• 70 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by kindlydelete (26 posts) -

Feel free to rip me a new one but why are people expecting the games they bought on their old hardware to run on their new hardware

;I don't know about you but my old games still work on the thing I bought them to play on. I would rather save money and not pay for a feature I already have and most likely will only use for nostalgia.

;I don't think it is reasonable to assume that a compony will or should support the game that you purchased on anything but the platform it was built for.

Where people upset when the the Nintendo tapes didn't fit into the super Nintendo

;Alright thanks for your time rant over

#1 Posted by Demoskinos (13853 posts) -

I don't know either. Its a luxury feature that was first seen with the PS2. Its just become expected I guess but does anyone ever really use it? The tales I hear from people with the bc PS3's is that they almost never ever use it for PS2 games.

#2 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (4029 posts) -

Mm? Nah, I don't really care.

#3 Posted by Clonedzero (3722 posts) -

i have a large catalog of 360 games.

it would be a big selling point for me if i could still play all my loved 360 games on the next xbox.

i can't really see why someone wouldn't understand this. i have a TV, and i have an xbox 360. thats my current entertainment thinger. (ignoring my PC for this). add in the next gen consoles. which is great, but i like revisiting games months or years after beating them again, hell im currently replaying fallout new vegas.

backwards compatibility is a big deal to me, i mean its not a deal breaker, but its a feature i'd want over stupid sharing nonsense or silly touch screen controllers.

#4 Posted by TyCobb (1924 posts) -

Because people don't understand what it takes to do backwards compatibility.

#5 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2151 posts) -

It would be neat if I could buy a PS4 and have it be BC with PS3 games since I skipped it this gen. BC is a good idea for those like myself and for the launch because Sony could have an instant catalog of games from the start, but I understand that it's difficult to pull off right while keeping costs low.

#6 Edited by HeyImPhoenix (169 posts) -

It's just do we can sell our old console to help pay for our new one and so I don't have 10 things plugged in to my tv at once.

#7 Edited by m1k3 (1322 posts) -

Backwards compat. is not really an issue for me. Im pretty much done with a game once i finish it. There are some that i would go back and play, but (with luck) my ps3 and 360 would still be working.

#8 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2167 posts) -

It's not a big deal for me at all, it's a luxury to have especially when the PS3 once played PS2 games but I got over it since I rarely play PS2 games and it's not hard for me to take the console out of the wardrobe and hook up the power and AV cords.

#9 Posted by Grimluck343 (1132 posts) -

I really don't care one way or another. It's a nice convenient feature to have but it's not a must.

#10 Edited by BlatantNinja23 (930 posts) -

Some of it is that they've done it in the past. So if you're young enough that your first console was a PS1 i guess I can see why it's a thing you'd expect. Personally I'm fine either way. It's not like i'll be getting rid of my old systems. If I was in a situation where I had to sell my old system to get the new system, that just means I don't have enough money to be making that kind of purchase in the first place anyways.

#11 Edited by SuliPatchouli (18 posts) -

It's nice to have, not a dealbreaker.

Microsoft's emulation solution wasn't perfect but was a token gesture I did appreciate and utilize.

#12 Edited by GetEveryone (4454 posts) -

i have a large catalog of 360 games.

it would be a big selling point for me if i could still play all my loved 360 games on the next xbox.

i can't really see why someone wouldn't understand this. i have a TV, and i have an xbox 360. thats my current entertainment thinger. (ignoring my PC for this). add in the next gen consoles. which is great, but i like revisiting games months or years after beating them again, hell im currently replaying fallout new vegas.

backwards compatibility is a big deal to me, i mean its not a deal breaker, but its a feature i'd want over stupid sharing nonsense or silly touch screen controllers.

This is exactly it. I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't want a ton of boxes all hooked up to my TV, and I doubt my girlfriend would be very pleased with it either. Saying that, I have a lot of games from this generation (including those I haven't even played yet), and would still like to be able to have a crack at them when the new consoles are out.

It's purely a convenience thing, but it's important for a lot of people.

I'm surprised no one has thrown out 'entitled' yet. That's refreshing.

#13 Edited by Sinusoidal (1152 posts) -

I don't expect it, but if the PS4 ran PS3 games, I'd be quite a bit more likely to buy it on release since I have a stack of the latter's games sitting in a pile unfinished that will be (partly I'm sure) still around when it comes out. With backwards compatibility, I'm assured that my investment has a bunch of games worth playing on it. I'm not sure I'm willing to take the risk on new hardware right out of the gate that doesn't have a decent library of software to go along with it. Especially considering Sony and Microsoft's track record with new-release hardware (massively overpriced PS3, RRoD prone 360.)

#14 Posted by Brodehouse (9370 posts) -

I don't expect it, but if the PS4 ran PS3 games, I'd be quite a bit more likely to buy it on release since I have a stack of the latter's games sitting in a pile unfinished that will be (partly I'm sure) still around when it comes out. With backwards compatibility, I'm assured that my investment has a bunch of games worth playing on it. I'm not sure I'm willing to take the risk on new hardware right out of the gate that doesn't have a decent library of software to go along with it. Especially considering Sony and Microsoft's track record with new-release hardware (massively overpriced PS3, RRoD prone 360.)

You'd be more likely to buy a PS4 at release so you can play PS3 games on it... despite the fact that you already own a PS3 and can play games on it without paying a cent.

i have a large catalog of 360 games.

it would be a big selling point for me if i could still play all my loved 360 games on the next xbox.

i can't really see why someone wouldn't understand this. i have a TV, and i have an xbox 360. thats my current entertainment thinger. (ignoring my PC for this). add in the next gen consoles. which is great, but i like revisiting games months or years after beating them again, hell im currently replaying fallout new vegas.

The size of your 360 is undoubtedly smaller than your 'large catalog' of 360 games. It seems odd to have room to keep a large catalog of DVD boxes at the ready but not a piece of plastic the size of a school binder. I don't want to get into an argument about your room setup, but that just seems like an odd concept. Between me and my girlfriend we have three 360s and about 140 games. I don't have to tell you which one takes up more room.

#15 Posted by frankfartmouth (1016 posts) -

I missed out on the PS3--it was too expensive when it came out, and by the time the price dropped, I'd already loaded up on other shit, and so I never put the money aside. I've played a couple of games at friends' houses, but of all my gaming priorities right now, filling out the major PS3 catalog is at the top: MGS4, Uncharted, Little Big Planet, GOW3, on and on. Plus The Last of Us. Don't want to miss out on that.

I'm leaning towards the PS4 anyway, but it would be a lock if it had backwards compatibility. So it would affect my buying choice a little, but it's not imperative. I can get an old 40GB model off of ebay for pretty cheap now and stock up on some of those older titles for next to nothing. So no big deal. But it would mean something to me.

#16 Posted by believer258 (11043 posts) -

Because discs last longer than consoles if you take care of them, and because having a PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox Durango, Super NES, N64, Gamecube, Wii, and Wii U all plugged up to your TV at once is a bloody pain.

Of course, you can pare most of that away via backwards compatibility with some of them and emulation with others, but that doesn't make it any less of a pain. Let's not forget that sometimes, I just want to play a PS2 game that doesn't work with emulators. And, twenty years from now, I might still have a copy of a game that doesn't work with a PS2 emulator but no PS2 to play it on, it would be nice if the PS7 could play PS2 games.

'Course, I'm pretty sure there will be a way to play most PS2 games by then.

#17 Posted by ViciousReiven (793 posts) -

i have a large catalog of 360 games.

it would be a big selling point for me if i could still play all my loved 360 games on the next xbox.

i can't really see why someone wouldn't understand this. i have a TV, and i have an xbox 360. thats my current entertainment thinger. (ignoring my PC for this). add in the next gen consoles. which is great, but i like revisiting games months or years after beating them again, hell im currently replaying fallout new vegas.

backwards compatibility is a big deal to me, i mean its not a deal breaker, but its a feature i'd want over stupid sharing nonsense or silly touch screen controllers.

Exactly this.

Having a decent sized shelf has enough room for all my games, but a entertainment center doesn't have enough room for more hardware, without stacking, plus you'd want to sell off uneeded hardware to help pay for the new shit.

I constantly replay games, I need the ability to play them, eventually I'll have to make room for new stuff and if that new stuff has the ability to play the old stuff then it makes my job so much easier.

#18 Posted by Barrock (3525 posts) -

I can understand wanting it. It's ideal. But people saying "Well, if the next consoles aren't backwards compatible I won't buy them!" are the worst.

#19 Posted by Bass (692 posts) -

I think the easiest argument is for people that didn't buy the playstation 3 (like me). I still don't have a PS3 because it doesn't seem absolutely imperative for me to have one. However, there are some games that I want to play that are only on that system. If I decided that the PS4 was going to be, at the very least, my first foray into the "next-gen" then it would be nice to have a back catalog of games that I still want to play when the thing is counting on its (probably bad) launch games.

Also, if the new consoles are fairly comparable in my mind when they are coming out, BC might be the thing that gets me on the PS4's bandwagon. Admittedly, though, I wouldn't care one way or another for the Xbox to have BC because I have already played all of the games on it that I care about (and if I want to play through them, I don't have a problem hooking up the 360).

I definitely don't understand the "need" for BC if you already have a functioning PS3.

#20 Posted by SlashDance (1758 posts) -

I understand why people want it, I don't understand why people expect it to be the norm, seeing how true backwards compatibility only happened a handful of times.

#21 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@clonedzero said:

i have a large catalog of 360 games.

it would be a big selling point for me if i could still play all my loved 360 games on the next xbox.

i can't really see why someone wouldn't understand this. i have a TV, and i have an xbox 360. thats my current entertainment thinger. (ignoring my PC for this). add in the next gen consoles. which is great, but i like revisiting games months or years after beating them again, hell im currently replaying fallout new vegas.

backwards compatibility is a big deal to me, i mean its not a deal breaker, but its a feature i'd want over stupid sharing nonsense or silly touch screen controllers.

The 360 can totally do it though, they used PC components for the 360 and they will probably use PC components for the next Xbox. The whole issue with PS3 to PS4 is the PS3 used some crazy system architecture that was very unconventional so you can't simply play PS3 and PSN games on it with out realistically a PS3 Cell chip built into the system, which would drive up the cost significantly, I am expecting everything on the 360 to transfer over to the next console via a cable or cloud saves or just transferring via USB sticks, I have too many kick ass XBLA games that I want to take with me across all of the Xbox's of the future and most of those XBLA games will age alot better than the Xbox 360 will in 10 years.

#22 Posted by Atary77 (500 posts) -

When it comes to physical copies of full retail games I can understand perfectly why it's not always feasible to continuously support those games. However I will say there should be more of a precedent for making sure downloadable titles like Mark of the Ninja or Bastion could always be made available.

I would say give it some time and maybe Sony might be on to something with Gikai(sp?) and the way they intend to implement their technology that may allow them to over come the many difficult hurdles that come with emulation or virtual software.

#23 Posted by psylah (2153 posts) -

I missed out on the PS3--it was too expensive when it came out, and by the time the price dropped, I'd already loaded up on other shit, and so I never put the money aside. I've played a couple of games at friends' houses, but of all my gaming priorities right now, filling out the major PS3 catalog is at the top: MGS4, Uncharted, Little Big Planet, GOW3, on and on. Plus The Last of Us. Don't want to miss out on that.

I'm leaning towards the PS4 anyway, but it would be a lock if it had backwards compatibility. So it would affect my buying choice a little, but it's not imperative. I can get an old 40GB model off of ebay for pretty cheap now and stock up on some of those older titles for next to nothing. So no big deal. But it would mean something to me.

You would be all for buying the PS4 at launch if it had backwards compatibility, but the PS3, which was too expensive at launch because they basically had to build a PS2 emotion engine into it to support backwards compatibility, was out off your price range.

Something tells me you will not be pleased no matter WHAT is released.

#24 Edited by Pezen (1466 posts) -

It's a costly stupid idea at best. Something that holds progress back at worst. Besides that, it's only really relevant to most who deem it relevant during the shift to a new generation. Once that new generation is up and running full speed, majority of people doesn't think about the last generation's back catalogue. Because most people simply don't have the time or drive to really care that much about the handful of last-gen games they never touched. Once next gen rolls around, I'll probably phase out the PS2, PSP and DS from my shelves and make room for new games. If I ever feel like playing PS2 I'll just bring it up and plug it in. I'm not that lazy. And if next gen collection of games are similar to this gen. I'll probably eventually put away 360 and PS3 as well.

#25 Posted by megalowho (935 posts) -

It's a nice perk for early adopters when the pickings are slim. Once the next generation hits full swing it'll be an afterthought.

I would expect a company to try and incorporate backwards compatibility if at all possible when designing a new console, but in the specific case of the PS4 it appears to be an unfortunate but necessary byproduct of actually listening to developers and what they want in next gen hardware for once - a very positive position to take overall.

Moving away from the cell towards a PC oriented x86 CPU pretty much guaranteed incompatibility with the current library, in the traditional sense at least. If their streaming tech does what they say it does, they'll leverage it to take advantage of their legacy software in multiple ways I'm sure. Having a truly developer friendly console with forward thinking architecture is worth making a clean break in my opinion though, the potential benefits far outweigh the drawback of having to keep a PS3 around to play PS3 games.

#26 Posted by johncallahan (479 posts) -

I can kind of see why people would like it. I don't think it's necessary at all though. I mean, I bought THIS console to play THESE games, that's how it works. I can't play NES games on my NES, I can't play Genesis games on my Dreamcast, and that's fine. Why? Because I still have my NES, Genesis, Dreamcast, and SNES. People keep tossing out the argument "I don't want to have ten separate consoles hooked up at the same time, it'd be a mess!" Who would actually do that?! It literally takes 15 seconds to plug some cords into the back of the PS3. Keep the thing in your closet, then when you want to play Uncharted or whatever, you take it OUT of the closet. MAYBE a five minute process (depending on the relation to where you keep it and where your entertainment system is).

More importantly though, it would drive up the cost of the PS4 quite a bit, which is something I think people are missing. I don't want an extra $50-$100 tacked on to (what it sounds like) an already expensive piece of hardware, for a feature I "might" use every once in a while.

#27 Posted by Anund (849 posts) -

I own a first generation (release day, even) PS3 with full backwards compatibility. I played one PS2 game on it back when I first bought it, then never touched the functionality again.

If you want to play old games, you still have your old consoles. You don't have to have them all hooked up at once unless you're always playing old games which I highly doubt is the case. If you go back to an old game once or twice a year, taking our your old console for that purpose is hardly too much to ask.

The people saying they didn't buy the PS3 because it was too expensive while at the same time asking why the PS4 is not backwards compatible... Fellas, really? One of the major reasons the PS3 was that expensive was the backwards compatibility which no one used anyway.

#28 Posted by Max_Cherry (1111 posts) -

It's a luxury, but not a necessity.

#29 Posted by Zirilius (449 posts) -

@anund said:

I own a first generation (release day, even) PS3 with full backwards compatibility. I played one PS2 game on it back when I first bought it, then never touched the functionality again.

If you want to play old games, you still have your old consoles. You don't have to have them all hooked up at once unless you're always playing old games which I highly doubt is the case. If you go back to an old game once or twice a year, taking our your old console for that purpose is hardly too much to ask.

The people saying they didn't buy the PS3 because it was too expensive while at the same time asking why the PS4 is not backwards compatible... Fellas, really? One of the major reasons the PS3 was that expensive was the backwards compatibility which no one used anyway.

Exactly this. Keep your old console around if you want to play those old games that you might play once or twice more. I'd rather it not have backwards compatibility and cheaper than with it and more expensive. It's already going to be a pricey investment out the gate and I don't need it to be more so just cause people want to play their old PS3 games on it.

#30 Posted by skrutop (3615 posts) -

Sony set that expectation with the PS2, and now gamers want to see that feature on their new consoles. It's a decent selling feature, but I suspect that the majority of console owners don't care about bc once the catalog of current gen games is large enough to justify a new console on its own.

#31 Posted by Gamer_152 (13974 posts) -

Well the simple answer is "Because that's what the other consoles have done in recent times". The "Nintendo tapes" analogy doesn't work, because it's from a different era of video games with different expectations. Sony are of course not obligated to make their console backwards compatible, and I think there are fair arguments for why it's okay or even good that they didn't, but I also think it's completely valid to criticise them for not including such a feature when it's basically become an industry standard.

Moderator
#32 Posted by Pr1mus (3513 posts) -

There's this expectations for Sony consoles because they were the first one to do it.

Nobody expected N64 games to play on their GameCube even though it came out after the PS2 introduced backward compatibility. Now people have to realize that the barrier for Sony to bring PS3 compatibility to the PS4 is as big as it was for Nintendo going from N64 to GameCube.

#33 Posted by AiurFlux (899 posts) -

Because people don't want to have to buy games that they already paid full price for, once or even twice, another time. I'm sorry if I don't want to keep 10 boxes of shit from over a decade ago around just for posterity. I don't live like a slob. I'd rather have one thing that can do everything well over 20 different things that do one thing perfectly but that's all they do. Launch libraries, generally, stink and are not enough. Backwards compatibility should be the standard, not a luxury.

If they didn't include backwards compatibility but they also didn't offer previous generation games for download I wouldn't have a problem with it. Because then they'd be saying, "This is the PS4. This is what we're focused on. This is what we're offering and we'll make it as good as we can," but instead they're saying, "Hey. New console. Throw out your old one and buy the shit you already paid for yet again. Give us more money." As it stands it's double dipping and using nostalgia to force people to buy something again, and it's kind of fucking gross. We should be demanding more features, not just accepting less. Especially when something will probably cost around 600 fucking dollars in the middle of a recession. Come on.

#34 Posted by Turtlebird95 (2144 posts) -

Convenience would probably be my main answer. I've got over 100 XBLA games and about 50 retail 360 games I really don't want to have to hook up my ancient 360 just to play those games.

The thing is I'm really not a fan of how the PS4 is handling backwards compatibility. The whole streaming thing is a neat idea but if I have to buy all the games I love again (and that's how it will be) that's a real middle finger to the consumer. Not that they could do anything else about it but still.

#35 Posted by Skooky (473 posts) -

People don't have the time to play new games, but backwards compatibility is going to give them the time to play old games.

#36 Edited by TwoLines (2762 posts) -

I'll buy a PS4, I'll want to play Uncharted, MGS4 and Journey, I am not buying a PS3 for these three games. There, that's my reason.

#37 Edited by Cirdain (2957 posts) -

Yeah I'm not to bothered either.

#38 Posted by Ubersmake (753 posts) -

It's not an expectation more than it is a big selling point. If you release a console that touts backwards compatibility, or better, backwards compatibility that will upscale, add graphics filters, and do some color correction, and your competitor doesn't, that's a pretty big advantage for you right there.

#39 Posted by TooWalrus (12973 posts) -

@twolines said:

I'll buy a PS4, I'll want to play Uncharted, MGS4 and Journey, I am not buying a PS3 for these three games. There, that's my reason.

That's definitely a good reason to want backwards compatibility, but not exactly a good reason to expect it...

#40 Posted by EXTomar (4125 posts) -

Several reasons:

- Large investment in titles today where with compatibility that means it isn't all "junk" immediately.

- The gap between "launch window" and next series of releases can be large where having the "retro library" as a back stop doesn't hurt.

#41 Edited by Marcsman (2876 posts) -

Feel free to rip me a new one but why are people expecting the games they bought on their old hardware to run on their new hardware

;I don't know about you but my old games still work on the thing I bought them to play on. I would rather save money and not pay for a feature I already have and most likely will only use for nostalgia.

;I don't think it is reasonable to assume that a compony will or should support the game that you purchased on anything but the platform it was built for.

Where people upset when the the Nintendo tapes didn't fit into the super Nintendo

;Alright thanks for your time rant over

Why YOU little.........................................

Actually I agree with you 110%

#42 Edited by QuistisTrepe (628 posts) -

@tycobb said:

Because people don't understand what it takes to do backwards compatibility.

Not very much actually. I find it amusing that a bunch of coding hobbyists can do in their free time with PCSX2 what a multibillion dollar corporation refuses to do.

Where did we as consumers start to demand less for our money anyway? If these game consoles are supposed to be such technical powerhouses, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to handle inferior technology, none. Like it has already been mentioned before, gamers have invested so much into the industry for there to even be talk of new console releases in the first place, the mentality of "give it up and move on" is neither reasonable or acceptable in my view. It's just a convenient out for manufacturers to bilk us for more money and that's all.

#43 Edited by TyCobb (1924 posts) -

@quististrepe said:

@tycobb said:

Because people don't understand what it takes to do backwards compatibility.

Not very much actually. I find it amusing that a bunch of coding hobbyists can do in their free time with PCSX2 what a multibillion dollar corporation refuses to do.

You kind of proved my statement. No standard hobbyist is going to be able to implement emulation for a console. They may be contributing and working on it in their free time, but they are by far more knowledgeable than any hobbyist. There may be some hobbyist contributors that know how to read code and can submit small bug fixes, but there's no way they would have been able to create the core libraries. Also, that "free time", that is really years of work by forking projects, looking at other people's work, or spending long nights and weekends working on it because they don't have anything else to do. Programming something like this is not some, spend an hour here or there, but many hours working on a single thing to get it as optimized as possible since emulation is a very demanding on the CPU sometimes.

You need to also think about the fact that the PS3 is on the Cell processor. A processor that people had issues coding against originally. Imagine now trying to figure out how to emulate its complicated architecture on a standard x86 or x64 processor.

#44 Posted by rkofan87 (112 posts) -

It's just do we can sell our old console to help pay for our new one and so I don't have 10 things plugged in to my tv at once.

this

#45 Posted by Slag (3339 posts) -

There isn't an expectation beyond the knowledge that it's been available in the past two PS launches.

And furthermore because the PS4 is theoretically going to be able to stream PS3 games anyway which implies there is a way to do this, Cell Architecture or not.

I think they could find a way to at least honor our PSN store purchases. They know what we bought there and just grant our accounts access to streamed versions of them. Of course I'm not surprised they didn't do this, but that doesn't mean it's a good decision.

not to mention it's my understanding if you have bought DLC on the PS3, as far as, I know it's uncertain how long that will continue to work.

And why wouldn't people want backwards compatibility in some form? Do you really want to repurchase the same media over and over every five years, especially digital releases? This hobby gets a lot harder to justify every year financially. This just adds to the cost for the consumer. Sony needs to maintain the value proposition of continue to risk to losing people to tablets and smart phones.

#46 Edited by Deathpooky (1342 posts) -

It was great for me when I was younger with the PS2 launch since I never had a PS1 - great catalog of built in games that I could buy for cheap and play when I got a launch PS2. Today, not so much. I think I've played a grand total of two PS2 games since I got my PS3. Same with original Xbox games on my 360 or Gamecube games on the Wii.

It's something that sounds important since you've invested so much in games for the previous system, but in reality I very rarely go back to those older games. The games and systems will go into storage or get sold back. If I actually wanted to go back, I'd far rather use Sony's proposed digital library instead of digging out my old games.

#47 Posted by TwoLines (2762 posts) -

@twolines said:

I'll buy a PS4, I'll want to play Uncharted, MGS4 and Journey, I am not buying a PS3 for these three games. There, that's my reason.

That's definitely a good reason to want backwards compatibility, but not exactly a good reason to expect it...

True. I don't expect it. I think it's a huge waste of resources. The streaming old stuff thing is a way better idea (cause Sony will earn money from it, and they already have this sort of stuff in the system), and I'll totally buy those games since I have none of these games on discs.

#48 Posted by mandude (2667 posts) -
@tycobb said:

Because people don't understand what it takes to do backwards compatibility.

Not very much actually. I find it amusing that a bunch of coding hobbyists can do in their free time with PCSX2 what a multibillion dollar corporation refuses to do.

Where did we as consumers start to demand less for our money anyway? If these game consoles are supposed to be such technical powerhouses, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to handle inferior technology, none. Like it has already been mentioned before, gamers have invested so much into the industry for there to even be talk of new console releases in the first place, the mentality of "give it up and move on" is neither reasonable or acceptable in my view. It's just a convenient out for manufacturers to bilk us for more money and that's all.

Not to knock the amazing work put into PCSX2, but if Sony promised me backward compatibility and I got the equivalent of PCSX2, I'd be pretty fucked off.

#49 Posted by John1912 (1743 posts) -

@deathswind: All systems should be backward comparable because they should all run a mainstream type PC hardware. Thus as each gen should simply be a upgrade of the last, playing old games should simply be a fundamental part of the hardware itself. If the hardware is built right it should almost be work to go out of the way to not make old games work.

#50 Posted by StarFoxA (5123 posts) -

@mandude: True software emulation is extremely difficult and very taxing on processing speed. The only emulator that is considered to be 100% accurate of the hardware it emulates is bSNES, and it's only feasible on modern hardware. So if the PS4 were to include software emulation of PS2 or PS3 games it would end up being pretty spotty.