How Important is Backwards Compatibility for PS Orbis PS4 to you as a consumer?
It would be really nice to have full compatibility so I wouldn’t have to leave my PS3 plugged in on my desk. I’ve got a really dumb setup that involves swapping audio cables into a single-input amp and swapping HDMI cables into a single-input video converter, so every added console means another set of cables to manage.
There’s also the issue of what I’d do if my PS3 died. If the PS4 also played PS3 games, I’ll be set until the PS5 software emulates PS3 games. Unless this Gaikai layer is indistinguishable (in quality and latency) from raw gameplay, I have very little interest in using it.
Eh not really important. As long as my PS store purchases carry over I'll be happy. The disc based stuff will be a bummer to lose but if I am buying a new console I am doing it to play new games first and foremost.
Hate to break it to you, but any non-emulated (i.e. not PS1 classics) stuff you bought on the store is in the same compatibility category as disc-based games. This includes PSN games and retail games. The form of media (disc or hard drive) has nothing to do with whether or not it will run on the PS4.
Well I had no idea. It still wouldn't be a deal breaker for me but it would suck. Hopefully that Gaiki stuff makes it close enough (I would be fine with minor latency and slightly lower quality).
I've got a PS3 and I don't plan on getting rid of it, so I could really give a shit about backwards compatibility.
I expect they'll at least have PS1 support since that's pretty simple to emulate at this point.
I'm curious to see if they'll have PS2 support, which could be really interesting.
It kinda has too because you can buy full ps3 game on playstation network I own an xbox and if I could not bring my digital content to the next system I would be upset.
You can also buy full PSP games on PSN, doesn't mean you can play them on your PS3... I wouldn't be surprised if they just sorted that stuff in the PSN store differently, having some games be compatible while others are not.
It's something I used to care more about when I was younger as I used to sell my older console and a few unwanted games to buy the new one. As I'm older and money's less of an issue, I don't need to backwards compatibility as much because I know that stuff's still around for when I need it. Though theoretically one day I'll get even older, storage space will become a concern, and I'll have pretty much come full circle on the issue... well, maybe there'll be a few breakthroughs in emulation by then.
In fact, I'm actually a little more concerned about downloadable titles. Sooner or later they'll have to pull some big lever over PSN and anyone who suddenly wants to play Wipeout HD but doesn't have it downloaded already will be screwed. Same issue with XBLA. Get Shadow Complex while you still can, kids.
At one point I considered the BC for a console to be highly important to me. Now I couldn't care less about it. I'm still going to have a ps3 around no matter what happens just like almost every other console I ever owned so my need for it isn't that high anymore. I care more about what they are going to do digital wise than anything else at this point.
Gakai seemed confident that backward compatibility via streaming would be possible down the road. Googling for answers myself, I found an article on Forbes that presumes the PS4's optical drive will still recognize a PS3 disc, at which point you will be able to stream the game without having to purhase a digital copy. It could be complete bs but it seems like a genius workaround to me.
Would have been nice as someone who never owned a PS3 but was fond of a handful of exclusive games, and all I really want a PS3 for right now is for Blu-Ray playback. The reality is that I've enough games as it is, and I'll be looking forward to the future of more titles. Even as a "PC gamer" I'll be buying either Sony's or Microsoft's console, and I'd be glad for this generation to be maximized to its full potential in favor of ditching backwards compatibility, even if the idea that PS1/PS2 game compatibility can't be achieved on such hardware is absurd given that I've been able to emulate both on my older PC pre-upgrade on 4 year old hardware (in "high def" resolutions with AA, no less).
I wonder if the PS4 will (or can) even have backwards compatibility. When the PS3 did it with the PS2, they initially slapped the Emotion Engine chip right in it (before progressing, or perhaps regressing, to software based emulation). Something tells me that the PS4 neither has the power to emulate a PS3 nor the necessary margins to include a Cell (or any hardware specifically meant for PS3 emulation for that matter).
I'm sure they'd rather brag about being able to play all your PS3 games (if hardware based) or at least most (if software based), rather than the limited streaming selection they'll have. (Unless they aim to turn that into a whole business model, of course.)
That's true. There's no way on hell that a low clocked 8-core (if it even really is 8 to begin with) is going to emulate the PS2 titles without major slowdowns. From personal experience, I have a AMD 6-core CPU OC'ed to 3.6GHZ X6. My PC shits bricks if I try emulating ANY Ratchet & Clank game with it. Case in point, I don't really see that as a feasible outcome.
DON'T care CHina also don't care what it looks like
I have 2 tvs in different rooms, my ps2 will be moved to storage replaced with ps3. I currently use it for playing dvds but will become bluray player. ps4 will go onto my best tv.
even the downloaded stuff is alright cause it means whenever I turn on my old ps3 there will be games ready to go. it would be espically nice if they let me keep all tbe free stuff I currently have on it.,
I don't mind. I'm keeping my PS3. If I tried to sell it, I'd get like what? $100 maybe? Might as well keep it around.
Only thing that really bugs me is I assume I'll need a new fightstick for PS4. Pretty big bummer, but, again, since I'll be playing the games on PS3 to begin with, it won't be that much of a problem. Not for a while anyway.
It would be nice to have, but by no means a deal breaker and I hope they don't include it if it drives the price up.
I would much rather see a cheaper, more compact version of the current PS3 to handle my old games. I imagine that Sony will release more PS2 and PS1 classics via PSN and charge $10 to $15 to force players to buy the games again in hi res form.
I'm more irked by the inability to play my PSN games on the PS4. For instance a game like Dyad which was developed exclusively for the PS3 but a Steam version is in the works. Why won't this work on the PS4 if its essentially a PC? Its pretty shitty that I have to rebuy the game. I can understand the pain in the ass cell architecture making porting disc games like Heavy Rain to PS4 not cost effective, but smaller multiplatform games should work. They can make Sly 4 play on both PS3 and Vita, but not PS4?
I would have Sony much rather said some backwards compatibility when possible, done on a rolling basis based on title distributed through the PSN, instead of just closing the door on the matter.
I don't care because I own a PS3 already for the short term. If I want to play PS3 games in 2014 I can do so. And, by 2018 if Sony were to close down the PS3 servers I would not care very much.
I play modern games, I don't find enjoyment out of dipping into older games. I have boxes of PSX and PS2 games that I never play...I could play them I have functional PSX and PS2 machines packed away...but I won't play them. I hate to be "one of those people", but I have to be honest, backwards compatibility is not an issue for me. I don't care if what I bough physically or digitally is there in ten years.
When a game was just a game, no updates, no fixes, no servers needed to play there was no COST to the company to allow you re-playability But now there is a cost to maintaining the infrastructure to play old game. Is it fair to spread that cost out to all gamer, so that a few people can play a ten year old games? Should "I" pay for someone else's ability to play old games in the cost of new machines or in the cost of new membership?
There is a REAL dollars-per-game cost to the infrastructural to allow games to run, but who should pay that? "Not I," says the guy who doesn't play old games. "Not I," says the corporation who has to front the cost if nobody pays. "Not I," says publisher of the game. It has to be the people who want old games who have to pay. Your $60 goes to short term playability, five years, maybe. But the people who want the servers up long term, who want the patches available, and want a backup copy if they loose their primary need to foot that BC bill. If $0.50 of my new game purchase goes to BC, okay that's fair. But, adding chips isn't $1 and adding long term lease of servers farms is't just $1; so if the real cost is $25 or $50 more to the cost of my console, then I say, "No thanks." I'm in for the penny, I'm not in for the pound.
I used to think it mattered to me but have realised there's only one PS1 game I'm interested in playing again (hogs of war, why hasn't this been ported to ios???) and the only PS2 games I'd play again are MGS games, which were re-released.
Plus at the moment I've barely got enough time to play the games I've got, never mind go back and play old games.
At the moment I've got:
Football Manager 2013, Pschonauts, Binding of Isaac, Cave Story, Closure, Dungeon Defenders, FTL, Legend Of Grimrock, Offspring fling, Planetside 2, Shank 2, Snapshot all waiting on my steam client to be played.
& God of War 1, Sleeping Dogs, F1 Race Stars, Bioshock 2, Guardians of Middle Earth. Knytt Underground, Vanquish, Bigsky infinite, Cubixx HD, LBP2, BulletStorm, Double Dragon Neon, Resident Evil 5, Hell Yeah, Machinarium, Borderlands, Saints row 2 all sitting off on my PS3 waiting to be played.
They're just the games I've not played yet or played less than 30 mins on. I haven't inlcuded the games I've started and not finished yet such as Limbo, The Walkind Dead (episode 4 took it out of me), Civ5, Bastion.. I could continue but I think I may cry...what am I doing typing I should be playing these games........
It matters a lot to me. I never owned a PS3 in this last generation, and unless Microsoft pulls something amazing out of their ass, I am probably getting a PS4. I would absolutely love being able to play PS3 games that I missed out on over the last 6ish years on a PS4. I really hope they get those cloud features in they were talking about.
I didn't own a PS3 so it would be slightly cool if I could get a ps4 and be able to play Last of Us, though I wonder if it will get a proper ps4 release eventually anyways as it's close enough to make that jump not so crazy. On the whole I think backwards compatibility is crazy, it costs so much to implement and anyone that actually has the games to make that something they'd benefit from also owns the console that can run those games and has run those games for the past... almost decade? Keeping around that console means zero hassle when you wanna play some uncharted 3 or whatever, 4 years from now... or whatever the fuck you think you're going to be doing in the future.
I'd rather have it with backwards compatibility, but I see where everyone else is coming from in terms of not caring about backwards compatibility. Personally, I just don't want to have my living room be cluttered with both a PS3 and a PS4 in the same room and rather have one console that can play two generations of games. (Still tempted in the PS4 nevertheless).
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.