The PS4 Thread

[KALEL114]

I am extremely weary of these types of rumors this close to April Fool's. That being said, no PS3 BC would be a terrible move.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

I am extremely weary of these types of rumors this close to April Fool's. That being said, no PS3 BC would be a terrible move.

BC is overrated. With a new system comes new games. If you want to play your PS3 games, which is something I will want to do, plug in the PS3 and play them.

The PS2 emulator included in the early PS3 models created more expense in development and probably created more heat causing increased wear on the system, increasing the likelyhood of the YLOD.

 

[Benstamania]

I trade up.. SO.. No BC... Again.. Would be a stupid move. But hey, then they can charge us for super hd versions of our PS3 games, right!?

 

[Havok83]

I trade up.. SO.. No BC... Again.. Would be a stupid move. But hey, then they can charge us for super hd versions of our PS3 games, right!?

Same here, especially when new systems are at their most expensive, it makes sense to trade your old one towards the new one and retailers tend to have promotions like this to encourage sales of the new product. It's what helps many early adopters jump on board rather than wait off a price drop

 

[hippie_hunter]

Not gonna happen. Not having PS3 backwards compatibility will kill the PS4 due to the most likely weak launch line up. PS1 and PS2 backwards compatibility is one thing, but no PS3 backwards compatibility is a no go.

I also don't see Sony fighting the used games market. Sony needs retailers like Best Buy, GameStop, and Target.

 

[Havok83]

Not gonna happen. Not having PS3 backwards compatibility will kill the PS4 due to the most likely weak launch line up. PS1 and PS2 backwards compatibility is one thing, but no PS3 backwards compatibility is a no go.

I also don't see Sony fighting the used games market. Sony needs retailers like Best Buy, GameStop, and Target.

Why not? They were the first to implement the online passes and have since embraced it across the board. Only GS will be affected by this. Best Buy and Target not so much. I really don't want this to happen but I don't think Sony is above looking for a way to make it work

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Not gonna happen. Not having PS3 backwards compatibility will kill the PS4 due to the most likely weak launch line up. PS1 and PS2 backwards compatibility is one thing, but no PS3 backwards compatibility is a no go.

I also don't see Sony fighting the used games market. Sony needs retailers like Best Buy, GameStop, and Target.

The PS Vita had an incredible launch line up. I'd imagine the PS4 would be able to mirror those results.

 

[X Knight]

the PS4 will not have PS3 BC so that it can have BC...........with PS2 games!!!

don't you see the pattern.............lol

 

[hippie_hunter]

The PS Vita had an incredible launch line up. I'd imagine the PS4 would be able to mirror those results.

Many of the games on the Vita are ports from the PlayStation 3. The PlayStation 4 isn't going to have that luxury.

 

[Benstamania]

I don't think either the next Xbox or PS4 will launch without BC. They have to know it was a dumb move.

Well.. Maybe not Microsoft. They're in their own little world sometimes with denial.

 

[Havok83]

Many of the games on the Vita are ports from the PlayStation 3. The PlayStation 4 isn't going to have that luxury.

The only retail games in the Vita lineup that were PS3 ports were UMVC3, Blazblue, NGZS, Rayman and Virtua Tennis 4 and Michael Jackson: The Experience. Everything else was Vita originals

 

[Soapy]

• Sony removed backwards compatibility from the Playstation 3 to lower costs, which subsequently increased sales a great deal.

• Nintendo has also removed backwards compatibility from the Wii. Presumably to lower costs, I honestly don't know.

• The Xbox 360 had virtually no backwards compatibility at launch, and only after several years did they support a lot of games, albeit oftentimes with many technical glitches ranging from in severity from "this is annoying" to "this unplayable".

• Despite this poor/nonexistant support backwards compatibility across the board, all three consoles have sold very well, proving that it's obviously not a concern for most people.

• Emulating current gen games will be nigh impossible on the type of hardware next gen consoles will have.

• Through digital distribution and HD collections, gamers have proven that they're more than willing to buy reissues of older games.

I predict you guys are going to be pretty disappointed next generation. Unless you want to get a second (third?) job and pay 599 US dollars again for another console.

 

[Havok83]

The PS3 was not $600 bc of BC. That high cost was undoubtedly bc of the inclusion of bluray which was a very new technology at that point.

 

[Benstamania]

Yeah, the "BC caused the PS3 to be 600 bucks" line is, was and always will be a line of crap. I'm still miffed that Nintendo cut out BC on the new version of the Wii. I got one for my son and I can't even hook up GameCube controllers to the thing to be used in place of the classic controller. They took out the stupid ports.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Sony removed backwards compatibility from the Playstation 3 to lower costs, which subsequently increased sales a great deal.

But they didn't get rid of it right away. They phased it out as their games library improved with games like Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Metal Gear Solid 4, Ratchet and Clank Future, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Call of Duty 4 came out.

Nintendo has also removed backwards compatibility from the Wii. Presumably to lower costs, I honestly don't know.

Nintendo removed backwards comparability in 2011 when the Wii library had improved with games like Super Mario Galaxy, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Mario Kart Wii, the Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, Donkey Kong Country Returns, and Metroid Prime 3.

And note that the Wii U is backwards compatible with Wii games for the time being.

The Xbox 360 had virtually no backwards compatibility at launch, and only after several years did they support a lot of games, albeit oftentimes with many technical glitches ranging from in severity from "this is annoying" to "this unplayable".

The original Xbox really didn't have much to offer in terms of a games library. The Xbox was the console of Halo, nothing else on the system came close to matching Halo in terms of sales and how long people continued to play the game.

Why give a damn about backwards compatibility when there really is no need for it. With the PlayStation and Nintendo consoles, there was a huge line up of games that people loved. The original Xbox really didn't have that.

Despite this poor/nonexistant support backwards compatibility across the board, all three consoles have sold very well, proving that it's obviously not a concern for most people.

Eventually it becomes a non-factor. As the games library of systems improve beyond what are typically weak launch line ups, people care less and less about the older games.

But when a system is released at launch, it needs to have backwards compatibility. Eventually it can be gotten rid of when consumers have a plethora of choices to make, but when a system is launched with less than 30 games and most of them are mediocre at best, a system needs backwards compatibility.

Emulating current gen games will be nigh impossible on the type of hardware next gen consoles will have.

Systems shouldn't be emulating.

Through digital distribution and HD collections, gamers have proven that they're more than willing to buy reissues of older games.

Because Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo force you to buy them if you want to replay them. At least Sony enhances their reissues which takes away the sting of rebuying the games and in the case of Nintendo, it's totally unreasonable for someone to demand backwards compatibility with the NES, SNES, and N64.

I predict you guys are going to be pretty disappointed next generation. Unless you want to get a second (third?) job and pay 599 US dollars again for another console.

I think that what we're going to see is what we saw this generation. The consoles get launched with backwards compatibility and then eventually phased out.

 

[badgrammar]

If the ps4 has no bc then I'm just going to not get it. They should at least have a option for bc. Anyone who wants bc shoul be able to pay the extra buck for it.

 

[Paroxysm]

I don't give a **** about BC because I kept all my games and systems! Oh Snap!

 

[UltimateWebhead]

I don't give a **** about BC because I kept all my games and systems! Oh Snap!

This.

 

[Dave McFly]

I'm still miffed that Nintendo cut out BC on the new version of the Wii. I got one for my son and I can't even hook up GameCube controllers to the thing to be used in place of the classic controller. They took out the stupid ports.

wait, what, the current Wii does not play GC games?
when did this start?

 

[Donut]

If they remove BC. Then at least put ALL PS3 GAMES up on the PSN for purchase. There will NOT be a to big of a leap in graphics differences in terms of PS3 to PS4 to justify HD PS3 releases

 

[Havok83]

If they remove BC. Then at least put ALL PS3 GAMES up on the PSN for purchase. There will NOT be a to big of a leap in graphics differences in terms of PS3 to PS4 to justify HD PS3 releases

If they remove BC from the PS3, then you arent gonig to see any of those games on the PSN bc the system wont have the hardware capability to run them. It would have to be emulated and that will be on a game by game basis and most likely further down the line once Sony works out the kinks of getting the specific games to run properly. If you want all PS3 games on PSN for purchase, then they might as well just keep in BC from the getgo.

Through digital distribution and HD collections, gamers have proven that they're more than willing to buy reissues of older games.

There will not be another HD jump going to this gen to the next. What are they going to do, upscale every 720p game to be 1080p and add 3D support (which isnt even taking on fast enough)? Thats incredibly insignificant compared to the graphical boost of going from 480i to 720/1080p, adding widescreen support, and fixxing up textures, all of which is done to make them look playable on HDTVs which have become standard this gen, bc the originals tend to look ugly in their original format. There is not going to be a whole new batch of tvs purchased next gen to justify a "super-HD" version of the games

 

[enterthemadness]

Not gonna happen. Not having PS3 backwards compatibility will kill the PS4 due to the most likely weak launch line up. PS1 and PS2 backwards compatibility is one thing, but no PS3 backwards compatibility is a no go.

I also don't see Sony fighting the used games market. Sony needs retailers like Best Buy, GameStop, and Target.

Considering I will buy my brother the PS3 160GB this year, I AM NOT buying the PS4. We share the 80GB we've had for over 3 years.

PS4 restricting used games and not being backwards compatibility? I will laugh at you losing money. if I were rich, I'd use a 100 bill for my cigar as I laugh at Sony being stupid. But maybe this PS4 thing is a joke...

 

[Jick]

I still have my PS1, PS2 and PS3, so no bc doesn't really bother me, and I always buy games new, so those issues aren't a big deal, to me.

Also, I won't buy the first PS4 anyway. I'll just wait for the Slim version where many of their mistakes will be corrected and it'll be lighter and improved.

 

[Havok83]

Also, I won't buy the first PS4 anyway. I'll just wait for the Slim version where many of their mistakes will be corrected and it'll be lighter and improved.

or they'll remove features, making the original the most complete model of all the renditions

 

[Jick]

But probably not the most efficient, which is what I go for and was the case of the PS3 Slim, which had a smaller HD with the same and bigger storage capacity, was lighter, consumed way less power, reduced the risk of the YLOD, had a better cooler system, running quieter...

I expect something similar for the PS4.