"The PS4/XO launched with small libraries. Being able to run older games would have really killed the waiting times on newer titles. " KJ of Play Legit
I agree about the premium option of paying slightly more to have backwards compatability if and only if it actually costs significantly more to actually include it into the console. Like right now I want to play Dynasty Warriors 3, but no I can't. (I have tried emulating it on my pc but I gave up after the download was taking forever)
Unless you have a Core I5 and a nice GPU the PS2 emulator is trash except for a few games. My Core I3 and my AMD GPU emulate most PS2 games bad but some are playable if I keep the rez normal. I can emulate GameCube games but if I try to push the rez to 1080p frame-rate takes a dive in most of the games. @kaizokuspy PS Now is not the answer to backwards compatibility for PS2 or PS1 games. I want to own the games and play without the latency or internet for that matter. I understand for PS3 games since the PS4 has a weak CPU but PS1 emulation should be easy if Sony even cares about making money off their classics. Also I want to spend $5-10 on a few classics not monthy memberships.
PCSX2 isn't too hard to run with modern systems. My Phenom II 965 and GTX 470 can run most PS2 games at 4k.
Wow...we are an entitled bunch, aren't we?
PCSX2 works great as long as you arent running it on your grandmas system. BC is something console gamers should have been demanding from the get go. I really fail to understand console gamer mentality. I mean they cry about paying 100-200usd more for the hardware which features BC, yet are willing to rebuy HD remakes lol. I mean buying a couple of remakes would be enough to settle that little difference they would have paid to get BC in the first place. Its obvious MS and Sony will do everything it takes to ensure a stead stream of profits they are corporations after all. Hence for them its most profitable to sell HD remakes, so why give any sort of BC? Sure they could make an expensive console sell it for few hundred bucks more but then they cant sell any more HD remakes. Anyone seriously looking for BC options should def consider buying multiplats on the PC, since its the only platform that can provide that level of BC. Sure over the years there might be a handful of games that might have problems running, however by far most will run with no issues. Also for people saying "oh HD remakes run at 60fps and are full 1080p". Well consider making games run in 60fps is dependent on hardware if you have it on PC and your hardware is strong enough which it will be considering the game is old hence 60fps is a given. Next up people talk about 1080p, Well again consider few years down the line when 4k becomes more mainstream, HD remakes bought in 1080p will look terrible on a 4k tv hence will be worthless again. On PC you can decide to up the res any time you like. You dont have to keep paying a corporation to up the res for you everytime new TV tech is out. I think the whole console model providing BC via HD remakes is flawed and will only make people spend on buying the same game again and again.
i hope for PS1/2 emulator on PS4 its easy and it is a small gift to their fans ...PSnow and subscriptions services are crap and i will never support
Once windows 10 comes to xbox one and devs start putting emulators for it on the store BC won't be a issue for xbox. They are already on the windows store so its a given. Sony though is gonna stick to its guns with the PSNOW streaming service.
Don't care about BC i don't even have time to play all my x1 games
PS Now is Sony's answer to your problem. Extremely pricey and I wouldn't recommend it. Though I love my PS4, that is out of my tastes. Now if the subscription included PS4 titles as well as their PSN library they could charge me $30 a month easy.
Isn't that the whole purpose of people paying for PSNOW? If obviously has some serious value to some gamers as they are willing to pay a handsome fee to play those old games. For me, it is nice to have. But there is just no way I will pay extra to have it.
True, I need to call comc"ass"t and get my internet to be hardwired. WIRELESS SUCKS. Anyways I would wish it didn't require a monthly subscription. I would rather have the hardware capability of playing games that I have previously purchased. I see PSNow more of a game center where you get to play games you either played or have not played in a somewhat limited selection of games. If PSNow had a greater selection then that would be great. It tends more so to a crowd that hasn't played their games more than a crowd that just has specific games they want to play. Either way PSNow is excellent and definetely worth its price. I just love the amount of readily available games that I can play
Or ya know you say keep your old system...It doesn't explode the day you get the new one, and maybe if your that poor that you need to trade in your old one to get the new one then getting the new one shouldn't be your priority, you can save up and get one at a later date...Its not like games stop coming out for the older one...Well unless it's a 360 then new games practically stopped coming out in 2012
I think it used to be important, especially at the transition from a non-digital connection like what we had on original Xbox and PS2 moving over to the Xbox 360 and PS3. Now a days, everything practically runs over HDMI so there no upscaling benefits and the only real benefit is to be on the latest console, platform features and controller. I doubt that is a significant deal breaker for most. So no it, BC is not important! On top of this, PS Now isn't really adding anything, because the game selection is limited, the experience is varied depending on your internet connection (for most it is not that great) and the prices are high so it makes even less sense!
I just keep my old systems. It's much cheaper than trading them in, or even rebuying them should they break later, than it would be to pay for an ongoing subscription. I'd be wiling to buy hardware which does it because it's more convenient in most cases. Otherwise, Since I own many of the older games I would want to play, I see no reason why a subscription streaming service would be suitable for me. Nothing against the service though. I see it kind of like PS+, get to play loads of games for a rather low monthly fee.
It would be awesome if Sony let you played all the PS3 games you downloaded with your PS+ membership through PSNow on your PS4 as long as you still have your PS+ subscription of course.
But how will we get more remasters? /s
Remasters are not the same. They are improved versions. I would have still gotten TLOU Remastered for 1080p and 60fps increase.
They are ports to a stronger system. Just look at games rendered at higher resolution using emulators, they look exactly like "remasters".
The original PS3 and PS2 did some minor improvements to prior gen games. Nothing as drastic as remasters though. @kev Many times yes, but they tend to do it artificially by increasing pixel count of lower res images and sometimes improving smoothing or doubling polygons and using newer frame rendering techniques. A proper remaster uses the higher quality textures and sometimes models that were downgraded to make them work on the older systems. Not 100% the case, as there are games which don't have the original stuff, but most remasters from the PS2 gen and above are like this.
Its not important, but its really good to have. One reason the PS2 was the best console of all time because it was 2 of the best in 1. Its great in the wiis too. I love that my PC library goes about as far back as I want. What they can at least do is have digital downloads for all PS1, PS2, and PS3 as well as all Original Xbox and Xbox 360 for current gen consoles. I know I would love to play Crash on my PS4.
Still have my fully BC PS3 as well. 3 for the price of 1...or 1-1/2 given it's launch price. Would be very hard to give up that convienance.:)
PS1/PS2 emulation please but for the love of god Sony don't make PS Now the only option to play these two consoles. Nintendo is somewhat smart with the Virtual Console but the speed of releases is bad and even disappointing since it lacks a lot. I think I have more Virtual Console games than Wii U games. That ratio would probably be the same on PS4 if Sony ever started to release their classics too.
Not important if the console costs higher because of the backward compatibility.
I wish they would add a virtual console option like Nintendo. I would buy up a lot of older games ps1 and ps2 respectively and would be willing to spend even more money if they implemented trophy support.
Answer = Yep.
Three words. Yes.
I've kept my older consoles because I enjoy having them, but it definitely would be an added bonus if my older consoles conked out.
Yes it is, but companies want to make money off remasters instead :-(
i have the older consoles, but it would be better if we had backwards compatibility. be a better bonus if it had graphical options to improve it like emulators. i also wont mind having to buy the game again if ithad the emulation stuff pc has to offer.
100% agree. While I can see why BC isn't all that important overall to the average consumer, for some of us that like to play our older games(I do so frequently), you simply can't beat the convenience of having one machine that can do multiple generations. I don't mind the lack of graphical improvements, but what little ones the PS2 and PS3 do aren't something to complain about.
It's not for me. I would much rather load up the system the software was made for. Streaming games is not a option Bahamas Internet sucks soo I'll just start a collection.
what about a hardware solution? Small board in a box plugs in via USb3. I remember reading about a xbox mini , would have been a sweet idea.
Seems the most reasonable solution given that it doesn't require a separate hardware SKU to market and support, plus it allows people to purchase at their own pace. I doubt we'll see one though. Sony was always big on BC until they had to cut costs on the PS3(even though they kept PS1 BC), and now they seem to focused on their streaming service which will likely make them more money. Dunno about MS, they had BC but wasn't a hugely supported feature on the 360. Nintendo has some form of it since the Wii and with their portables, but oddly enough, the least powerful console of this gen is the only one with true BC.
My backlog is too big on my Xbox one right now, my 360 has been turned on to play games in my room when the wife wants to go to bed early and to sign up for the update beta and that's it for the last year....I'll keep it, too many good games still there to play in some time, but it's not really important to me
just yesterday i really wanted to play PS3 game Ni no Kuni again but i have already sold my ps3 :(
I personally just keep my old consoles. I still have my ps1 and the original controller. The one that didn't have analog stick and rumble. I've used emulators but I prefer to run games on the original hardware .
Better to nullify any possibility of backwards compatibility and charge full/inflated prices for previous gen games, surely. Nintendo have made a massive error allowing all of their disc based consoles to be compatible with the previous version. Sarcasm!
Absolutely. There's no reason not to include it which is good enough.
'Is Backwards Compatibility Important?' IMO, yes, I'd love to be able to play some PS3 classics, like Demons Souls or Shadow of the Colossus.
It would be nice if you could buy a game and always be able to play it. Like steam...
For me backwards compatibility is ether you do or you don't. Just don't charge me for it.
I know there are a lot people who wanted it. But ultimately, I'm glad they both decided against it to keep the cost of the consoles down. I'm not upset with the decision at all, but I'm sorry to those who really wanted it.
Sony needs to sell all thier PS3 units and the prev gen still profit for the company they won't to add this feature that easy because if so they will not selling PS3 anymore ?
I really think in the future, the PS5 SHOULD feature backwards compatibility with PS4 games. It sucks not to be able to play your old games, considering console games now are expensive. My fat PS3 died and it kinda sucks the games just sit there (I also have a PS4). Considering the PC-like 64-bit architecture of the PS4, one can assume the PS5 will follow in the same footsteps as its predecessor (possibly an upgraded AMD APU). There's no technical reason for the PS5 (I hope) to not feature backwards compatibility. This is the one advantage the PC has over consoles really. I built a gaming PC and bought a PS4 around the same time but I find myself buying games on Steam more recently because of the cheaper prices and the knowledge that I will still be able to play my PC games even if I upgrade/change my hardware.
you will never have backward compatibily, especially since remasters appeared. Why would they give you ability to play your old games for free if they can make you pay for it twice?
Not at all. I dont sell or give away my consoles. That way I can always go back to 360 whenever I please. I have a huge backlog and still d/l the free games. I want to play games on my XB1 that I can't play on 360. I also play the games that run better on it than 360.
I think ppl should be more open minded. Tired of hearing there are no games for these consoles. C'mon now. Play the freebies! Just cuz it may be indie, doesn't mean it's a bad game. Subscribe to GameFly too and atitudes will start changing.
This gen YES.....coz so far its been a total waste of money. Apart from the graphix of ac unity theres nothing the x1 can do,that 360 couldnt,....we'll apart from loading apps quicker but thats not worth the price tag. The instant on mode on x1 just flat out crashes the whole system, it needs a reboot everytime you come back online from downloading anything. I wish they would revive the original xbox/ps2 games like say all the classic tom clancy games.
Nope. I gave away 3 Xbox 360s and like 60 games to kids in my family that always wanted one. Once I go next gen, I never go back to last gen.
Not to me. At all. I thought it was when PS2 released, but I never played my old PS1 games anymore. Then PS3 released, and I never played my old PS2 games anymore. It's a nice feature for those who want to re-play their old games, but it's clearly not important to most console gamers.
Yes, I would have purchased a Playstation 4 day one if it was because I can easily gain credit for trading in my Playstation 3.
I can say I would've bought a PS4 if is was backwards compatible. There is still nothing that makes me say, "I need to drop $400+ on a new console for these games" yet.
Saying it's not important is just a console justification. It might not be the most important thing, but self justifying it with "I keep all my old consoles" is foolish. The technology is there and easily accessible. It should be integrated.
I understand why Sony chose not to include backwards compatibility this gen. You would need a cell processor bundled in each unit to play PS3 games and that would make each console ridiculously expensive. However, I expect backwards compatibility on future systems. I doubt Sony or Microsoft will be deviating from an X86 architecture anytime soon. Even without a unified OS, Nintendo still delivers on backwards compatibility on all of its major systems. It's been a convenient standard for the last decade and anyone who claims they're better without it is just trying to defend their purchase.
It's more convenient but I have my old PS3 so I don't need it. Pretty sure PS5 and Xtwo will have b/c because of the architecture.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.