HAVE to have a ps4,3, and 2 hooked up to play all era's of the ps games. And I could see longtime and new fans alike getting really pissed. If its not able to do this, it could be a bad mistake and a potential turn off for buyers of the ps4.
I'm sure with ps3 b/c the price will be a major sock in the d!ck, but its probably the best thing sony could do.
Imo, id hate to have to have 3 consoles hooked up to play all my ps games.
I spent a lot of money hunting down the Originals of MGS and RE and a few other collections so PS1 B/C is a huge deal cause you just can't beat the classics.
I agree that you can't beat the classics. I spent money, a decent amount of money as a matter of fact, on copies of ff7-9, chrono cross, just to name some. I've even spent over 60 dollars on some ps2 classics like part of the .hack series.
All I said was that FULL b/c wasn't too important to me.
As long as the ps4 can play ps4 games, ill be happy. I have a ps2 that plays ps2 and 1 games. So I'm not missing out on any classics.
And if you think that because the ps4 may or may not play your classic ps1 games, there's always a used ps1 or ps2, or new ps1's or ps2's than can play those games. You don't HAVE to play them on the ps4.
imo, if I had to choose bewteen the ps4 being b/c with both the ps1 and ps2 games, or just ps3 games, id vote for just the ps3 games. Cause I have a ps2 that plays the classics. Why would I want 2 modern gens to play the 2 modern era of ps games, when if the ps4 can play both that seems to be more efficient.
But, that's just my opinion.
I saw that and I meant to add "to me" somewhere and there. wasn't trying to debate you on that.
Itss cool man. Wasn't trying to either. And I agree to an extent that b/c is important. Its just more modern b/c is more important to me.
Now don't get me wrng, id love to able to play every era of ps games on the next gen, but realistically, it just makes more sense that if its gonna have any b/c, it should be for the ps3.
But, here is hoping its fully b/c.
While I agree with you that ps3 b/c if they had to chose 1 would make the most sense, I still think full b/c is a MUST for the ps4, its 1 of the major things that helped the ps3 along at the start, but they couldnt get the damn thing to work right, so for cost sake they abandoned it… though I suspect they might have stopped r&d on it because they figured they could make more money selling all ur ps2 favs threw the psn… but that's just a theory ^^.
I still have my (refurbished) 60g fatty. If the PS4 is B/C with the PS3 but not PS2 and 1. I might wait for a price drop. If it is COMPLETELY B/C I might sell mine 60g and just get the PS4. So now it's pretty much wait and see.
Of course backwards compatible is a must for PS4. This is a big problem with the Vita, that we must buy again the games we already bought. Sony can solve this very easy by making two models. One fully b/c console and one that can play only PS4. Also, don't include a harddrive so we can get 1TB or bigger harddrive.
That's actually too simple a solution. lol
Well if they want to keep the whole psn library than they should add it
It;s important to me. It was for the PS3 as well. I suspect a scalable feature set next gen. Where a premium model may be offered that appeals to the hardcore enthusiasts that includes enhancements, like b/c, for a premium cost.
I am a little leery, though. Most early adopters, myself included, were stricken with relatively short term hardware lifespans this gen. MS users had it worst, but Sony's hardware reliability was below my expectations as well. I just may be compelled to hold off on investing into the 1st wave of hardware because there will no doubt be a cheaper more energy efficient model around the corner. There would be better games by then, too.
Not to mention all the Themed Consoles.
well, i shouldn't say "most early adopters" I can't know that.
I will say, many early adopters I knew of this gen were stricken etc… …
I could care less. I sold my PS2 as soon as I got my PS3 and actually at this point wish I wouldn't have. So I'll be keeping my PS3 for my PS3 games and just move forward with the PS4 whenever that may be.
Also if it helps keep the cost down for the PS4 then that's a huge plus. Seems like many, many people dont want to spend over $400 and if there backwards compatibility I'm sure you'll see a higher price. It would be interesting to know whats more important backwards compatibility or affordable price?
if it has bck comp with ps3 it will be good for sony & consumers. ps2 & ps1 isnt necessary. i want bck comp with ps3 but if it doesnt its kool.
Meh. It's really not that important to me. I have a PS2 and a PS3 if I feel the need to play older games. I, of course, wouldn't mind having backwards compatibility, but if my choice is having that or saving $100 or more when I buy my PS4, then I'll choose the cheaper system hands down.
Backwards comparability is pretty important to me. I'm glad I got my 60 gb PS3 the day it came out. I can still play every playstation game whenever I want without having to have two or three systems hooked up to my TV.
I hope Sony at least tries the best they can to make a fully b/c PS4 that isn't over priced. I know they feel the heat from all the gamers that expected b/c for all PS3s, so I think they will at least try.
I'm also very surprised that so many gamers saw the ability to download games as important. Having the full library available for download (as an option, not a replacement) with simultaneous release is probably the most important feature for next gen consoles to have, IMO. It's surprising, but refreshing to see so many gamers agree with me.
For me backward compatibility is a must… I want to play my older games from time to time…
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Why nit just keep your PS3, or older systems then? Just asking, cus I sold my PS2, when I got my 60GB PS3 and still wish I had it.
I would prefer to have a minimalist approach to living and therefore discard unnecessary hardware. Everything takes up space, and in an apartment space is a premium….
The more crap you have the more wires you have to deal with, dust collection, moving stuff around shelves etc…
In this digital age I want to remain lean and mean… with a few powerful devices I use everyday and that is all.
Collections are nice, if you have the space and the time to manage them…
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
If it can still play PS1 games, then that's fine with me.
Backward compatibility would very likely make me buy the ps4 earlier. I *don't* want a stack of consoles underneath my TV, so if it's not backward compatible then I'll highly likely not get a ps4 until I feel I am done with the ps3 and all the games for it.
Last edited by Beamboom on 1/11/2012 2:20:46 AM
If it's not backwards compatible w/ PS3 (which it should be able to w/ 'rumored' specs), that could be a problem. Since PS(1) emulation is fairly easy via software, I'd expect that to stay too, but I wouldn't expect PS2 compatibility if it has to be done via software alone, since it would likely be quite glitchy.
This has always been important to me. Now is no different. I hate that I don't have a launch ps3, people growned about the price so now we can't have ps2 backwards compatibility.
The PS4 for me is completely not the time. The only thing which would make me go oh wow, yeah would be complete backwards compatibility and region free. That goes for games, blurays, dvds. This would solve a lot of my current problems right now and would rethink my entire apathy towards a new playstation.
yea i agree with most ppl here,
PS3 backwards compatibility is all i care about.
anything older – Meh
digital release
well its a sad morning for me this morning i woke up and seen my ps3 flashing red and it would not come on so my old 60gb is gone
Sorry to hear that. I have lost 2 60gb PS3's myself so I feel your pain.
I sold my old 60gb because of worries like that. Heard 6 months after I sold it, it bit the dust…
The 60giggers are getting over 5 years old now, which is within the standard failure timeframe of many pieces of hardware. After 5 years, the likelihood of hardware failing (no matter the console) dramatically increases statistically and historically.
Tis' sad!
If you're getting a red light and not a yellow one, though, there's hope for you to save it yet!
PS4 would definitely need to have b/c. I sold my PS2 because the PS3 could play those games at the time. Needless to say, that PS3's video card fried on me and I had to get a slim PS3.
Now we are getting more PS2 titles on the PS Store. I'm not interested in buying the same game I already have just to play it. I don't think it would be too costly for some form of emulator for PS2 games. PS3 games shouldn't be much of a problem if the PS4 is a evolution of the PS3 hardware.
PS4 needs to be fully BC with PS3, and be able to play everything that the PS3 currently can. If they can build a software emulation of the PS2 at last, they need to include that too.
I bought my original PS3 because of the BC functionality. It is a very important feature to me.
About the same feelings I had above…
The upscaling of PS2 games is kinda nice on my launch 60GB unit, but seeing how glitchy PS2 emulators for PCs are (and even the partial hardware emulation some 80GB models had), I'm not sure how well they could perfect total software emulation.
I don't have enough room here to keep switching between a PS2, PS3 and PS4 whenever I desire to play an older title. Full backwards compatibility is very important, plus it would only confuse potential buyers who are interested in the older titles if they left one out again. I had a few who rose an eyebrow when I explained how new PS3s can only play PS1 and PS3 games, and question why do people have to keep another console when the PS3 has been advertised to do everything.
Last edited by VampDeLeon on 1/11/2012 11:19:35 AM
Their is alot of history behind the Playstation brand, so full BC will be one of the best they can do.
Of course who wouldn't want this??
Ps4 hopefully plays ps1, ps2, ps3, psp mini (psp emulator if possible) and ps4 games!!!
If Vita can emulate PSP, then the PS4 has to be able to. I'm quite sure that the PS3 can, it's just not available on the PS3.
Personally, I want the PS4 to truly be what my original Phat PS3 is – one Playstation to rule them all. It plays PS1, PS2 and PS3 games on disc, downloadable PS1 and PS2 games, PS minis, etc… I hated the decision to remove the PS2 compatibility, because it meant that the PS3 was no longer going to be that ultimate PlayStation. But at least my phat system still is.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 1/11/2012 5:19:31 PM
I'm in the same boat. I hope the PS4 can run PS1, PS2 and PS3 games in disc. One PS to play all PS games.
The PS4 will play PS1 games for sure. So many of them on the store, so it would be silly not to have them. It will be powerful enough to emulate the PS2 perfectly, but I don't know if we'll actually see that or not. Even if we do, I doubt it will be much better than just playing on a PS2.
PS3 B/C will be really important, though. It could be the deciding factor – opening up the last gen library as well as the current means more new games, especially for someone who went with Xbox or Nintendo earlier.
being B/C with PS3 games a must i'm cool with just that just cause i have a crappy tv upstairs with a PS2 and PS1 hooked up to it which i enjoy when i'm sick and don't want to go down stairs or just to relax in bed and play KH or something.
i have two PS3s so i wouldnt need backward compatibility, but i understand that when a consoles comes out, there isnt much games on the market for it yet, so backward compatibility is a plus in the first year or so of the console's release. But considering the price would be lower, i'd prefer not having backward compatibility.