PlayStation still not considering backward compatibility for PS4

Sony executive Shuhei Yoshida has responded to the news, calling it "interesting," and stating that the company has no immediate plans to offer native backward compatibility on PlayStation 4.

The story is too old to be commented.
Vengeance11381272d ago

Good, it's rly an unneeded feature. People buy PS4s for PS4 games!

yarbie10001272d ago (Edited 1272d ago )

Good??? Lol. That love of plastic has clouded so many peoples minds. People okay with remasters & re-releases, making you pay again to stream a game you already own. But the thought of backwards compatibility is just Horrible hah

JMaine5181272d ago

Think about what you just said. For starters you aren't forced to pay anything, if you don't want it you simply don't buy it. Secondly, we already knew from jump street that PS4 wasn't backwards compatible so if someone had any intent on playing PS3 games they would've kept their PS3. Lastly 40% of PS4 owners never had a PS3 so in that case yes people are ok with remasters.

phoenix_dusk1272d ago

Dragon Quest Heroes, Persona 5, Until Dawn, Tomorrow Children, J Star+ Victory, Disgaea 5, NMS, Planetside 2, OP warriors. I think I'm good.

Neonridr1272d ago

@JMaineGaming - I am one of those 40%. While games like TLOU or Uncharted Remasters are great and I am happy I can play games like that, there are tons of games that I don't need to shell out full price for to play on my PS4 if I could go out and get a PS3 copy for a fraction of the cost. Most of the games that are getting remastered don't need to be and I would have been just as happy playing a PS3 copy instead.

I would rather save money if I could. I can't understand why BC is such a bad thing. Imagine it, I could sell my old console and still keep the games. Not to keen on having to have the old system still hooked up or to drag it out each and every time I want to play an older game for fun.

Dirtnapstor1272d ago (Edited 1272d ago )

No one is forcing anyone's hand. I invested in the PS3 and it's titles. I'm keeping it next to my PS4. If I want a remastered version of something, I'll buy. If not, I'll still enjoy my PS library, both generations, as a whole.

I used to think that too. There's only a few games I'll get remastered, if I feel I would invest the time to replay. Playing an upgraded game is a whole new experience. I liken this to playing your PS3 with standard A/V cables, then try with an HDMI... World of difference. Heck, I noticed a big difference when I upgraded my TV. Granted, some remasters aren't visually justified imo.

JMaine5181272d ago

@Neonridr - No, I'm not knocking that it's not a great feature. I would welcome it with open arms. I just don't feel anyone who is buying a ps4 or Xbox one is buying it to play last gen games.

Picnic1272d ago (Edited 1272d ago )

'making you pay again to stream a game you already own'.

a) people don't necessarily own every game that it is possible to stream.

b) those games that can be streamed are sometimes remasters.

c) if people wanted to play their PS3 discs then why did they trade in their PS3 knowing that the PS4 is not backwards compatible?

Some people want to not only eat their cake on an old console but eat the same cake that they paid for on a new console- but it's costly to do this for Sony in particular. The PS3 had the Cell engine, the PS4 doesn't.

Yes Sony are no doubt out to recoup money that the PS3's innovations (and free online) cost them.
But they're not total villains for not moving heaven and earth to make sure that someone who got hold of a dirt cheap second hand PS3 game can now play it on their PS4 instead of the PS3 that it was designed for. Downloads on the other hand- perhaps they could offer something there.

johndoe112111272d ago (Edited 1272d ago )

I have no idea why some people just can't get it through their thick, metal shielded skulls that you cannot get full backward compatibility with the ps4 and the ps3 without additional hardware. The cell processor in the ps3 was completely new and unique technology.

There are ps3 emulators out there for pc's and they all have very limited functionality and compatibility with games. This does not make sense to try to do with the ps4 as the experience would be limited and crappy. It just isn't worth the hassle for sony to sink time and money into this. I can assure you that people who still want to play ps3 games kept their bloody ps3's.

The media knows this, they are aware of this but they need clicks and to play on the minds of ignorant gamers so they'll just continue to churn out these bait pieces.

The 10th Rider1272d ago

I currently do not own a PS3 or a PS4. I would be more inclined to purchase a PS3 at this point because of its huge catalog of great titles. The PS4 is still building its catalog. With PS3 I could spend less money and pick out the titles I wanted to play most, since I don't have much of an interest in most 'big' games. Backwards compatibility would, of course, change that and I would pick up a PS4 instead.

That's just my two cents. I don't think remasters are a HUGE issue except in cases like Capcom, where that's their main focus now. Backwards compatibility is a great feature, but as was said most everyone knew from the start the PS4 wouldn't be and it's not possible on the PS4.

The whole thing is really a non-issue. If people like the Xbox One's backwards compatibility they'll buy it because of that, if not they won't.

4Sh0w1272d ago (Edited 1272d ago )

Listen I think Microsoft knocked it out of the park with BC but I dont think we should beat Sony up over not having it on ps4= it was never promised.

I got NO problem with Sony saying "hey BC on ps4 is impossible or extremely too difficult/expensive because ps3 and ps4 hardware are totally different, so psnow is all we will be offering"= Thats fine, I only hate the double talking, downplaying, and then saying stuff like EA Access isnt worthwhile but psnow is.

PS4 has sold record #s without BC so it will continue to do well, but again just be transparent if youre going to have a conversation about BC beause it is important to many people.

Muerte24941272d ago (Edited 1272d ago )

Funny thing is. I still have my ps3 so.... yeah. Can't believe people are crying about this. There are only currently only 18 games supported by Microsoft's implementation.

I still think something is wrong when then is the highlight of your presentation, old games and recycled IPs for 2015.

Why o why1272d ago (Edited 1272d ago )

I like options. Yes I want sony to consider backwards compatibility. I much prefer that than re purchasing games.

Well said 4show

AngelicIceDiamond1272d ago

The title should be different because in the article Yoshida said: "Backward compatibility is hard," he said. "I won't say we'll never do it, but it's not an easy thing to do."

Yoshida implied that they could try it someday. I know I'm grasping at straws but I think we should take note of it.

PurpHerbison1272d ago

Backwards compatibility is a cool SIDE feature but new consoles should focus on new games. It is bad enough remasters are the current thing to do. What do you do when you are scared to try something new? Dig into your old library of games. Super lame.

JackStraw1272d ago (Edited 1272d ago )

I must be one of only a handful of people that actually prefer remasters of old games to old games. So, they cost me money? Big deal. If R* did a full HD remaster of San Andreas, I'd bet the majority of its fan base would prefer to buy it as opposed to using BC to play it.

I don't know why people have this obsession with BC, but it really isn't all that great when you actually think about it. This is coming from a person that uses PS Now (rarely) only when I have nostalgia for certain games. Which is why I'm glad there are such things as rentals for it, because I would never actually subscribe or spend a wad of cash to play an old game that isn't remastered.

But that's just me, personally.

ShinMaster1271d ago (Edited 1271d ago )

@ yarbie1000


- No one is forced to buy remasters.
No one is making you pay again to stream a game you already own.

- A lot of current PS4 owners never owned a PS3.

- If you already have a lot of PS3 games that you like to play, why in the world would you get rid of your PS3 in the first place???
And they never once announced the PS4 would have BC, so there couldn't have been any confusion either.

- Besides, PS3 emulation would be pretty hard considering that all PS3 games were coded to work using the CELL processor and its SPUs. Totally different architecture. Even high end PCs still struggle to emulate PS3 games.
360 and Xbone are basically PC architecture.

EeJLP-1271d ago

Continue remastering.. get all good games to 1080p60 standard and bring backwards compatibility to PS5, since it should be similar architecture as far as we know.

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 1271d ago
freshslicepizza1272d ago

is that why they are offering playstation now, because ps4 owners only want to play ps4 games? funny how that service doesn't have ps4 games on it.

shuhei yoshida is saying it's not a priority and it is expensive. hard is not an answer because allowing the ps3 to play ps2 games was also hard but they did it on early ps3 models.

it's about investment and sony wants to push playstation now instead and says only a small portion actually use the feature. in the end it's about investments and if those investments are worth it and sony is saying it isn't.

TWB1272d ago

The PS2 BC on early PS3s was thanks to the PS2 hardware inside the early PS3 models though. Not only that but they had a functional FULL PS2 emulation software on the PS3 (for models that dont have the hardware for BC) but they simply disabled it from the later versions because its compatibility wasnt top notch. I remember reading somewhere it was at least over 60% compatible which is not great but better than nothing.

Apparently you can still use it if you jailbreak your ps3...

I would really dig at least PS1 emulation on the PS4 because thats completely possible but PS2 compatibility would be great too. PS3 emulation is pretty unrealistic in my eyes.

johndoe112111272d ago

Yes they did it on early ps3 models, and in order to do it they had to build a ps2 into the ps3 which sent up the price of the ps3 to $600. Then people like you criticized and bashed sony for selling the system for too much money even though they were giving us what we wanted.

They then removed the hardware emulation an did software emulation (which did not work as well), in order to drop the price. This then caused people like you to criticize them for not having full bacward compatibility with ps2 games.

Finally they decided it just wasn't worth the trouble due to the limitations and they completely took it out which caused people like you to say that sony doesn't care about gamers and just want our money.

In other words, there are people in this world that no matter what you do you will never make them happy.

ger23961272d ago

So, could they implement b/c on ps4 cost free? And if the did do it, what percentage of ps4 owners would actually use it? In the end its a business decision. The same reason Microsoft is allowing it. They're enticing 360 owners to buy an xbox 1. Besides, I don't think it's as easy as "flipping a switch."

JackStraw1272d ago

Your reading comprehension is severely lacking. They never said PS4 players ONLY want to play PS4 games.

nitus101271d ago


There were basically two types of PS3's that PS2 backwards compatibility. The first one had basically PS2 hardware for full compatibility while the other (I still have one) had a mixture of PS2 hardware with software emulation but this only worked for 85% to 90% of PS2 games.

All PS3's can play PS1 games however I would only recommend a small screen TV for a display although the smoothing software on the PS3 does a reasonable job most games appear to be very pixilated on a large screen HDTV although the gameplay has not changed.

Playing games on a BC PS3 to a large screen HDTV is fine since the output is like up-scaled DVD, some graphically pleasing some not so.

As far as jail-breaking your PS3 to play PS2 games that that wont work.

The only thing that Sony removed from the PS3 was the "Other OS" capability, all other hardware except for card readers, touch buttons to physical buttons and a reduction of 4 USB's to 2 USB's remained the same.

It would be possible to have PS1 and PS2 emulation via software on the PS4 but as I have already mentioned the output particularly for PS1 games leaves much to be desired. Still how many people have PS1 and PS2 game disks.

I could not agree more PS3 emulation is pretty unrealistic since the software is compiled for different architecture and would have to be emulated.

I have heard that the XB1 will be able to play XB360 games but the two architectures are different as well and software emulation would not be an easy thing to do. Making software emulation for original Xbox games would not be that different since the architectures are similar. Sill all we can do is wait and see.


That was a bit uncalled for, "TWB" was not criticizing Sony, he was just stating that backwards compatibility would be great for the PS4 and I actually do agree since I still have a collection of over 60 PS2 games many which play very well on my PS3 (this one does have hardware and software emulation). I do have 3 games that crash/freeze at some point in the game although all others appear to be fine.

Please note that at no point was PS2 compatibility done in pure software on the PS3. It was either full PS2 hardware (NTSC regions) or a mixture of hardware and software (PAL regions).

I do agree that no matter what you do some people will never be happy.

EeJLP-1271d ago (Edited 1271d ago )


"Not only that but they had a functional FULL PS2 emulation software on the PS3 (for models that dont have the hardware for BC) but they simply disabled it from the later versions because its compatibility wasnt top notch."

The second batch of PS2 backwards compatibility was still partially hardware based. They had to keep one of the chips and emulated the other.

There was never a software-only PS2 backwards compatibility solution.

johndoe112111271d ago


I was never referring to TWB.

iceman061271d ago

Actually, Playstation Now is an attempt from Sony to reach outside of consoles, as well as provide some sort of BC features. They want it in smart TV's, Blu-ray players, set top boxes, eventually even smartphones. It's bigger than just forcing people to pay twice for games.
As for PS3 to PS3, it wasn't as hard because they simply put some of the PS2 chipset directly into the PS3. That's also part of why the PS3 cost so much.
In the end, Shuei isn't telling lies. He isn't hiding something. He's simply stating that it isn't easy and it would probably not be a cost effective venture.
I wouldn't mind the feature. But, I am not going to act like I am somehow being mistreated because a company decides not to do it. Before MS decided to, very few people were crucifying either company for not having it. Now, all of a sudden, they are!?!

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1271d ago


*looks at all the remastered ps3 games


MetalProxy1272d ago

Yes remasters...say it again and think. Those remaster are better versions of the game. But I guess that's a bad thing now. Smh


lol, lets be real...

when we say "remaster" halo is a good example of a proper remaster and if the other games did that I wouldn't have that much to say...but they don't

if by "better Version" you just mean brushed up to 1080p which tends to be the case with most of them, and maybe throw in 60fps for some as well... then no i don't consider that a better version... it's the same game and depending on your tv you may or maynot notice the difference. If anything it just shows what a con last gen was as well since on the back of most of those games it says they are already in 1080p.

Muerte24941272d ago

Halo is definitely not the first game that comes to mind when you think remastered. It was, and to a certain extent, still is plagued with matchmaking issues. C'mon you have to have a better example than that.

DARK WITNESS1272d ago (Edited 1272d ago )

Well when I said halo I was actually thinking more of just the Halo CE remaster on the 360 but even then same could apply to the MC collection in general because of Halo 2.

It may have bugs and issues, but that is in fact due to the fact that it is a proper remaster in the sense that they took an old game and basically rebuilt it visually, audio etc.

A game having it's graphics engine overhauled from it's original which is 2 generations old to match the current tech, now that is what I call a remaster and I will take that along with bugs and issues as a remaster over a game that came out just a year or two before brushed up to 1080p.

better examples then halo; hmmmm, a game that is two gen's old and has had it' graphics engine completely updated and built to run over the original engine side by side... not many games come to mind.

If you have any you can think of I would to hear them (I do mean that genuinely) if there are more games I am not aware of that have been remastered updated in such fashion I would like to know cos I will go give them a try...

If your going to tell me Last of us, Tomb Raider, sleeping dogs etc... then don't bother.

Hellsvacancy1271d ago

You're right about last gen being a con, I often think this gen is what last gen should of been

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1271d ago
EvilWay1272d ago (Edited 1272d ago )

Here is the problem though. This year doesn't really have any. It has 2 remasters and 2 JRPGs that doesn't cater to everyone, and indies

This won't happen because of PS Now which is a massive ripoff because of the prices and the streaming. It's a fail in both ways

Unreal011272d ago

You love turning up in articles and spewing negative Sony rubbish don't you Evil. Just look at your comment history and realise you have a slight problem.

OT: yeah backwards compatibility isn't an issue, I have barely used it with my backwards compatible PS3, people will realise they have played and completed most decent old gen games and get bored of it. Meanwhile, I'm just going to play some new current gen games :)

miyamoto1272d ago

Two consoles side by side under my TV set are better than one.
If my PS4 breaks down I still have a PS3 and vice versa.
That is the most practical thing to have.
I consider buying another 500GB PS3 because it's so affordable now.

Sony knows what the PlayStation Nation wants.
Better Quality

I prefer CD quality that cassette tape or 8 Track but nostalgia is a very fun and happy thing too.
Time is captured in those two generations of PlayStations.

I would have never experienced the awesomeness of ICO and Shadow of the Colossus if it weren't for their remastered versions on PS3.
Same with Resident Evil Umbrella and Darkside Chronicles Remastered Wii games.

Azzanation1271d ago

Well until your PS3 breaks down. Consoles dont last forever and im grateful I can finally box up my 360 and save some space in my room. X1 now has the value of 2 consoles instead of one.

1272d ago
1272d ago
justlikeme1272d ago (Edited 1272d ago )

Spoken like a true sheep. It wouldn't hurt you if they gave us the option to use it. At the very least, give us the option to play games that we already own through PSNow , but they have to justify the $380 million purchase of gaikai some how.

Vengeance11381272d ago

Spoken like a true crowd follower. Don't worry someday you'll have your own opinions, but till then im sure everyone else doesnt mind creating your opinion for you.

Davi1231272d ago

I think if Sony do a service like SharePlay, to play PS1, 2 and 3 are more easy!

justlikeme1272d ago


LOL. It's called common sense. Something you clearly lack.

FITgamer1272d ago

Sure it's not needed, but it would definitely be welcomed. It's a convenience. Not have to switch from one machine to another is a good thing.

gangsta_red1272d ago

You know I have no problem with Sony not offering this type of BC but to see their fans sit there and make excuses that BC isn't necessary, that gamers don't want it or the terrible excuse of "we bought a new console to play new games" when Sony is promoting a rental service of older games, selling Re-Masters and promoting games based on people's nostalgia is just dumbfounding.

Christopher1272d ago (Edited 1272d ago )

Having more features is never unnecessary.

Having said that, the title is misleading. They never said they weren't considering it, only that they had no immediate plans to offer it. If we keep making it a big deal, they'll eventually crack and give it to us.

nucky641272d ago

agreed, vengeance......I want them moving forward and focusing on new, interesting IPs like horizon.

DragoonsScaleLegends1272d ago (Edited 1272d ago )

I don't care about PS3 compatibility since we are basically getting all those games on PS4 already but what I want are PS1 and PS2 compatibility on PS4 which Sony should be able to do. I mean they had to of made money from the PS1 games they were selling for PSP, PSV, and PS3. I don't see what's so challenging to port their PS1 emulator to the PS4. They even have a PS2 emulator they could port to PS4 too. Which means it wouldn't mean they would have to make a emulator from scratch and cost a lot to make. Or Sony can continue to say fuck their PS1/PS2 fanbase and I will gladly continue to pirate the games on PC. But I don't really consider it pirating since I already own all these games on disc.

+ Show (10) more repliesLast reply 1271d ago
SaveFerris1272d ago

Well, they already have PS Now.

Godmars2901272d ago

Which is largely their play to put games on devices other than their console. That plan should still be viable with BC on the PS4, especially once PS2 and PS1 titles are put on PSNow.

BC doesn't really do companies any favors and its really odd that MS is doing it, is a total reversal, considering on what they were planning on doing originally.

If anything, this is another example of them "flipping a switch" on something they would have done down the line, except charge for it.

freshslicepizza1272d ago

sony refuses to even tell us how well ps now is doing. what does that tell you?

i don't really like sony telling us what they think is best for us, options are always the best way to go. this includes ea access as well.

it's clear sony is in the drivers seat with the ps4 and this allows them to make these calls for us.

stuna11272d ago

Exactly! Someone who gets it. For starters everyone knows the reasoning behind Microsoft offering free BC! It's for the sole purpose of selling Xbox1's, nothing more nothing less.

Then when considering their original plans everything should be obvious that if they weren't so far behind the competition the BC option would never have been on the table at all! And it definitely wouldn't hae been a free option, they would have found someway to tie it behind the Xbox Live subscription.

The reasoning behind so many things being offered for free on the Xbox1 is in direct correlation to the Xbox1 being behind in sales.

1272d ago
Godmars2901272d ago (Edited 1272d ago )

Think more in terms of individual sales with BC for 360 games. That like the original DRM plans, for a resale price you could install old games onto the HDD with MS and the game maker splitting the profits.

Again, exactly what they're doing now, only with no cost to the consumer involved.

Yeah, since BC isn't really all big a thing, they have yet to provide widespread support to other devices or have PS1 or PS2 title, I doubt PSNow is making Sony any real money.

Likewise, no one was all that happy with MS when they were trying to dictate how games were bought and sold, how they'd be played, so they're in the spot they are now.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1272d ago
MasterCornholio1272d ago

It wouldn't be a bad idea if Sony supports BC through streaming. Basically if you own a digital copy of a PS3 game or the physical copy you should be able to stream it to your PS4. Its a nice idea and hopefully Sony takes it into consideration.

LexHazard791272d ago

there should be no disagrees on your comment. Whats wrong with having it? Why is Sony so opposed to having bc. Remember when they had it at beginning of PS3 launch then pulled it From the other models. Maybe it was a cost thing but surprised they never went back to it on PS4. It would be awesome to have both my next gen consoles bc.

nitus101271d ago (Edited 1271d ago )


Sony never pulled backwards compatibility from the original (FAT) PS3's since I still have one and it is up to date firmware wise and I can still play PS2 games. They did pull the "Other OS" capability but lets be honest here "how many people really made use of it"?

In later release models of the PS3 the PS2 capability was not implemented, the touch buttons replaced with physical buttons, 4 USB's to 2 USB's and the removal of card readers (how many people actually used that feature). All this was well known by people in advance and the new PS3 was considerably cheaper.

IMHO backwards compatibility for at least PS1 and PS2 games on the PS4 would be great but in all fairness how many people still have PS2 games much less PS1 games?

wonderfulmonkeyman1272d ago (Edited 1272d ago )

Speak for yourselves, people.
Me, I'd pay a little bit extra for an SKU with that pro-consumer feature installed, because I love my PS3 collection and would love to continue using them on a PS4, which will last longer than my aging PS3, because they would act as a nice drought buffer for when the PS4 isn't getting something that interests me.

PSNow is a sorry, money-hungry excuse to rent out old games and focus on remasters over new games.
Native BC is worth the extra cost in the long term.

Hell, if they had offered an SKU like that from day 1, and had not hidden online multiplayer behind their damned paywall, chances are I would have traded up to a PS4 a LONG time ago.

I can confidently say that this is one area where both Nintendo and Microsoft are offering something far better than Sony.
May physical BC never die!

Godmars2901272d ago

Nothing wrong with PSNow as it applies to other devices, but yeah, when you're not doing BC because it would likely cut into PSNow, much less HD remasters, that's not recognizing consumers. Only exploiting them.

ps4fanboy1272d ago

I can see Ps now going free service in the future as a retort , well I hope so.

shloobmm31272d ago

No way. Sony needs all the money they can get and they already know the sheep are gonna line up for it.

wegetsignalx1271d ago (Edited 1271d ago )

Lie. Sony is already very profitable with the PS4.

Another lie. Not everyone will "line up for" PS Now.

More sad, sick trolling in almost every Playstation article.

Volkama1272d ago

I do not think they are technically capable of going full emulation in the way that Microsoft have. Emulating the cell on an x86 CPU is not something they can just brute force, least of all with a jaguar CPU to do it.

I think if the reaction to backward compatibility was really strong then Sony would look more seriously at enabling PS Now streaming being free for games people already paid for. But I don't think BC will be a big talking point for too long after it has been delivered, so it's unlikely Sony will feel much pressure to do this.

SaveFerris1272d ago

I agree. This is what I thought. It was likely too expensive and difficult to include it in the PS4.

Toiletsteak1272d ago

With all the remasters that are happening i don't really think there is much need for BC.

Adexus1272d ago

All the remasters is exactly why having backwards compatibility is a fantastic thing.

NeoGamer2321272d ago

I can't believe gamers have bought into the corporate crap.

So people now are at the point where paying almost full price for a remaster is better than having BC in their console.

Gaming truly is at a sad state.

I don't mind remasters, but why isn't playing the game the original way it shipped worthwhile as well? Doesn't that just give everyone options? Are options bad?

nitus101271d ago

A remaster can be a better option that the original game although you would have to compare them in terms of graphical output and gameplay although in most cases gameplay would not change.

A good example if you have a PS3 and an original PS1 game is to display on a large HDTV. In most cases the output is very grainy and not that pleasant to look at even with smoothing on.

If you have an original backwards compatible PS3 and PS2 games and display to a large screen HDTV you will notice the output is more like an upscaled DVD some good some not as good but still comfortably watchable.

As for PS3 games remastered for the PS4 that is fine if you don't have the original PS3 game or a PS3 for that matter. I can understand if you buy a remastered game that was originally on the PS2/3 that you really liked and would want to play again on your PS4 although for a short (ie. less than 10 hours) games well it is their money.

Antifan1272d ago

Pay $40 for GoW3 remaster for PS4. Pay $5 for GoW3 for PS3 at GS.
Or, if you already own the game, pay nothing through BC.
Sorry, but not going to pay $40 for a few changes in the graphics. It's a total ripoff.