270°

PS4 is Not Backwards Compatible and That’s a Good Thing

Frontburnr: If you think the next-generation will be about the technical power of graphics and hardware, you are thinking like a console generation that is ready to be passed by. This is about a platform reflecting a social world, a connected world. Sony is providing the power to not just build better looking games but the power to share and participate in content dynamically.

Read Full Story >>
blog.frontburnr.com
dedicatedtogamers4035d ago

No, a lack of a beneficial feature is never a "good" thing.

However, it's not necessarily a bad thing, either. The PS4's lack of a built-in flashlight isn't a bad thing, even though it's a feature that is not included.

agentxk4035d ago

When I stumbled across this, I was surprised to see some decent points. We can't really move forward if we are still looking in the rearview mirror.

However, I do have a ton of PS1,2 and 3 games. So it's a "Yeah, but..." type of situation.

wampdog294035d ago

You also can't move on without knowing where you came from....

sikbeta4035d ago

Less options YAY!!!! -___-

Only good thing about this is the price of PS4 will not be as awful as PS3's and ylod/variant probably will not happen

starchild4035d ago

I hate when people argue that backwards compatibility isn't valuable to have. I love the PC for that reason. I can play my entire library of PC games on a single device.

ABizzel14035d ago

I understand disc based BC not being there, but I kind of wanted my digital games to transfer.

I mean I have a bunch of digital games thanks to PS+, PSN sales, and games that I just had to buy, and I kind of expected those to transfer over simply because their digital and PS+ is suppose to continue with the PS4.

Maybe they'll offer all of them again for PS+ users during the first few months of PS4 PS+ launch.

BitbyDeath4035d ago (Edited 4035d ago )

@starchild,

Can you get a game called Dr Drago's Madcap Adventure to work on Win7?
It hasn't worked since Win95 and i'm not going back to that.

Not every game on PC works on the latest version of Windows mostly just the recent ones.

MysticStrummer4035d ago

"I hate when people argue that backwards compatibility isn't valuable to have."

I hate when people think their opinion should be everyone else's too. I never used my PS2's BC. I never used my PS3's BC. Apparently BC is not valuable to me. Try to deal with that.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4035d ago
vet_medic4035d ago

If it makes PS4 price higher I don't want it

4035d ago
TopDudeMan4035d ago

I don't understand why people are going nuts about backwards compatibility. Even if they did put it on, it would never be as good as playing the game on the original console that it came out for.

4035d ago
princejb1344035d ago

I disagree backwards compatible is very important
For one I have 26 ps3 games that I won't be able to play on my ps4 when I do buy it
And I don't want to keep my ps3 because that's just extra space in my room that I don't have
So if I'm not keeping the ps3 there's no point of keeping the ps3 games

Good_Guy_Jamal4035d ago

Not a deal breaker to be honest. I hope my ps3 doesn't give in but PS4 will be used for PS4 games.
Next Xbox better have BC though, I have way to many downloaded and retail 360 games and it would be a shame to have to keep my console around to play them.
Truth be told however, I'll probably end up not even playing the darn things with all the next gen goodness taking over.
In conclusion, not a good thing, not by a long shot, but not exactly a disaster either. I can live with it.

brave27heart4035d ago

Since my PS3 isnt going anywhere Id say BC isnt an issue to me. Plus the nostalgia of hearing that start up orchestra...

As long as you still have the hardware I can always play my old games. Changing a few cables over isnt an issue to me.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4035d ago
NastyLeftHook04035d ago (Edited 4035d ago )

I want the ps4 to be backwards compatible, But if it is not, then its 100% fine by be. Atleast i know where my dollars are going and thats to 100% dedicated hardcore gaing and not screwing me over as a consumer with mandatory online.

agentxk4035d ago

Agreed. I like how Sony said that DRM is completely up to the dev, not them. I am always on the internet, but I am glad that users won't have to be to enjoy most of their games.

ichimaru4035d ago

what does this article have to do with always online drm. better yet, why do you feel the need to derail every comment with flame bait. comes of as bitter instead of actually being excited for the ps4

Hambo4035d ago

Not really sure how this is "flame bait?" Nothing bitter about his comment.

ichimaru4035d ago

"100% dedicated hardcore gaing and not screwing me over as a consumer with mandatory online.#" literally had Jack to do with backwards compatibility or the lack there of.

Good_Guy_Jamal4035d ago

. . .and that lil bit of jerk just for good measure.

ichimaru4035d ago

for those who literally purchased a strong library of games this gen,I would be disheartened. it's an inconvenience to have to switch consoles to play a game that cans out a year ago

ichimaru4035d ago (Edited 4035d ago )

said the consumer to console development teams. its not my job to find excuses for a product. its the Sony'/ms' job to convince me it's worth a purchase

insomnium24035d ago

@ichi

Wouldn't PS4 be more worth the purchase if it is cheaper? Would you pay a full 100 dollars more for b/c? How about 150 dollars? Where do you draw the line?

T24035d ago

Sorry im not paying 100 bucks more on a ps4 so others can play uncharted 2 ... How bout just enjoy uc4 ?

Neonridr4035d ago (Edited 4035d ago )

The problem I see here is that because the PS4 is so radically different in architecture from the PS3, the only way to have backwards compatibility might be to embed a PS3 Cell processor into the PS4 hardware used strictly for the playing of PS3 games. Having to do this could easily tack on another 100 bucks to the end price, so for that I would rather just get up and turn on the PS3 instead.

It's a great convenience, but not worth it if it raises the costs, or reduces the build quality to accommodate.

Again, it's a nice feature to have, but not a deal breaker in the end...

ShiftyLookingCow4035d ago

Certainly not a deal breaker but trying to spin it as a plus is just silly.

KwietStorm_BLM4035d ago

It's a huge plus if keeping it out keeps the price down. It's good for more people to afford, it's good for Sony to make money, it's good for developers to get with the developin'

But seriously, backward compatibility was never promised to anyone at any time. It was just a luxury on consoles that started with the PS1. Things were different then. It's a slight inconvenience at best to have to boot up my PS3 to play an old game, something that won't be happening often with me anyway.

darren_poolies4035d ago

You buy a new console to play new games.

Show all comments (83)
210°

Tomb Raider Remastered just quietly censored one in-game detail

Tomb Raider 1-3 Remastered players are ticked off by the game’s most recent patch, which censors in-game pin-up posters of Lara Croft.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbible.com
rlow15h ago

This is why gaming is screwed. When people change things to fit someone’s agenda, it’s a slippery slope downhill.

Christopher4h ago(Edited 4h ago)

Even if that agenda is of the developer? Way to remove developer rights.

***One player called it a “huge problem with modern games,” saying they can now be “ruined AFTER people buy them”.***

The level of drama. Yes, I recall sitting there for more hours than I did anything else in the game. These two pinups are the core of the game, after all!

coolbeans3h ago(Edited 3h ago)

rlow1's cringe catastrophizing aside, I do think developers *ought* to strive to maintain an original work to the best of their ability. The language of a "remaster" tacitly implies that - for good or ill - what's being resold is what fans remember but better.

Profchaos3h ago

Games can be ruined after purchasing them yeah we know this not from this but from GTA IV which had half it's radio content patched out due to licensing expirations and to me that was a huge deal.

This pin up poster is a bit of nonsense but the whole argument of modern games can be ruined post launch is Absol true.

DedicatedDark1h ago(Edited 1h ago)

It's not their work to censor. They are incharge of restoration & remastering the work, not overwriting it.

Barlos57m ago

It's not the agenda of the developer though, they're pandering and trying to increase their ESG score.

Way to support censorship...

victorMaje55m ago

It’s not the end of the world for sure, but I understand the hate towards this kind of change. I believe it’s also a matter of principle.

Imagine a Picasso painting being restored & the restorer deciding there aren’t enough strokes, or some lines aren’t straight enough or curved enough…not sure it would/should sit well with people.

Have all original devs signed off on this change? Even if it’s the case, are we saying older gamers are better mentally equipped to process what was there than current gamers, hence the change?

Enough time ago the case was made that games are an art form. We’re supposed to have won that case.
So which is it? Are games art or not?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 55m ago
Eidolon1h ago

Hasn't this been happened for over a decade since remasters? I can't see that it's any worse now. Maybe if Sweet Baby starts getting their hands on remasters we will definitely have a problem.

Rebel_Scum3h ago

tbh I dont see something like this as censorship. Does anyone else not find it strange for someone to stick pin ups of themsleves in a locker room?

Now of it was a pin up of some half naked firefighters it might make sense as Lara might like that, and if they removed that I would cry censorship. But removing pin ups of the main character, yeah I get it.

Barlos52m ago(Edited 52m ago)

It's a game, and they were placed there for the audience. It's not real life. If it was, she wouldn't have fought a T-Rex now would she?

Yes, it's censorship but it's a bit less in your face. If they were in the original game, then they should have been in the remasters. It's bad enough that they have that ridiculous unnecessary warning at the start, but then they start removing things post launch. I don't care how small the change, they shouldn't be doing it. It's nothing but ESG pandering but in a subtle way.

SimpleDad29m ago

By the year 2030, this remaster collection will totally be changed and censored. Probably will remove Lara as a playable character. It's ridiculous. Glad that my family didn't buy this.
I still have Tomb Raider 2 PS1 as a memory.

100°

Final Fantasy III Pixel Remaster Review – You Are Your Job, Apparently

Gary Green said: In a time where an enhanced, 3D remake of Final Fantasy III already exists, it’s hard to argue that Final Fantasy III Pixel Remaster is the definitive version we were expecting. With Final Fantasy III already being the last in the series to be translated and make its way west, this is something of a slap in the face for the fans. Still, let’s not be disheartened. There may be many shortfalls in this edition of Final Fantasy III, however there’s no denying that this classic JRPG still holds some nostalgic value, even if it struggles to break away from its original hardware limitations.

Read Full Story >>
pslegends.com
FACTUAL evidence4h ago(Edited 4h ago)

It’s funny I’m seeing these articles about pixel remaster, and I just platinumed 1-4 within 8 days lol. I’ve been on FF5 for about a week now. Let’s just say 5 was the start of FF having content like crazy. I should have the plat within 2-3 days.

70°

Warframe's Protea Prime Access launches on all platforms on May 1st, 2024

"Digital Extremes are today very happy and proud to announce that Warframe’s next highlightly anticipated Prime form launches soon with Protea Prime Access arriving on all platforms on May 1st, 2024." - Digital Extremes.