Counterpoint: Backwards compatability is a privilege, not a right

GameZone's Matt Liebl writes, "Sony doesn't, nor did they ever, owe us backwards compatibility. Anybody frustrated that they can't play their PlayStation 3 games on their PlayStation 4 is certainly well within their right to be upset, but it's unwarranted."


Should read: "compatibility" in headline

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
DanielGearSolid1591d ago

Dude, idk why its so hard for ppl to realize this

I've come to appreciate the term "dense" so much more.

Feels trying to smash, and bang logical thinking into someone's head, but their skulls are so "dense" you cant get thru to their brains

johndoe112111591d ago

As hard as this article is to accept, it is completely right. No console manufacturer owes us that. Most electronic devices have never had this feature, yet we've come to expect it with gaming consoles.

I would love it if they all did but to say they owe us that is unwarranted. A lot of software for pc's are not backward compatible with older operating systems. That's just how technology goes. As new tech comes along the old gets fazed out.

If you want to play ps3 and 360 games It's best to just keep the systems. The good thing is that they have committed to supporting these systems for a few years to come.

miyamoto1591d ago (Edited 1591d ago )

Just look at what backwards compatibility did to the wii u....nothing.
if i want to play a ps3 game i'll play it on my ps3

ginsunuva1591d ago

How is this hard to accept??

ProjectVulcan1591d ago (Edited 1591d ago )

Most PC games are backwards compatible however one way or another since Windows has been around. On PC it is a right.

I have PC games from two decades ago now that predate Direct X but I can still play them and make them run well on the PC I built last year.

It's not quite as simple as installing sometimes but it's not exactly rocket science either to get stuff like Grim Fandango working well.

Gotta love dat legacy support on PC....

rainslacker1591d ago

The article isn't even right. It's not a privilege or a right. It's just a feature that is available on some platforms and not others.

There were many people that wanted it that were willing to pay more for it if it was built into the system, myself included. Since it wasn't offered I just keep playing on my older systems. Sucks, but I likely wouldn't pay for streaming BC as I still have all my old hardware.

BattleAxe1591d ago (Edited 1591d ago )

I can't stand stupid articles like this. Of course Sony doesn't owe anyone the capability of backwards compatibility, and it has nothing to do with being owed anything.

Consoles have become throw away items, where you spend loads of cash over many years on game content, then you are expected to cut your losses and move on to the next console and re-buy digital re-makes of the games you owned on the previous system.

Now, of course Sony doesn't 'owe' me backwards compatibility, but I can now safely assume that any investment that I make with the PS4 will turn out the exact same way 5-7 years from now when the PS5 comes out, especially since I've not only gone through this with the PS3, but with the PS2 also after my launch model PS3 got the YLOD 3 years after I purchased it, with no more backwards compatible models remaining at retail.

So because Sony doesn't owe me anything, I don't owe Sony anything either, including my purchase of a PS4. Not only do we not get backwards compatibility in any form whatsoever, but PS4 owners must pay a yearly subscription, which is a double whammy. No big deal though, if that's the route they want to go that's fine.

As an intelligent consumer looking for a service that meets my needs by being continuous, allowing me to play games across all generations, whether it be from 5 years ago, 10 years ago, or even 20 years ago, I've decided to make STEAM my home for next generation gaming.

In closing, the fact that the author says things like "Backwards compatibility is a privilege" or "we should be grateful, not demanding for" shows that he clearly doesn't understand how the relationship works between customers and businesses. Consumers are not just supposed to sit there and take what they get, as they don't have to buy the product in the first place. If companies do not provide the products and services that their customers demand, then the customer will take their money elsewhere.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1591d ago
starchild1591d ago (Edited 1591d ago )

Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are dense. It could be you that is dense.

No, Sony doesn't owe us backwards compatibility, just as Microsoft didn't owe us a console without online DRM checks. Companies simply offer products and we can decide whether we like what is on offer or not.

But that doesn't mean that we can't be disappointed with certain decisions or voice our discontent.

Personally, backwards compatibility is really important to me. I don't have a lot of space in my gaming area and my PS3 has a defective GPU so some games have lots of artifacts or freeze-up. I would have easily bought a PS4 at launch if there had been backwards compatibility so that I could play my PS3 library. But I'm not going to buy a new PS3 and a PS4.

I think they could have easily added backwards compatibility to some SKUs of the PS4 if they simply added a cell processor to the system. That's all the hardware they would have needed to add. By this time the cell processor must be quite cheap to produce.

I'm sure many people would have been happy to pay an extra hundred dollars to have a backwards compatible PS4 that could play all their previous Playstation games. But Sony is more interested in reselling us the same games over and over again.

It seems the PC is the only platform now with backwards compatibility. It's one of the things I love most about the platform. I still play games like Deus Ex from three generations ago along with newer games like Battlefield 4 and Assassin's Creed 4 Black Flag. It's all right there ready to be played at the click of a mouse.

AceofStaves1591d ago

The problematic PS3 launch proved that many people weren't happy to pay extra for the backwards compatibility feature. Hence, Sony's decision to axe it and offer cheaper models without the feature.

DanielGearSolid1591d ago (Edited 1591d ago )

You can't disagree with a fact...

The fact is backwards compatibility is a privilege...

Just because you think they could've easily added bc doesnt mean they easily could've added bc...
Just because you're sure ppl wouldve been happy to pay extra for BC doesnt mean it makes any financial sense on Sony's part.

Its not Sony's fault that you have to buy the games again! Keep your older console... If you don't and still cry... You only have yourself to blame.

PC's aren't backwards compatible... The underlying architecture is the same for every single Pc is, newer PCs just feature more advanced parts, the architecture does not change. Older, consoles have completely different hardware and architectures every generation. PCs dont change generations... Their current architecture just continues to evolve. Consoles completely change

The same way every PC game still works on PC every Ps3 game still works on Ps3... And that is all Sony is obligated to provide

cell9891591d ago

the fact is Sony Spoiled us with PS2 and PS3 by integrating backwards compatibility on their consoles. It was never mandatory, rather a good gesture to their fanbase. Sure it was awesome while it lasted, but with everything getting so much more complex and all kinds of overhead its an option no longer viable unless more money from the consumer is involved. Its very simple really tho, keep your old console and play the games you already own for it, stop asking for something you never paid for.

Rodney251590d ago

It's not so easy making a console BC. The PS3 was made with a cell processor and all games were developed with this in mind. To add that to every PS4 would cost a lot ofoney upping the price. Then people would complain about it being too expensive. Keep mind the ps1 & 2 are very similar hardware wise. PCs are BC for obvious reasons that don't even need to be stated.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1590d ago
WickedLester1591d ago

Well said! Hey I bought Tetris 20 years ago for my NES. Does that mean I'm now entitled to a free downloadable copy on my smart phone?

shuuwai1591d ago

Well, I think people are upset for few reasons.

1. Digital psn+ ps3 games are lock on the ps3.

1a. Steam PC/MAC Digital games are more mobile vs. console.

2. why can't I just stream the ps3 os onto the ps4 ram, and play games off my disc. -_-;;
2a. No profit for Sony

3. Google play applications, apple applications are locked on the account NOT the unit. The PS2 played PSX, PS3 played psx and ps2.

Sony isn't making money if you could re-download the old game onto the PS4,and played it. This is directly at PSN user who buy their games digitally. There's No profit for Sony, hence PS NOW is born. -_-;;

I bought Tetris in 2012 for my SG3 unit, I could re-download the game again on my SG4 unit.

This isn't problem for me, since my x1,ps4, x360,PS3 are next to each other.

DanielGearSolid1591d ago (Edited 1591d ago )

The difference is on all those devices you download the game...

On PsNow you stream the game...
Every single stream costs money...

You want Sony to cover the costs to stream a potential of billions of copies of games sold since the Ps1 era?

If ppl would stop being selfish they would realize how stupid they sound. They want an upgrade in functionality, but they dont wanna pay for it

shuuwai1591d ago (Edited 1591d ago )

@ Daniel.
They could easily make an app. sell it for 100.00 I would gladly pay for it.

Edit: App to run PS3 games, app run psx games, and one for the ps2. -_-;;

dragon821591d ago


PS+ games are locked to your account. Not the actual console. You can put them on any two PS3 systems at a given time. If you want to add a third you need to diactivate one of the other two.

DarkHeroZX1590d ago

Ps4 could boot the ps3 OS but the lack of the Cell is a key issue.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1590d ago
starchild1591d ago

That analogy that has been going around doesn't fit.

Of course you can't buy a movie from Walmart and then stream that movie for free from Netflix. (or any similar analogy)

Those are two different companies and the second company never got any benefit out of the original transaction. But when you buy a console from Sony and games made for that console it doesn't seem so unreasonable that they would allow you to continue to play those games through streaming as long as you have the disc in the drive so that it can be authenticated.

Especially the games that are directly bought from Sony on the Playstation Store you would think would be allowed to be played through streaming. It's not like you can just sell the game while continuing to get to play it.

SpiralTear1591d ago

It's good and convenient to have, but like many gaming features, it is in no way mandatory.

Godmars2901591d ago

Its also something which shouldn't be thought about - its either there or not - or "double-dipped" if you're taking about a broad spectrum of obscure titles. Has new, additional content.

Show all comments (39)
The story is too old to be commented.