PSN purchases won’t transfer to PS4

  • 64 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by MAGZine (438 posts) -

@seppli: That's totally fine. I'm not being negative though, I'm being realistic. I'm not making a personal attack on you and your opinions, I'm just saying that Sony said that PSN purchases made on PS3 won't be playable on PS4, and if you're ok with that, more power to you. (but you should be equally as understanding if Microsoft or anyone else has a similar issue)

#52 Posted by cutyoface (553 posts) -

Gaikai is the solution.

#53 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4878 posts) -

This isn't unexpected as they've completely redone their architecture for this next generation. I imagine trying to get that CELL bullshit to work on PS4 would've taken more work than would be wise to spend on cross compatibility. It sucks, but it's not an unforeseen circumstance.

I highly doubt this will happen with Durango, however. The 360 was already super close to PC development as it is.

#54 Edited by believer258 (12179 posts) -

@magzine said:

Digital titles locked to hardware.

http://www.edge-online.com/news/psn-purchases-wont-transfer-to-ps4/

Reminiscent of the Wii U, except Nintendo said something beforehand.

No, digital titles are still locked to accounts and not hardware. "Locked to hardware" means "usable only on that specific copy of the console in question and no other".

You also missed a different and very important distinction in the article:

but that the company will try to make digital purchases playable “in some form.”

Nintendo appears to be making no such efforts.

EDIT: Also, I'm not defending this - it's a shitty thing - but I understand it. It was either "keep crappy Cell architecture and keep crappy ports" or "use x86 architecture and make it a little easier on developers". It was a decision born of (what they believe will be) superior design, not necessarily business dickery.

#55 Edited by mikey87144 (1806 posts) -

This is kind of a big deal to me. I don't want to have to swap consoles to play games. I understand why Sony is doing it so I can't blame them but it sucks.

I think this will turn into a big deal if MS supports BC of all old titles. Then they can launch with a store filled with old games and use that as a marketing bullet point. Sony's online store will be barren in comparison. Games could still be released on the old console and playable on the new console. Big deal for the launch of these consoles which usually start slow with not many games.

Again, I don't want to swap consoles, it's a hassle. I have two 360s so I don't have to drag it from one room to the other when I am entertaining company in my living room. There's not enough HDMI ports on my TV to keep all this shit plugged in.

It's an issue for the first 6-12 months. After that you won't even care.

#56 Posted by TooWalrus (13256 posts) -

Nintendo's customer support can absolutely transfer accounts and content from one console to another. The fact that users aren't given an option to though, what else can it be other than a business decision? There's a smarter way to work user accounts and downloadable games, and Nintendo chose not to implement the same system Microsoft and Sony use.

#57 Posted by crusader8463 (14428 posts) -

@carlthenimrod said:

This is kind of a big deal to me. I don't want to have to swap consoles to play games. I understand why Sony is doing it so I can't blame them but it sucks.

I think this will turn into a big deal if MS supports BC of all old titles. Then they can launch with a store filled with old games and use that as a marketing bullet point. Sony's online store will be barren in comparison. Games could still be released on the old console and playable on the new console. Big deal for the launch of these consoles which usually start slow with not many games.

Again, I don't want to swap consoles, it's a hassle. I have two 360s so I don't have to drag it from one room to the other when I am entertaining company in my living room. There's not enough HDMI ports on my TV to keep all this shit plugged in.

It's an issue for the first 6-12 months. After that you won't even care.

Except not at all. I specifically hunted down a PS3 with full backwards compatibility because I still play PS2 games on it. I still have PS2 games in my backlog that I'm trying to get around to playing, and ones that I beat and never would have if I had to dig behind my TV to unplug my current systems and try to find an open port to plug the old system into. That's assuming that my TV even had the proper old plugins that the system uses since most TV's these days are all HDMI cables.

So don't be silly and dismiss peoples perfectly justifiable complaints just because they don't apply to you. There are plenty of people that are in the above situations and don't want to have to make room to keep old systems plugged in just to play an old game from time to time, or go through the hassle of hooking it all back up.

#58 Posted by Slag (4846 posts) -

disappointing & unsurprising.

#59 Posted by Sergio (2243 posts) -

I expected this, and it doesn't bother me. I never complained that my SNES couldn't play my NES games.

#60 Edited by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

@sergio: You would never have complained that you couldn't play your SNES online either. Expectations change as technology becomes more advanced.

#61 Posted by Sergio (2243 posts) -

@chrissedoff: Correct, technology has advanced. PS4 has a different architecture than PS3, and not an advancement of the same architecture. You shouldn't expect games that worked on the prior system to work on the new one automatically. There are two possible solutions if you wanted your PSN games to be backward compatible. Include a PS3 within PS4, or emulate a PS3 to play them. The former won't happen because not enough people will want to pay for that. The latter would be costly for Sony, and gains them nothing but a small amount of good will.

#62 Edited by Superkenon (1506 posts) -

They'd have to practically stick an entire PS3 in the PS4 to make it compatible -- and since I already have a PS3 and all, I'd just soon not pay for all that extra hardware.

Keep in mind part of the original outrageous cost of the PS3 was because the first models included PS2 backwards-compatibility.

#63 Posted by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

@sergio: I'm not even trying to pretend that normal backwards compatibility was possible. I'm only pointing out that it's something that we've seen past consoles do, so it's reasonable for people to see it as a strike against the PS4 that they need to plug in their old systems when they want to play a PS3 game. This will be especially relevant for the first year or two of the PS4's life when PS3 games will probably still be coming out now and then.

#64 Edited by Meltac (2007 posts) -

Some of the responses in this thread are quite hilarious.

As to the topic, it doesn't bother me much. I kind of expected it and it's not like my PS3 magically disappears after I buy a PS4.

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.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.