Why Are Current Consoles Not Backward Compatible?

Gamespot:"We're in the eighth generation of home video game consoles, and of the three most popular options, two are not backward compatible. Nintendo's Wii U offers access to its back catalog of Wii games through a separate console mode and to games from the company's early days through the Virtual Console. But for the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, owners have to count on remastered editions of their favorite older games or services like PlayStation Now if they want access to them on the newer machines."

[Jalva]

So that we can be ripped off with 'remasters'.

For anyone who thinks that that isn't the reason then there can only be one other reason, console limitations, take your pick.

[LackTrue4K]

"Cuz"
$$$$$$!!!

[bennissimo]

"Cuz"
Architecture!!!

[Fro_xoxo]

this is why a PC Build is pending for me.

Do they really expect you to keep all your consoles?

I mean, PS1,2,3. Xbox,360,One. Gamecube,wii,wiiu..

On PC all I need is one machine to play games from any 'gen'.

--
As for exclusives, those are being resold to us on the latest hardware.
The console environment is a closed one. Not much can be done on our part.

--
oh, as for the reason why..
£$€ <--

[Eonjay]

Thats not really accurate. You can easily spend more than the cost of an PS4 on a graphics card alone. And if you want quality parts in your rig... be prepared to spend at least $1000 on a modest rig.

It really depends on what you want from your gaming rig. My rig is very modest and it cost me more than a PS4 to build by far. A decent processor, a reliable SSD and an adequate PSU by themselves can equal the price of a console easily.

[Lord_Sloth]

I still have most of the consoles I've owned in my lifetime dating back to the NES, AND I have a kickass PC on top of it.

[T900]

@Eonjay

You could make a very good PC with around 700-800usd and the point is PC is a long term investment.

Once you buy Casing, DVD, RAM, HDD, Keyboard, Mouse etc, you dont tend to change those things for a very long time. Example the above stuff i have on my PC are about 10 years old. Every time i make a new build like in 5 years time i dont change those parts. Hence upgrading becomes very cheap for me. Cheaper than getting a console in fact.

One of my PCs is from 2009. It has a I5 750 CPU, which has been OCed to 4ghz. It has a GTX 970 in there, that setup can still pretty much play any game in 1080p 60fps.

I bought that PC in 2009 for about a 1000 usd. For all of last gen i enjoyed 1080p gaming 60fps. Last year after the new consoles all i had to do was upgrade the graphics card thats all. Again my setup is ahead of consoles and i get to keep all my games, full BC with everything bought last gen.

I think if you are sensible PC gaming can be cheaper than consoles in the long run.

[AndrewLB]

Eonjay- Yes, of course you can spend more than the cost of a PS4 on just a graphics card... but all one needs to spend is $175 on a GTX 960 (Newegg) that will out perform the PS4 by a wide margin. Or for $300 they have a GTX 970 for sale with a free copy of Witcher 3.

Oh... and stop referring to the PS4 as a $400 console. It's not. Just to play online costs you $50/year... so if this generation lasts 6 years, the REAL cost of a PS4 is $700.

[Linwelin]

And no mention of the vast difference in game prices either tut tut. A PC is better value in the end, yes it has a bigger initial start up cost, but it's not that much more. Consoles have a cheaper setup cost, but cost more in the long term.

[Eonjay]

Its mainly for technical and cost reasons. The best way to make the consoles affordable was by switching from a Power PC machine to a x86/64 machine. And remember how delighted developers were when they found out the consoles were just PCs?

Then, look at the form factor of the older machines. Imagine the pain in the ass it would have been to include the 3.2GHz CPUs? The Jaguars are simply not capable of emulating those monsters with any consistent reliability.

Lat year, it cost $380 to make a PS4. Imagine the cost of including a Cell Processor on top of that.

[Maxor]

Why let you play the content you already own when they can bend console owners over with streaming services and remasters?

Stop pretending that you hate it because the numbers show that console gamers looooove to get raped. They lap up remasters like a good dog and beg for more.

[700p]

lmao trueeee

[Bobby Kotex]

The early PS3s required special hardware in order to play PS2 games. It's no different now. They eventually removed the hardware and which lowered the price $100.

[rainslacker]

@tiqila

PS2 BC was spotty after the removal of hardware BC. Software PS1 emulation was pretty good throughout the generation though.

It is hard to argue against the claims that Sony wants to make money off PSNow so removed BC given that they do have a working PS1 and a somewhat working PS2 software emulator which works well, and I do wish it were included. I can understand the lack of PS3 BC though.

[uth11]

They chose different architecture from last gen for sound reasons.

You can never emulate a last gen system on a current gen system at full speed in software alone, too much overhead.

Adding chips to handle the backwards compatibility would have pushed the costs too high.

Simple as that. Sorry no conspiracy here. There are plenty of examples of companies giving backwards compatibility when feasable and touting it as a feature. If it was about a cash grab, they would always go this route.

[3-4-5]

* It costs money to basically include 2 consoles in one.

* Nintendo can do it because they aren't pushing polygons the way XB1 & PS4 are.

* Nintendo also has a HUGE backlog of games people would actually want to play.

* NES,SNES,N64, Those all happened before Xbox even released.

* So it makes sense for Nintendo so include as much BC as possible....as we could get 3 whole systems worth of games. Games from 1984-2001

* Microsoft & Sony would have to include a way to run past games, and that basically means including the past system within the new one.

That takes up space and limits how far forward you can go.

There is no good or bad with BC, I just appreciate any old game I can still play.

We aren't entitled to it....stop acting like it.

[maniacmayhem]

Why are we not entitled to it? Because the big companies said we aren't? That is basically what you are implying.

I hate this new saying that some on here keeping posting. So because we as consumers spending our money on their products are asking for a little more that makes us entitles? We shouldn't ask why or questions and just sit back and take it on the face or be labeled as spoiled brats who aren't entitled to anything.

DLC, cut content, broken online, mandatory paid online, downgraded graphics, unkept promises, and a host of delays...maybe we as spending consumers should be entitled to something.

[magiciandude]

Then why is the PSVita compatible with PS1 and PSP games?

"Nintendo also has a HUGE backlog of games people would actually want to play."

Why can't this apply to PS and Xbox?

"NES,SNES,N64, Those all happened before Xbox even released."

PS had PS1 and PS2 before Xbox Original released.

"Microsoft & Sony would have to include a way to run past games, and that basically means including the past system within the new one. "

k

"We aren't entitled to it....stop acting like it."

Nintendo says we are. MS and Sony used to say we are. Whatever oddball thing happened over at MS and Sony R&D...

[rainslacker]

Nintendo can do it because their hardware is just better versions of what they were using before. No big secret there. It's the same reason the PC is completely BC, because it's had the same instruction set for decades now.

Many companies have a huge backlog of games people would want to play. There are also a ton of 3rd party games people many people would love to go back and revisit without buying it again.

In any case, Nintendo only includes one generation of BC in their consoles nowadays, despite being able to go all the way back to the N64 and original Gameboy(given the ability to insert the cart).

MS should be able to emulate the OGXbox within the X1, They had a working emulator on the 360, although it had limited game compatibility. Sony should be able to include PS1 and PS2 compatibility within the PS4, there is no reason they can't other than they would have to build the emulator for the new hardware, and they do have another likely more profitable way to make money off PSNow.

PS3 and 360 I can understand.

We aren't entitled to BC, I can agree there. Console makers don't have to offer it, it would just be nice if they did, and since companies did take the time to offer it for quite a few generations, it does suck that they decided not to bother with it.

[AudioEppa]

Because they don't want to be lol

What's the point of this article exactly, slow news day?

[DEEBO]

Different hardware, sony wants to stream games for a fee,remastered games and cut the cost of developing hardware plus they still want to sell the old systems.

[Majin-vegeta]

Uhhh cuz of the different arch they use??it's not that hard to figure it out.

[MrSwankSinatra]

More like they rather monetize backwards compatibility as if the countless remasters weren't evident of that.

[BitbyDeath]

No it is the different architecture.
The early PS3 consoles that had PS2 BC actually had the PS2s emotion engine in the console.

It later got removed because the added cost was just too much.

PS4 would need the emotion engine and cell for PS2 and PS3 BC for it to work.

[JasonKCK]

It has nothing to do with "architecture" nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada and everything to do with reselling you old games in the form of remasters. If it were so hard for Sony and MS, then why is it the modding community have no problems making emulators?

[ginsunuva]

Remasters are a bonus for them.

[justlikeme]

One word. Greed.

[ShaunCameron]

And since when were gamers entitled to a backwards-compatible console?

[LifeInNZ]

May not be entitled but the expectation was there...

PS2 bc with PS1
PS3 bc with PS1 and PS2 until Sony removed it

Xbox 360 later patched to be bc with Xbox games.

PC gamers have been enjoying it for years.

Smartphone / tablet apps by in large work from one device to the next.

May not be entitled but its certainly noticed when its taken away.

[Nwah]

There's that buzzword again.

[Kevlar009]

Nintendo had to include tech from the Wii in order to read the discs, then enable the WiiU to speak to the Wii parts and create a whole new menu. It takes time and money to create an emulation or have the necessary parts.

By not having BC you force people to buy the previous system in order to play old games. Or with Sony you have the option to buy into PSNow. Nintendo isn't winning any points or significant sales because the WiiU can play Wii games. It's a service Nintendo has to pay for.

They'd rather have you pay $60 for the remaster than $20 used for the original. BC is great for the consumer, but overall bad for business.

[ShaunCameron]

Costs? The launch PlayStation 3 model had B/C yet consumers whined about the price and Sony lost a lot money on each unit sold until they slimmed it down removing B/C in the process. They weren't trying to make the same mistake with the PlayStation 4.

[justlikeme]

They didn't lose $ b/c of backwards compatibility. You're an imbecile if you really think that. They lost $ b/c of the integration of bluray.

[ShaunCameron]

Not according to the PS3's post-2010 figures. The removal of B/C did a lot of wonders for its overall standing and Sony's bottom line.

You forgot to mention the Cell processor.

[Sy_Wolf]

Vast architeure differences. Using the Wii U as an example is moronic at best. You clearly don't know anything about computers.

[Eiyuuou]

Money?

[OC_MurphysLaw]

Look at all the HD remastered games....seems obvious.

[TheVigilanteCode]

^ This is the "Definitive™" answer, no matter how much you spin it.

[JasonKCK]

Yup

[Hotabang]

because the biggest announcement for 2014 was last of us remastered....

[KryptoniteTail]

Simple; they gain more by not being so. It's anti-consumer.

[Bhuahahaha]

if its the cost of manufacturing that is actually the problem
then theres a simple solution for that release 2 version

one that has backward compatibility the other one does not
give people a choice

[SonyOnly4]

The real question is why do Next Gen consoles require a download to hardrive from disc and why do they take up so much gig?

[Shineon]

Well said #1 question why do the games take so much space now???Even PC versions evert since ps4 and X1 dropped

[barakus7]

How many peeps would buy a 700 dollar, hardware level, backwards compatible PS4/X1? I would! Collectible and none of the problems.

[rainslacker]

Kinda miss expansion ports which made this kind of stuff possible...although not specifically.

[Imalwaysright]

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

[Gore-Content]

to keep the costs low, duh!!

[Miraak82]

if you wanna play older games go buy an older console simply put, shouldn't have the weight of generations past hinder the progression of the industry going forward.

[Claudinho69]

money greed

[contradictory]

because the """Next-gen&quo t;"" consoles are a joke...
barely upgraded hardware, still can't get 60fps, still no real killer exclusives...

well, if you don't count Wii U that is... the weakest console so far has the best games...the hell happened here?

PS4 is getting there too a little by little
actual games are coming out. the problem is that all of them are indeed coming out and not out already.....

and i don't even know about Xbone because i never bothered to get one.

inb4 i'ma gonna get lynched because i said what i really think and not licking Sony's or M$'s ass

[Mithan]

I think the next set of consoles will simply be upgrades of the current consoles, making them fully backwards compatible, running the same OS and libraries, etc, etc.

I think they all figure it simply isn't worth the cost right now and they are probably right. How many people go back to play old games and really, if you do, it becomes a "conveniance" issue anyways.

Don't get me wrong, would love to see it done as I wouldn't mind replaying the Resistance Series, but I think I can get that on Playstation Now anyways. The other series I would like to replay is Uncharted (also on PSNow), Halo (reworked for Xbox One) and Gears of War (probably coming if rumors are correct).

[Theparanerds]

This is what I've been saying forever now.

[DialgaMarine]

Simple. Last gen consoles still exist, and they're really cheap now. If there's a game you want to play from last gen, then get a last gen console.

From a technical perspective, PS4 does actually have a legitimate excuse, and that's obvious huge difference in Harware from PS3. A backwards compatible PS4 would probably be $150-$200 more expensive.

[iTechHeads]

It's just not possible. The architecture is completely different.

As for those saying "so we can get ripped off with remasters". No one is making you buy them.

[Mrveryodd]

Ihave always dropped the old console like a hot potato ,this time around was no exception. But last week ibought a second hand slim 250 gig 360 ....just so i can get all the extra games on xbox live.

[Apex13]

Since Nintendo went disc, they have always done the courtesy at least.

The other two...well..what more can we say. At least Sony will do it with PS NOW and a lovely fee of course.

[tweet75]

cause they dont respect gamers and only want to try to make money. How cool would it be to have a ps4 that played 4 generations of disc games? i would love that.

[TeamLeaptrade]

I don't think it's as hard as they say it is to make it possible to have backwards compatibility. Plus it's clear they want to make us re-pay to get our older titles again. At least make it possible to get the digital downloads we had. You'd think an update would be needed to make these games work on their future consoles.