Why can't I play my old games?

[:(Rhodri:)]

LOL, this thread is almost as stupid as the one from the guy complaining about being charged after entering his credit card details for a free trial and not cancelling.

I actually think this one has out done it.

I fail to see why having a decent job would mean you can't have a ps3 and ps4? This would have been easily avoided with a 60 second googling, so I'm not sure why OP is so angry at Sony as the lack of BC has been known about for ages.

 

[mike.grayizzle]

I actually think this one has out done it.

I fail to see why having a decent job would mean you can't have a ps3 and ps4? This would have been easily avoided with a 60 second googling, so I'm not sure why OP is so angry at Sony as the lack of BC has been known about for ages.

It's their corporate greed I tell thee

 

[The Running Man]

As said already, there's no incentive for them to do so. Launch time is also the worst time to do it; they want to sell as many consoles as possible, and a more expensive BC model would invariably lead to reduced numbers of the cheaper version.

If there was a valid business case for it, they'd have done it. Evidently they weren't looking for a repeat performance of the PS3 launch.

The business case is that Sony want you to rebuy the content you already bought but in a slightly different format.

Ps2 could play PS1. Ps3 could play PS1 and 2, then sony thought, hang about. Why not just make these people pay twice for the same thing? Cash in the bank.

Then they stopped making the PS3 with BC and cancelled their software based PS2 emu in the PS3...

 

[JAzz]

Sony are release Gaikai on the PS4 sometime next year that will allow some PS3 games over the internet on PS4s.

Considering how different they are it would have been very difficult to implement PS3 on this consoles, like others have mentioned either with emulation or a cell processor. They are already selling the console at near cost so something like that might of added a lot of cost that for many wouldn't be justified.

 

[Noxia]

Unbelievable, just bought an N64 and it won't play my bloody SNES games, the cartridges don't fit. Fuming

 

[OpenToSuggestions]

I would much rather pay more for the console and have backwards compatibility, but it is what it is.

OP is an idiot for not doing research before purchase though!

 

[TheVoice]

Ps2 could play PS1. Ps3 could play PS1 and 2, then sony thought, hang about. Why not just make these people pay twice for the same thing? Cash in the bank.

Then they stopped making the PS3 with BC and cancelled their software based PS2 emu in the PS3...

Yet you conveniently ignore yet again that the PS2 backwards compatibility in the PS3 was a key reason for the high launch price; it was dropped so they could lower the manufacturing cost and thus the selling price. Emulating the PS3 on the PS4 would likely be even more complex and expensive, so why should they bother when that time and money can be invested in improving the stuff that actually matters?

Not to mention the obvious fact that incorporating backwards compatibility costs the manufacturer money yet earns them essentially nothing, because you're just going to be using games you already own as opposed to buying new games.

If playing previous-gen games is such a priority, perhaps you don't need a next-gen console yet.

 

[mmj_uk]

Backwards compatibility was only ever a bonus feature.

With vastly different architectures it's only really possible if they include PS3 hardware inside the PS4 which would put costs up a lot, then people would be complaining why the PS4 is so expensive.

PS3 will be available on the market for another few years so I don't see the problem with having no BC, by the time PS3 is phased out nobody will be playing PS3 games anymore.

 

[Attu90]

Wasn't that called a diesel?

Tell my wife they don't both take the same fuel

 

[The Running Man]

Yet you conveniently ignore yet again that the PS2 backwards compatibility in the PS3 was a key reason for the high launch price; it was dropped so they could lower the manufacturing cost and thus the selling price. Emulating the PS3 on the PS4 would likely be even more complex and expensive, so why should they bother when that time and money can be invested in improving the stuff that actually matters?

Not to mention the obvious fact that incorporating backwards compatibility costs the manufacturer money yet earns them essentially nothing, because you're just going to be using games you already own as opposed to buying new games.

If playing previous-gen games is such a priority, perhaps you don't need a next-gen console yet.

Do you work for or have any connections to sony corporate? All the reasons you state are bonus for the vendor not the customer. Your first paragraph, I already answered twice, different sku with HW BC for more cost and higher sell price. Therefore PS4 can launch at a low price and a high price for people wanting to choose either sku its really very simple.

Its not a case of whats a priority and whats not. its a case of do I really have space and the requirement for duplicated PS3 and a PS4 under the lounge TV when clearly 1 box could do both.

You forget that there is a virtual drought of quality PS4 games currently. im sure you understand that people might well want to use their AAA last gen games to plug the times between decent PS4 games...

 

[Zefan]

Just lol. I would have loved to see your face at the moment you realised that you dun goofed.

 

[TheVoice]

Do you work for or have any connections to sony corporate? All the reasons you state are bonus for the vendor not the customer. Your first paragraph, I already answered twice, different sku with HW BC for more cost and higher sell price. Therefore PS4 can launch at a low price and a high price for people wanting to choose either sku its really very simple.

So because I'm able to look at both sides of the argument, that means I'm on the side of the corporation?

The only time a second SKU makes any sense is at launch when people are still interested in previous-gen games and there isn't enough new releases. It's also the worst time because it makes an already expensive console even more expensive, makes development more expensive (which arguably drives up the cost for both models) and means dividing the number of consoles that are available at launch even further just to satisfy a minority of people.

You forget that there is a virtual drought of quality PS4 games currently. im sure you understand that people might well want to use their AAA last gen games to plug the times between decent PS4 games...

I'm well aware that there's a lack of PS4 games at the moment, it's why I haven't bought one yet and will continue to use my PS3 rather than complain that my new console doesn't play games that I already own the hardware for.

 

[mattyy]

Yes, I have my PS3 but you miss the point. This is such a stupid argument. Frankly it would make sense to have a console that enables the customer to play EVERYTHING that it can. Your argument to or against is too late because my PS4 has already gone back. It's like a new car coming out that doesn't accept our usual standard of petrol. I'm really angry about this, really really angry. Goodbye Sony you bunch of ****s

My PS4 doesn't play Xbox one games? WHY NOT?!
Your argument is frankly stupid. Do your research, if you want to play your PS3 games - use your PS3, when you want to play PS4 games - use your PS4.
There is no backward compatibility for anything these days? Does the PS3 have any??
Its all emulated, which Sony have said would be possibly at a later date with the PS4.

 

[The Running Man]

So because I'm able to look at both sides of the argument, that means I'm on the side of the corporation?

The only time a second SKU makes any sense is at launch when people are still interested in previous-gen games and there isn't enough new releases. It's also the worst time because it makes an already expensive console even more expensive, makes development more expensive (which arguably drives up the cost for both models) and means dividing the number of consoles that are available at launch even further just to satisfy a minority of people.

I'm well aware that there's a lack of PS4 games at the moment, it's why I haven't bought one yet and will continue to use my PS3 rather than complain that my new console doesn't play games that I already own the hardware for.

what other side of the argument have you presented back to us? All you've done is provide reasons from a short term profitability perspective why Sony should max out the customer breaking 2 generations of BC and then tell us you didn't buy one because there's no games available. This thread tells me a BC version would have gone down a treat.

 

[ps3ud0]

I very much doubt a BC console would have made any difference to me buying a next gen console and ultimately I think theres more people with that viewpoint than there are people that wouldnt buy it specifically because of it lacking BC. I think thats the issue that people that make BC part of the decision to buy are far and few between, especially if you consider that BC would add at least 10% to the cost of the console too...

I dont think BC matters enough to the demographic that the console makers are appealing to at launch, the ones that umm and arr, will probably still umm and arr at launch with or without BC...

ps3ud0

 

[insane200]

the Op is almost as stupid as they 14day free PS+ then sony charged me one :/

Is it really that difficult to find the correct info online before moaning about !!

 

[TheVoice]

what other side of the argument have you presented back to us? All you've done is provide reasons from a short term profitability perspective why Sony should max out the customer breaking 2 generations of BC and then tell us you didn't buy one because there's no games available.

The side that explains why backwards compatibility has been effectively killed off. You seem to think it's as simple as "Sony are evil, they want more money!" when evidently it's something they tried with the PS3 at great expense to both themselves and the customer, and ultimately it caused huge problems for them right from the start. "2 generations of BC" is something of an exaggeration too, considering the vast majority of PS3s in the word don't play PS2 games.

Ultimately, they're a business, and businesses are out to make a profit. The fact that you can't make a case for backwards compatibility from a profit perspective explains why the feature isn't there. I've no idea what it would realistically cost to include PS3-compatible hardware and software in the PS4 (including all the costs leading to it), but I can say with certainty that it's an amount most people would be unwilling to pay.

This thread tells me a BC version would have gone down a treat.

Because three people out of 75 replies have said they wanted it? All it tells me is that there's so little demand for it that Sony would have been mad to build a limited-production, significantly more expensive model just to satisfy the few who want to play PS3 games but can't or won't use their PS3.

 

[Stellios]

For someone on a computing forum you clearly don't understand computer architecture very well.

The PS3 is an older, completely different architecture all together and to expect Sony to be able to make backwards compatibility work is a bit daft IMO.

Look at the PS3 at launch, I paid £425 for a console that had the extras for PS2 backwards compatibility and never actually used it. Eventually Sony got shot down and they removed the PS2 features to knock the price down. I hate to think how expensive a PS4 would be if they added the required hardware to make PS3 games work.

 

[JBeck]

what other side of the argument have you presented back to us? All you've done is provide reasons from a short term profitability perspective why Sony should max out the customer breaking 2 generations of BC and then tell us you didn't buy one because there's no games available. This thread tells me a BC version would have gone down a treat.

The original BC PS3 cost sony a big loss with every console sold, the profit came from games. How were they going to make viable profit when people were just playing their old games on the new console and buying just the odd PS3 game? When they dropped BC, they still made a loss, when they introduced the slim they still made a loss, even now in recent times with the super slim are they drawing even-ish.

It's the games that make them money, they ain't gonna make money by enabling the PS4 to play games people already own.

Simples.

 

[The Running Man]

The side that explains why backwards compatibility has been effectively killed off. You seem to think it's as simple as "Sony are evil, they want more money!" when evidently it's something they tried with the PS3 at great expense to both themselves and the customer, and ultimately it caused huge problems for them right from the start. "2 generations of BC" is something of an exaggeration too, considering the vast majority of PS3s in the word don't play PS2 games.

Ultimately, they're a business, and businesses are out to make a profit. The fact that you can't make a case for backwards compatibility from a profit perspective explains why the feature isn't there. I've no idea what it would realistically cost to include PS3-compatible hardware and software in the PS4 (including all the costs leading to it), but I can say with certainty that it's an amount most people would be unwilling to pay.



Because three people out of 75 replies have said they wanted it? All it tells me is that there's so little demand for it that Sony would have been mad to build a limited-production, significantly more expensive model just to satisfy the few who want to play PS3 games but can't or won't use their PS3.

I really don't think it's as simple as you make it sound. My thought process is that Sony realised they could make more profit by redistributing the same content via PSN download - they were unable to do this previously on their consoles as PSN wasn't around yet.

Like micro-transactions in GT6 do they give us 7 million credits for £40 because they love us and couldn't have made it easier to earn credits in game or because PSN opened up this avenue and they wanted to cash in big time in the profitability stakes?