Three Years Later - Why is PlayStation 4's [Lack of] Backwards Compatibility Still So Bad?

Exploring the frustration around the lack of retro games on PlayStation 4 and Sony's poor approach to Backwards Compatibility.

[joeorc]

Here we freaking go again with this:

It's very freaking simple..unlike the previous xbox360 processing chip inside it..to emulate the PS3 cell processor, and its CellBE token ring Bus, Sony already knows it is just not viable to do at this point because of costs involved to simulate at a price point cheap enough to do such at a price point low enough to be viable in this market.

With Microsoft, xbox360 processor it's far more viable to do such with the Xbox one , than it is for Sony with its PS3's chipset on the PS4.

All last cycle, oh the PS3 was lambasted for being $599.00, it was Memed, all I've seen on gamer forums last generation was lots of talk about the $599.00 price point, and snide back handed statements..oh I did not buy my new console to play old game's. Where are the new Gamez Sony..or PlayStation Has no Gamez, which continues even today..remasterstation, indie station..

Well , this remasterstation indie station is selling pretty well, due despite many seeming to want to claim it's selling based on slight power over its competition, or that it's games are over hyped and under delivered..

It's clear, that maybe it's selling better for more reasons than just backhanded compliment reasons.

The Cell processors EIB is 204GB/sec bandwidth alone , to get that in simulated mode would require a very compute heavy processing or add in the freaking CellBE into the PS4, both of which would increase the overall cost of the system.

The days of selling their PlayStation systems at a Loss are over.

[Corpser]

Whether it's technically possible or not has nothing to do with it, it's a business decision, don't tell me you think ps4 can't just emulate ps1

[Bytor]

Where is the original Xbox emulation.

[SmielmaN]

I just don't understand why it's a big deal to play old games. If I wanted to play PS3 games, I would put the disc in my PS3. I bought a PS4 to play new games. If they want to go back and "remaster" games for a double dip on the consumer then hey it's your money.

But I could care less about playing PS2 and PS1 games on my PS4.

[Godmars290]

@Corpser:
Its not technically possible, at least with physical games, because Sony didn't include a CD read on the PS4.

They could likely do software emulation and DDL since software emulation is what they did for the PS3.

[UltimateMaster]

Still, I could put Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag PS3 edition and for 10$ I got the PS4 version as well.
The PS4 could easily read games from PS2 and PS3 discs.
Developers could get them out with a 10$ charge for the upgrade rather than a full 60$ Remastered or in most cases Re-release.
They're ways to get them accross the new platform if Sony were to spend time and effort.

[Loktai]

Godmars,

The early ps3s I think did it in hardware? And later ones only worked for digital downloads? Is that right?

[-Foxtrot]

Yeah...but lets be honest the PS1 games should be on the store by now. At least half of them and we don't have one.

I want to download my games I bought on the PS3. For Europe it took us nearly an entire gen just to get Spyro and when we did the next year the PS4 was out.

It feels the same is going to happen again. We'll get the PS1 classics when the next gen is around the corner.

[Godmars290]

Legal issues again.

[GrimmyReaper]

Fine but that still doesn't excuse the PS2 and PS1 bc.
It would be nice and should be possible. PS2 emulation works even on my shitty 5 year old laptop

[Harkins1721]

Again it was to keep costs down.

[joeorc]

@GrimmyReaper27m ago
[Fine but that still doesn't excuse the PS2 and PS1 bc.
It would be nice and should be possible. PS2 emulation works even on my shitty 5 year old laptop]

Here is the thing, the emulation for PS1 & PS2 being able to be built on the PS4 is again not the problem. It's the License deals that have to be made so as Sony can do so..many of the IP rights to the PS1 & PS2 games do or does not belong to Sony..

That means Sony has to get permission to get them...not to mention a PS2 Emulation program made for the PS3 would not work on the PS4 base code thus rework the emulation program again!

Emulation on PC works because you or I as consumers do not need to get permission on each and every game...Sony on the other hand has no such luxury.

[EddieNX]

Here, have a like for successfully using the word lambasted.

[pcz]

if nasa could send man to the moon in 1969, im sure playstation backwards compatibility in 2016 is achievable.

[Harkins1721]

*Money*

[RememberThe357]

Yeah nasa also had post war American cash flow, of which no private company could hope to equal.

[RJ92009]

Right they did that.... but how they get threw the van Allen radiation belts...? Also what about project fishbowl? Remember the game tell phone as a kid? Well that's history for you key word story... You drink to much cool aid(tap water);)

[Imalwaysright]

"All last cycle, oh the PS3 was lambasted for being $599.00"

And what does that have to do with PS3 BC? At the time the PS2 chip cost $27 to produce and the PS3 was produced for $800 total.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/new...

[joeorc]

Again, as I pointed out..trying to emulate the PS3 on the PS4 is just not feasible for with performance hits are going to be too great..

Do people not get the Design of the CellBE processor EIB is 204 GB/S..that Ring Token Bus is how the software data is moved in direct DMA transfers.. The PS4 does not have a 204GB/S ring Token Bus, nor the DMA of the ring Token connection of Rambus connection to in and out from I/O

And as for the CellBE being included into the PS4, would require a new design template and fabrication line to have done just for adding it in..

The cost for investment, and maintaining Backward compability on PlayStation with the licences costs , for Sony is far larger than that of Xbox..

There is a big difference between the two..many PS1 & PS2 games would need an emulation program, is again not the problem..it's the licences needed.

[Imalwaysright]

Again... what? I said nothing about PS3 games being played on the PS4! I said nothing about licensing Ps1 and PS2 games on the PS4! What does your reply have anything to do with what I wrote?

[destroyerz1]

PS3 architecture was a nightmare for Sony. I'm still amazed how Rockstar Games did magic with GTA V.

[Loktai]

Sony did many magical things with the cell... the reason that Rockstar did so well was they had years and years to make the game engine and optimize it while they created all the content, and since ps3 was it's biggest user base on the initial release they really wanted to focus on it. It runs very well on 360 also, just a general great job by the rockstar guys, AND IT'S FUN. Heh!

[MoveTheGlow]

You lost me at "remasterstation." I thought for a second that there was a Retron-esque PS3 indie console on the market! Sigh, that would be nice.

[donwel]

Plus they'd have to look into some major cooling solutions, the cell could put out some serious heat.
I still have my PS3 phat and the fan on it sounds like a jet engine preparing for lift off.

[ninjazfistz]

Lol. Wait til you try the ps4s fans out. I admit the original fat ps3 was loud but nothing compared to the ps4.

[donwel]

@ninjazfistz Actually I think my PS4 is fairly quiet. That may be because I'm used to the PS3 ones though :)

[DragonbornZ]

How about you read the article instead of just the title next time? Lol. You started a false narrative in the comments.

The author knows all that. They touch on Sony's other solutions like PSNow and classics.

[rainslacker]

Maybe the author of the title shouldn't ascribe the wrong concept to the subject matter he's trying to discuss, and then people may be willing to read it. If the title is flawed on basic principal, is there really any reason to read any further?

[DragonbornZ]

@rain
True. The article could've been titled better.

"If the title is flawed on basic principal, is there really any reason to read any further?"
I'm not sure. It's a well detailed article with a tired title. Sometimes maybe.

Usually there are at least a few who risk the click to inform others. I didn't see that, and the discussion took a huge turn away from the authors points, so I just wanted to let him/her know.

[IGiveHugs2NakedWomen]

When was the PS4 ever backwards compatible?

PS Now is available on multiple devices, which means it's a game streaming service not backwards compatibility.

What a stupid article.

[rlow1]

Obvious you didn't read the article. Plus what about people that bought digital copies on their PS3? they get to pay for them all over again. If you have a nice big library of ps3 games and wanted to play them on the ps4 you can't.

[kevnb]

sony wouldnt do it even if it was easy. Last gen they removed ps2 bc on newer models even though hackers were able to re enable it on even slim ps3s through custom firmware. This gen, they are so far ahead sales wise and dont seem to be losing any steam by not offering bc... so why would they bother?

[Chevalier]

You know Sony said that 1/3 of the PS4 owners are new to their systems. In reverse that means 2/3 of their customers owned PS3's more than likely. So why do people keep on harping on this subject? If people want to play PS3's to play those games they can on theirs. Did you think people bought their new system to play old games? Seriously you drop money on the new system to play new games and experiences that are unavailable on the previous gen. It seems one camp thinks playing old games is more important. I guess with so few new games throughout the year it would make sense. Love how Death and everyone here complaining are software engineers that know better than the actual ones and how easy it would be to implement. Got to love armchair engineers and developers.

[Loktai]

Exactly... Sony never once promised it would play ps3 games, psnow and the ps2 classics are just gravy.

[0to100]

there is a ps3 emuator for pc's, but needs work but it's definitely possible. Sony won't put money towards something that isn't profitable.

[Loktai]

Now try playing a game smoothly on 1.6ghz PC with integrated graphics through that emulator.

Do you know the clock speed and number of cores in the ps3s cell Cpu? Read up. How do you think you'll emulate that on a 1.6ghz cpu... and name me one other instance where a higher clocked "out of order" processor is succeasfully, fully and smoothly emulated by a lower clocked CPU with a similar number of cores...the Xbox can do it because the 360 had only 3 cores to emulate and they are in-order execute cores... you can emulate it with 6 cores(1.6ghz or greater) as long as the game specific configuration is telling the cpu what to expect or acting as a hardware abstraction layer. Out of order 3.2ghz cell count can't be emulated at 1.6ghz.. however NEO may be able to. That remains to be seen.

[JasonKCK]

Yet PC modders don't seem to have a problem with the cell, or the devs/pubs selling all those remasters on PS4. The cell is a tired argument and is not correct.

[Xb1ps4]

Paragraph 1

Considering how in love the members of n4g members are about the PlayStation, are you implying that maybe ms has been the company about gamers? I get the implication that bcb isn't a big deal to many on here but considering that Sony has been at this console gaming so much longer yet they haven't considered bcb? Instead they considered psnow?!

Paragraph 2 just inforces my first response.

Paragraph 3.

Well think about it don't had it right at first with bcb yet they decided to take it out? Now why is that? Sony decided to go a completely different rout with its processor that didn't exactly blow the 360 away then decided to cut what made the PlayStation brand, it's games from last gen..

Remasterisation is Sony response to what it can't do bcb...

It's selling better because ps4 was what gamers are used to and it wax cheaper plain and simple, gamers are Avery fickle bunch and don't like much change unless it's a grand slam.

You last paragraph makes me ask and dhould make all of you ask, was Sony ps4truly about the gamers? Or did they just capitalize on something ms failed at presenting?!

[conanlifts]

I agree about the ps3 aspects. But sony leaked ps2 compatibility, fans got excited, then they said it was ps2 enhanced versions and you need to pay. They should have done ps2 emulation as originally hinted at.

[SonyStyled]

I don't understand the fuss over lack of PS4 BC. But then again my PS3 can play every game on the PS1/PS2 so it's hard for me to care about the lack of BC on PS4

[GregoryRasputin]

Whilst you are right in regards to PS3 games, your post has no bearing towards the article that is written, which talks more about PS1 games that we already own on PS3, the Cell is not needed for them.

[Drithe]

Why? Because Sony is making money off the old games by selling them again. The ps4 is by FAR the worst of the Sony consoles.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

Sony chose to charge for BC and they have the hardware lead ..... there is zero chance they change that model. They do charge via PS Now because they can...and they will continue to do so.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Playstation 4 doesn't have any backwards compatibility at all

you are not able to take a game that you have previously from another generation and have a compatible with the PlayStation for the actual definition of backwards compatibility so I have no idea what you or even the author is actually talking about as nothing the PlayStation 4 defines or constitutes backwards compatibility even slightly.

[Loktai]

And it never ever claimed to... PSNOW is the closest and it's still not sold as backward compatability... it's actually not just a ps4 thing it also allows VITA to play for instance. All for one price if you happen to have multiple platforms

.. but seeing as its one of the only few things the xbox can claim it has (mind you still at a limited capacity 3 years after launch) that the PS4 doesn't people will beat that dead horse for all its worth.

[Death]

If there is no backwards compatibility possible, how do you think Sony is streaming all of those PS3 games? Do you think they have a bank of PS3's that fire up every time you want to play a PS3 game on PSNow? You are correct when you say there is no such thing as backwards compatibility on PS4. It is a feature Sony does not offer. They do however offer remasters, PSNow and are slowly offering up PS classics to be purchases again.

The interesting thing about all of this is Playstation fans brag about not being able to play their old games like it's somehow an advantage. It's not too much of a surprise that they also pretend having the option to play Xbox games on PC is a terrible thing. Backwards and forwards compatibility with the option to play on Microsoft's Xbox One or Microsoft's Windows 10 is a great feature to have.

@Loktai,

PSNow has a subscription services that offers up a small selection of games for a monthly fee. To access all games on PSNow you will also have to pay above and beyond the sub fee. The service doesn't offer all games in the PS3 library, it is also limited.

[DragonDDark]

Death: A streaming service is sooo different from BC

[WelkinCole]

@Death. Now I know you absolutely don't know what you are talking about.

PSN Now is a RENTAL streaming service. You don't need to own a copy of the game to play it. YOU RENT IT!!.

BC is the ability to play existing games you OWN on your new hardware.

Two vastly different things.

[Christopher]

***If there is no backwards compatibility possible, how do you think Sony is streaming all of those PS3 games?***

PCs with high-level CPUs in a cloud infrastructure. CPUs that are designed for fast processing and cell-based in design.

BC on PS4 is not possible. The CPU is not capable of handling both the in-game logic and the complex processing required to run an emulator shell that would be required to manage the PS3 coding for the cell processors.

[TWB]

@Death

Yes, they literally made another hardware revision (or more like completely new hardware that is compatible with PS3 games but houses equivalent of 8 PS3s on one chip) to run and stream PS3 games for Gakai's streaming (PSNow)

I think this was even the original article I saw here at N4G reporting about it for the first time
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

[rainslacker]

@Death

"If there is no backwards compatibility possible, how do you think Sony is streaming all of those PS3 games?"

Might have something to do with that custom PS3 hardware they use to run the servers for PSNow which is then STREAMED to a device which doesn't run it locally. You know....the same hardware, in a custom form factor, used to drive that segment of their service which has nothing to do with the device it's being played on.

Crazy to think I know...but my guess would be that since it's running on hardware akin to PS3's, that would be the most logical answer to your question.

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

Beyond that, they stream it over the internet. Will provide a link should you need it.

Hope that helps answer your question.

"Do you think they have a bank of PS3's that fire up every time you want to play a PS3 game on PSNow? "

Apparently so.

"The interesting thing about all of this is Playstation fans brag about not being able to play their old games like it's somehow an advantage"

Not sure if I'd call it bragging. More that we keep stating that it's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Some do complain about it though. I'm not one of them, because it really isn't that big of a deal to me, and obviously not a big deal overall to the consumer.

Rest of your comment I'll consider a rant, because you're just playing the hypocrisy card using spurious anecdotal examples., but will say you're right in your @Loktai part there. Small selection though is kind of diminishing what is actually there....although limited is correct in context.

List of games available through a sub

https://www.playstation.com...

[rainslacker]

The Cell Chip used a RISC core, and that in itself wouldn't be that difficult to emulate. RISC translates fairly well to CISC, but more is lost in the interpretation due to RISC actually being more complex on the hardware level, but nothing that can't be made up for given the processing differentials between the two systems. CISC doesn't translate as well to RISC, as it requires extra code, but it's possible given enough processing power to adapt to the RISC code which actually does more per cycle than CISC does.

However, the SPE's on the CELL chip are not easily emulated. In fact, the SPE's could process more data per cycle than the entire CPU's of the current systems can....so in essence, no matter what translation they do, which would add more processing on top of that, the CPU simply couldn't keep up which would lead to choppy games(if they ran at all) as the game code waited for the CPU to process it's data. Best way to think of it is that the CPU would be trying to run like a GPU, processing data it's not actually designed to handle at such high quantities.

The SPE's worked on the same principal as GPU compute, except they existed within the CPU to do CPU tasks, but could also be controlled by the RSX(GPU) to give it added processing when necessary, and was often implemented after about the 3rd year or so of the PS3 generation. Probably the best way to think of it is as kind of a reverse GPU Compute principal, although GPU compute does now use many of the CELL principals to implement how it does such things.

The memory bus of the PS3 also allowed for burst mode transfers, which were higher than the peak theoretical bandwidth of the GDDR5 in the PS4. This means that in the PS4, any game that took advantage of such things would slow to a crawl...if not outright crash, when performing such tasks.

On the X1 side, outside the RISC processor, the actual setup of the system is fairly standard for a typical PC. EDRAM being about the only thing out of the ordinary, but more than compensated for with the ESRAM in the X1. All MS really has to do with their emulator is translate the RISC code to the CISC architecture, and as it stands, since the X1's chip is more powerful, it is able to compensate for the added instruction time.

On the GPU side, the GPU setup is also the same between the X1 and 360, so there really is no need for any kind of translation, as GCN allows for backward compatibility to older non-GCN architectures, and ultimately, processing functions have not been removed from new cards from GPU's since the 360 release, or if they have, the new cards have interpreters which can handle the code.

Edit @ Christopher and off topic.

Are you guys thinking of implementing a policy where the title(and hopefully description) has to reflect the actual content? This is the 2nd such article in a few days this was done.

I know the N4G policies say to use the title supplied by the article itself, but feel if this site sets a higher quality standard for it's postings, it will kind of force higher quality to be submitted or not be seen.

If so, that'd be great. Much better than saying what we as the community should believe or contextualize.:)

[nitus10]

You are quite right the PS4 does not have backwards compatibility but neither does the XB1.

All the XB1 can do is software emulation on selected XBox360 games, not hardware emulation which is required for true backwards compatibility.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Mind you charging for backwards compatibility would mean having a feature that you pay for that allow you to play a game you own in regards to putting the disk inside the system and having it work nothing like that exists on PlayStation 4, having a Game pre-release is not actually any form of backwards compatibility it's merely just having a game rerelease...

Mine's you PlayStation Now was never created for that purpose, it also exists on PlayStation 3 so what you're telling me is they created PlayStation Now for backwards compatibility of a platform that already natively plays the actual games? Ummmm maybe you better look up what backwards compatibility actually means.

[joeorc]

@ _-EDMIX-_

Exactly

PlayStation Now is not Sony's Backward compability suite..it was made to expand PlayStation legacy gaming to things like smartTV's and smartphones and tablets along with small streaming box's or pretty much "smart processing" technology.

Because of how prolifically expanded smartchip technology has became.

Reason being is Sony had to adopt to such, because they make such chips themselves, invested into heavy SmartChip Advanced Operating systems for those chipset..Apple's iOS & Android OS .

And also

A)/smartTV's are the default Generic computer entertainment platform for the living room now..game consoles are great for gaming, but moving forward smartTV's are going to be the default TV that manufacturers are going to build for their TV manufacturing. And game consoles are going to always need a TV or projector of some sort.

B)Many now see how the Smart technology is not just SmartTV's but your Home itself is being Augmented to be more smart centric enhanced designs from homes to apartments, to condominium's.

Sony is And has expanded "Legacy PlayStation gaming into SmartTV's , because it see's market viability instead of trying to concentrate on getting a PC under the TV.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

@EDMIX... PSNow is 100% the option for a PS4 owner to play PS3 games. Yes I do agree that PS Now was created during the PS3 era and was not intended to be a BC solution. However, that is the direction Sony has chosen to go in that ...if you want to play a PS3 game you may own or don't own and want to play it on your PS4... the only option you have to play that on PS4 is to pay for PS Now. Again, it wasn't the initial intention of the service but it is 100% their response and answer to any PS4 owner seeking to play PS3 games. You will pay to play regardless if you own the PS3 game on PS4 and there is zero pressure on them to change that model. .

[Death]

Why does b/c have to be disc based? What if you own a digital copy of a game? Sony sold digital copies of PS2 classics on the PS3. These same games bought from Sony aren't b/c with the PS4 and need to be repurchased if you want to play them on the PS4.

I asked the question above, how do think Sony is streaming the PS3 games anyhow? Any chance you think they are being emulated on the Gaikai servers or do you think PSNow consists of a bunch of PS3 hooked up to the internets?

[rainslacker]

@Dlacy

Seems some of the contention exists around some people's pretty liberal interpretation of what BC actually is.

PSNow is in no way a BC solution, because it offers nothing that would be done with BC. Not one thing at all. No playing one's owned games and no digital replacement to accomadate those who own the game. One can't even use PSNow to play games they already own. In all ways, shapes, and forms, PSNow is it's own platform, where the games are only available on that platform. It's just that that platform isn't restricted to one device to consume the content.

Technically, MS doesn't even offer a BC feature. It offers a workable BC solution, run through emulation. It serves a similar purpose, but isn't actually the same, because it requires additional conditions to be able to play one's older games(publisher approval). It's an acceptable solution given the copyright and licensing considerations surrounding BC and emulation, thus most are willing to accept it as BC, but it's really just a solution, not a BC implementation.

Context is important to the discussion, but it would be nice if people would at least not stretch the actual meaning of the term to suit their arguments.

PSNow is the option for PS4 owners to play PS3 games on the PS4. That option requires a cost of entry. Doesn't matter if they have the software already, because their copy of the software wasn't licensed to play on the PSNow platform...it was licensed to play on the PS3 platform. The one people play on PSNow is the copy licensed to play on the PSNow platform wherever it's available.

@Death

Maybe go ask Sony that. I'd imagine licensing has something to do with it since as I've stated above, PSNow is it's own platform.

However, it would be something good to harass Sony about, instead of harassing the forum goers about if you actually care about it beyond the console war diatribe.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@Dlacy- " PSNow is 100% the option for a PS4 owner to play PS3 games. "

Thats nice...who said it wasn't?

That still isn't what BC actually is.

Um...Skyrim "is 100% the option for a PS4 owner to play a PS3 game called Skyrim" that doesn't mean PS4 is BC, it merely means I've payed money to buy a PS4 version of Skyrim.

You've paid money to play streaming games on PS4 that are PS3 games. You are not playing YOUR PS3 games on PS4 ie bought PS3 games inserted in PS4.

You are confusing playing a PS2, PS3 etc game on PS4 with BC.

You can play Persona 3 and Persona 4 on PS3's that don't have PS2 BC if you buy them through PSN......that doesn't mean your PS3 is BC, it merely means you bought the ports on PS3. Just like you are paying for PSN Now on PS4...

That is not BC and I fail to get how you are using the term to even justify any of what you've posted. The term doesn't mean that."if you want to play a PS3 game you may own or don't own and want to play it on your PS4... the only option you have to play that on PS4 is to pay for PS Now"

or buy a PS3...

Mind you, couldn't you use this same reasonsing with remasters?

".if you want to play a PS3 game you may own or don't own and want to play it on your PS4... the only option you have to play that on PS4 is to pay for the remaster"

Sooooo would that not mean remasters are really BC to you? lol Oh so all platforms that have a remaster are BC?

LMFAO! The term doesn't mean that, as to all the disagrees you are getting. It is a WILD stretch that just doesn't make any sense. Even PC gamers don't have a proper PS3 emulator up.

[madmonkey01]

PSNOW is not BC it never was and never will be. you can play PSNOW on samsung or sony tvs without any console in sight what sort of BC is that?

[OC_MurphysLaw]

Its not that its true BC nor even designed with that in mind...its just the only option available to someone looking to play a PS3 game on their PS4. Sony has positioned the service as the option for those who want to play those back titles and don't own a PS3. Its the only option outside of buying a PS3.

[oONinjavitiSOo]

@madmonkey01 don't worry dude. It's a F***ING dumb opinion piece written by morons that are trying to get clicks.....then the equally moronic comments come. Ignore these dumb articles and people. But to the people arguing about BC and streaming can you really not tell the difference?? Also why not play old games on old consoles unless you are a casual or a noob and sell your console each gen..... Personally I still have ever console I've owned since the early eighties. But since they don't have BC on ps4 it's sonys fault you can't play old games that were also never advertised as a feature? Wow! What a dumb argument/discussion.
Basically instead of being helpless crybabies be pro-active and find a way to play retro games instead of relying on a person or company to do it for you.

[OldGuyStillGaming]

Not gonna happen.. I've lost count the amount of times they've said its not possible because it's different architecture.
Although for me it's a nice feature to have, I'm happy having it on my X1 only because I never had a 360 so I'm able to play most 360 games I missed out on.
So it wouldn't be a big deal to me if it ever did come to ps4 since I played everything I wanted on ps3... I know I'm not everyone but I'm just saying.

[joeorc]

It's not the fact it cannot be done, it's being able to do such at a cheap enough price point to make it viable.

Sorry , but Sony is not going to loose money on every PS4 now, when it's being sold for proft even on a hardware level..adding in software backwards compatibility is just not feasible right now due to performances processing hits trying to simulate the PS3's CellBE , never mind that EIB 204 GB/sec bandwidth would also have to be simulated ontop of the CellBE..

Now adding in a physical chip, having to redesign the mobo and production to a smaller nano meter scale would increase the costs even more..

Being able to do it is not the issue, it's being able to do such at a reasonable price point, the license agreements with IP holders asset costs involved deal..and than costs involved in Port processing, because those games were made for the PS3 chipset, not the PS4..anyway you cut it means further increase in costs.

That may mean less invested capital from the PlayStation subsidiaries being able to put more investment into building new games and it's for the PlayStation 4..

PlayStation is not a division of Sony, it's a Whole owned Subsidiary conglomerate.. That means it does not get the holding companies money..it has to work within PlayStation conglomerate money for investment, while in the millions and in some case maybe even a couple of Billion here or there at one time..but not on hand all the time.

Sony is not going to do that, it's understandable, many would want this..but I understand the reasons why it's not.

[Lon3wolf]

He didn't say it cannot be done, he said not going to happen, pretty much what you have been saying just not so verbose.

[Jon_Targaryen]

Speak for yourself. Id pay whatever they charge for a BC capable console. Funny thing is, people will buy a new and more expensive console just for the 4K gimmick. But God forbid them addinh BC....

[_-EDMIX-_]

Some of these articles need to stop getting approved as they're doing nothing more than trolling.

PlayStation 4 does not have any backwards compatibility whatsoever by the pure definition of what backwards compatibility actually is.

You are not able to put any game inside the PlayStation 4 from any previous generation and have it actually work on the platform.

[Death]

It can't be done the same way Kinect couldn't be shut off with the flick of a switch. As long as there are EDMIX's on the internet saying it can't or shouldn't be done, it won't happen. PS3 games are being emulated on the PSNow servers. Fans are content to spin it though so it's not considered a weakness. The bottom line is if you don't ask for it, it will never happen.

[ShadowWolf712]

They're being run on dedicated servers made of PS3 hardware and streamed to users.

The actual game is being STREAMED. Nothing is being EMULATED, and certainly not natively, unless you actually believe those servers are made up of PS4's. They're DESIGNED to run PS3 games specifically.

It's why even TVs with no console at all can play PS Now games.

[joeorc]

What do you think those PSNow servers are composed of?

[PS3 games are being emulated on the PSNow servers. Fans are content to spin it though so it's not considered a weakness.]

They are? Because those servers are infact custom PS3's..it's not emulation , it's streaming the games..-> to..not being Emulated..

As I pointed out before Emulation of PS3's without physical hardware for Sony would be expenditure being rather expensive via due to costs and Licences required that Sony would have to pay for.

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

As exactly as ShadowWolf712 stated.

[Silly gameAr]

Could be because there are more important things to worry about then BC.

[pcz]

yes, like where to store all your obsolete consoles

[JackBNimble]

My wife and kids use my obsolete consoles while I use my ps4.

[rainslacker]

All my "obsolete" consoles are connected to the TV in my game room and stored within a custom built cabinet so I can access them at any time. I currently have almost 30 consoles in there, and am looking at adding 3 more in the near future. All the games for those consoles take up about 600 square feet of my basement in 2 rooms I added in, with another 500 square feet for the game room/bar area, which was a custom renovation, and the other 400 square feet being a shop where I do my woodworking stuff...and about 40 square feet for general storage for things too big to put in the attic.

Since I like to play older games, I keep the means to do so. Full BC PS3 is really nice, as it keeps things consolidated, but certainly not a feature that I would consider to make or break the value of a newer system.

[Loktai]

Unlike other last-Gen consoles ps3 continues to get exclusive releases and support in most regions but... meh you don't care what obsolete actually means anyway. It's not obsolete If you think playing those old games is so important .. is it. There is nothing wrong with backward compatibility but
If people are buying ps4s and xbones to play 3-11 year old games(or 21 if you include the ps1/2 and original xbox)... it would shock me.

[nitus10]

Well, I use my obsolete backwards compatible PS3 by connecting it's HDMI cable to the spare HDMI connector on my monitor.

I actually have the best of all worlds a high-end PC with fast switching between my PS3 or my PS4. Actually, my PS4 and PS3 combined are still smaller than my PC case. Also if I wish to connect my PS3 or PS4 to my HDTV it takes me less than a minute to make the switch and the result is still ascetically pleasing.

[MasterCornholio]

The PS4 doesn't have any BC.

The most similar thing is the streaming service and those PS2 remasters but that's not BC.

I agree that it would be nice if the PS4 had BC even though it's not integral to the consoles success. Next gen I expect full BC with the PS5 though.

[BLow]

Fully agree with everything you said. People seem to forget how difficult it was to develop for the PS3. The Cell(although powerful) was completely different for its time. Plus it was custom built.

Anyone with a half a brain should realize that if it was difficult to develop for then how difficult would it be to fully emulate it along the RSX graphics chip.

As long as Sony and MS continue to go with AMD and x86 architecture then BC will be a much easier process guaranteed. This shouldn't be very hard to figure out. And lastly MS is a software company. Helloooo?!? It's much easier for them then it would be for Sony.....

[nitus10]

Actually, Microsoft does not have cart blanch on Software developers. Any company can hire good software developers although I do have to stress that designing and developing software are radically different.

[StormLegend]

Again with this junk? Why do people care to play old games so much? buy a PC and play all of the last gen games in 1080p 60fps. No waiting on MS or Sony. We buy new systems to play new games, remasters are just a bonus if we get them.

[nitus10]

There is nothing wrong with playing older games for nostalgia purposes or if you have not played that game before and would actually like to play it, however, most gamers prefer playing the latest games or actually getting a remaster or reboot if the game is a good (subjective here) one.

I think it would be interesting to do a survey on how many people would actually repurchase a game after they sold it off or how many people would purchase an old game to play on their new console (assuming software emulation or backwards compatibility).

As an example. People who have a PS3 can actually play all PS1 games but how many would go out and buy a PS1 game (ie. Black CD) except for a collector. It would also be interesting to know how may PS3 owners who have a collection of PS1 games actually play then and if so how often. Personally, I have 30 PS1 games in excellent condition but I rarely play them. I even have a collection of over 60 PS2 games which I do play when the nostalgia bug bites but that is not very often.

The bottom line is BC or software emulation is a great value add at the start of a new console generation but it is only a nice value add when the emulation is done two years in.

[corroios]

Just stop. This is another exemple of trolling. Some still say this is pro sony site. Every single week with crap BC news.

Bc is a feature on the Xbox One and for some is very good, but the reality doesnt have any kind of impact on choosing between the consoles. Where even without BC the PS4 sell tons of more consoles.

More, if you want the perfect BC just buy a PC or upgrade your PC. Because you get all the BC with much better rez and frames you want and all the games from Microsoft. Is just a win/win situation.

It wont matter the number of «news» about BC, it wont make a diference.

Gamers want new experiences and is rather sad still playing games from the longest gen ever.

I dont even have time enough for all the games out there, much less to play games from previous gen.

[Skankinruby]

Because gamers as a whole do not care. It's a waste of time and money to do this. You want to play old games pull out your old console, very simple. New consoles are for new games, period.

[kneon]

Well it would have been useful if it were available at launch when there weren't many new games to play. But adding it years after launch would be pointless for most people.

[yeahright2]

Yup. By the time MS announced it, many had already made their choice. Had it been there at launch along with their trade in program, it would have wiped away Sony's $100 price advantage.

[Condemnedman]

Yes but you forget bc is and will be going forward my next ms console will play all my games or most at the least you are not looking at the big picture I doubt I'll buy another Sony console because I want all my games in one place.

[nitus10]

Totally agree.

Say the next generation of consoles are fully backwards compatible and if they are still using X86_64 architecture then there is no reason why they won't be, then at the start of the new generation, many will still play older games for one to two years and then effectively forget about them as newer games become available.

Sure you will get gamers play an older game for nostalgia purposes but most prefer playing a game they have not played before and most will not go out and buy an older game unless that game is exceptional and there are not many of those.

[JackBNimble]

Well I do agree that new consoles are for new games but I have a shit ton of ps3 games on my psn account and having my entire Library of games in one place would be nice.
One example would be my library of games on pc is all in one place and it will always be there. I would like that with my psn account, after all, I have spent thousands of dollars on my psn account in the last 10 years.

[Antnee534]

The reason it's still so bad is because they have put very little effort into it. They have no desire to make backwards compatibility a big feature. They gave us these ps2 uplifts and that's about as good as we are going to get it.

I myself am happy that they don't have bc the feature is pointless I still have a ps2 and ps3 and I don't play them worth a damn I got my ps4 for new games cause I'm bored with what I have now.

Also to each their own this is just my response to the article :)

[cyber_daemonx]

PS4 doesn't need bc.

[nitus10]

BC or software emulation is a nice value added feature but the is not a system seller unless it is there at the start of the console generation.

[raWfodog]

People will do the most to make a mountain out of a mole hill. This feigned surprise over why PS4 hasn't implemented a BC option is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to distract from the more important accomplishments of this gaming generation. I love Red Dead Redemption as much as the next guy but to see the amount of articles gushing over it these past couple of weeks was ridiculous. I'm not a fanboy in any sense of the word but it was so funny seeing some people from the XB1 camp troll over the fact that they were able to play RDR on the XB1 when I literally was able to pop the game into my PS3 and do the same thing (which I did, the game is still great btw). I know many people probably got rid of their last gen consoles so that is not an option and, don't get me wrong, BC is a nice convenient feature to have. But, IMO, in no way does it make or break current gen consoles. I am sure that the VAST majority of people who buy a new console do so to play the new games that are coming out on that console. I imagine a very small number of buyers who will base their purchase on whether a console is BC.

But what do I know? :)

[Kurt Russell]

It'd be nice to have for the few who would use it I guess. Personally I wouldn't, so I don't really care. I have kept all my old consoles since I was a kid, and they just sit in their boxes in my loft/attic.

[assdan]

It's really difficult to emulate PS3 hardware on a PS4, simple as that. Sony found that most people don't use, or barely use backwards compatibility, so it wasn't a priority.

[yeahokwhatever]

because only like 3% of consumers give a crap.

[madmonkey01]

playstation 4 doesnt have backwards compatability, sony have been prety clear on this. psnow, isnt designed to enable backwards compatability, as it is not confined to ps4, or even consoles as a service.

[KwietStorm_BLM]

PS4 doesn't have backward compatibility, you dunce journalist. 3 years later and people still acting like BC on the other platform is some revolutionary new idea that's never been done before in the history of the industry.

[ONESHOTV2]

i'm not pointing any fingers but we have to put a little of the blame on sony. i know trying new tech can give you lot of benefits but sometimes it can backfire on you as well i do give them credit for making the PS3 powerful as it was but trying to be special is not the best move you will make sometimes. look at what they did to the PS vita with the memory stick that was also a bad move. another thing sony has been a bit shady for a few years now i think they knew their next system was going to be x86 but said you know what we can make a few bucks selling the older games back when we release the ps4 anyway this is what i was thinking i know many of you wont agree like always but that's alright.-(check bio)

[rainslacker]

I think Sony's intention was more about how to deliver an extremely powerful piece of hardware, that had designs which could run circles around common processors for game related tasks. Oddly enough, CELL was meant to be an ongoing BC solution similar to how PC's do it. Sony wanted CELL to be a major technology going forward....so it's quite likely that they simply failed to achieve what they hoped to, because CELL didn't become what they had hoped it would for general purpose hardware, thus they couldn't achieve those ongoing plans. What the console makers say they will gain from the benefit of x86, with ongoing compatibility, was criticized by quite a few when Sony said the same thing before the PS3's release.

Sony's mistake wasn't that they made the CELL, it's that they couldn't get others on board with CELL technology in the way they had hoped. Beyond that, most of the features of CELL's processing theory, is a major part of computing and graphics rendering today, much more than people seem to know...so it wasn't quite the mistake people made it out to be....simply Sony couldn't capitalize on it with their own implementation.

So, no, I won't blame Sony for failing to achieve their goals. Their goals had merit, and they tried, but failed to become a player in that aspect of the industry. But part of their goal was what some people are so happy about x86 will bring. Sony's only mistake was waiting another generation to use x86....but even that is questionable because the CELL tech had a ton of potential to do more with games than even the current systems would be capable of, but people only saw that it was expensive, and hard to program for without ever understanding how it was beneficial.

[King_Lothric]

Has it even occurred to you that it is not a feature that the PlayStation owners crave to have? PS3 had backwards compatibility and it was not popular, they then took it away on revised models.

Has backward compatibility ever helped any console to win a generation? Nope.

[Majister-Ludi]

You're kidding right. Not only are you wrong but you're lying. People freaked out when they took BC out of the ps3 model. To this day the BC ps3 model is still the most sought model. Keep lying of you really didn't care you wouldn't have clicked. Regardless of what you all say it's a good feature and it's free.

[Christopher]

Eh, people really only complained because it went missing out of feigned interest, but no one was buying it up with it. The fact is, the PS3 took off after removing BC because the price was the issue, not the BC.

If people were so interested in BC, they would have bought the original model and we would never have seen a new model pop up without BC. Simple as that. But, people wanted lower price over more features.

[rainslacker]

Really? because I recall the sales going up when they reduced the price by taking out the hardware required to run BC.

Sure, people freaked out. Just like people freak out now. There are people that want the feature. There are more people that freak out that care nothing about it unless it serves their side of the console war.

I saw a lot of people saying it didn't matter before MS made it a defining and exclusive(aside from WiiU) feature of their console. And those people were from both camps. But speaking of the WiiU, I never really see it played up as an important feature. On the 3DS, I don't see it being hyped up. Maybe a bit on the Vita, as it adds to the library of games, but even then, not too much, and certainly not defined as a system selling feature, nor do I see crazy amounts of excitement for any BC related announcement from any of those consoles.

With the PS2, it was a surprise it had it, because it was never heard of for a home console before. People hyped it up, because it seemed like the best thing ever. Some people used it, others didn't. Sony couldn't really track it's utilization then. When PS3 had it, it was a marketed feature, but wasn't made into the big deal that MS own current implementation is now....because people just expected it. With the PS4, I think people just realized how little they used it. It sucked for those that use it regularly, but from my experience, those people tend to keep whatever hardware is required to play the games they want to play. At most, it might be inconvenient for some that wanted to trade up, but still had games on the prior gen they still wanted to play. Whatever the case, they dealt with it, and moved on....just like the Xbox fans did before MS made it a big deal again.

For the most part, given the sales, it would appear it's not that big of a consideration to most people. Sony is outselling the consoles that have BC by a wide margin, and their PS3 retraction of BC saw a surge in sales for the PS3 itself.

[nitus10]

All PS3's can still play PS1 games so if that is not software backwards compatibility I don't know what it. The reason for taking out BC from the PS3 was it required PS2 hardware which added to its cost.

BC or software emulation is and has always been a value-added feature, but it is not an essential feature.

@Majister-Ludi

Sure it was disappointing for some prospective PS3 purchasers that PS2 BC was not available in newer models going forward but those who wanted BC already had BC PS3's so that decision really did not impact them.

Note: All PS3's to this day can play PS1 disks.

Even taking out the "Other OS" was not such a big deal even though some (a tiny minority) thought it was. From my point of view who has been a huge Linux user from 1991 onwards, the removal of the "Other OS" feature was a non-event since there were plenty of cheap hardware to put Linux on that would provide a much better experience.

[BlaqMagiq1]

Who approved this garbage? PS4 does not have any BC. It never did. PS3 architecture is to complex to put the effort into. This has been established already.

[Tobsesan]

Because it doesnt exist?

[ziggurcat]

PS4 doesn't have BC. Sony has said this multiple times.

[nitus10]

You are quite right. Even Microsoft said prior to launch that their XB1 would not support older generation games, although two years later they did provide software emulation but any advantage of this value-add was already lost.

[cd1]

I dont take BC into account when choosing what platforms I use, it doesn't even cross my mind. Just keep your old consoles - no click from me.

[migh_and_highty]

PS Now is not BC. You have to be a real dumbass to think it is. It's not, it's never been advertised as such. It's an option to play a selection of ps3 games online on a range of devices, not just ps4. It's just as much a Samsung TV service as it is a PS4 service.

[Kokyu]

Probably because the majority of people could careless about back comp. I barely used it on my 360 and ps3. I bought a ps4 for this gen games, I have ps3 and x360 for last gen infact I still have every console Ive ever owned starting with an atari 1984. I have everything but a wii and wiiU cause they suck.

[Gaming4Life1981]

Sony dropped BC because they know they can make money with psnow. That seems obvious to me and that may be bad for consumers but smart business wise. I mean I'm sure it's definitely people out there that own lots of these psnow games but pay for the service just to play on ps4.

My only problem with what Sony is doing is how they are doing it. People that own digital copies of these games should be allowed access to them for free. I understand that the physical copies are not compatible but they should let you use ps now for the digital games you own out the gate, the ones you don't own but want to play those need the subscription.

I refuse to use psnow because I own alot of the games and I refuse to pay but I do see why people like the service. Hopefully next gen Sony brings BC back.

[ShadowWolf712]

...PS Now isn't BC or meant to be BC. Nor is PS3 emulation possible on PS4 hardware.

[Gaming4Life1981]

Never said psnow is BC but it is meant to be a answer to BC. And yea ps3 games cannot be emulated(so they say) but that's why psnow is there and I think Sony should allow free access to digital software that we own thru ps now. Just my opinion

[ShadowWolf712]

It was never an answer for BC either. It was available on PS3 right away, it's on Vita and even compatible with certain TVs too.

It's a service, not an "answer to BC".

[ShaunCameron]

Sony dropped BC, because all it was gonna do was jack up manufacturing costs which would result in higher retail prices that consumers have already demonstrated they're unwilling to pay. Plus, they didn't want another PS3 debacle where they lost $200+ on every console sold.

[rainslacker]

Then what was MS excuse for not offering it from the get go? They had no platform to make money on old games like Sony did. As I recall, PSNow was in existence before the PS4 was announced, and when PSNow came out, BC for the PS1 titles at least was 100% on the PS3, and for a sizable portion of the PS3's could also play PS2 games....yet PSNow still came out.

I don't disagree that Sony should explore the avenues of having a BC solution through PSNow, but PSNow is not a no cost solution for them the way it is for MS right now...or at least MS solution is low cost to them, and made up for with potential purchases of the software. With PSNow, the cost to provide a BC solution by such a means would be costly, even if only used by a small portion of the user base.

[Fullmetalevolust]

My quip is why can't we have ps1 and ps2 games running on a handheld, I want ps2 games for my Vita. I know the Ps3 can do it and remote play exists, but I still wanna take them on the go. Just my 2 cents.

[Loktai]

Psp and vita DO play PS1 games.. and there are some ps2 game ports but 1. The vita is limited in memory.. some ps2 games are huge... second vita can do PSNOW which will give you ps3 games which include some ps2 remaster HD versions.

You want them to.. what include emotion engine in the vita, or just make the vita burn through its battery in an hour running emulated code or? It does the best it can considering.

[kaiserxblue]

The amswer it's simple, Sony doesn't care about backwards compatibility, I mean there was a reason why playsation Tv was created right? I mean they have already sold like over 40 milion consoles so why would they care to please the customers by wasting time and resources making that? Right now their priority it's the NEO which most likely come out this fall, their game lineup coming this holidays and next year and the gimmick a.k.a. VR set.

[Loktai]

Do you even know what a PSTV is? It's for playing vita games on a TV and remotely controlling your ps4 from another room with remote play among other apps etc. What are you talking about? It took them no work to make, it's just a vita. They didn't waste any resources. It's called vita TV in japan, they dropped VITA from the name elsewhere because the name vita is what killed the handheld , nobody knew what the hell it was... if they had called it PSP2 IT MAY have sold 3-4 times more.... they kept the vita tag in Japan, vita sells great there.

[Condemnedman]

Sony want to charge it's that simple. if people are gullible enough to pay for old games then I don't have a problem with that fortunately I don't have to buy my games I already own and even of they don't go bc I still have a xbox 360 I can boot up though I prefer to use my one to play them. People who say it's not essential are talking tosh my games I now own on the one have jumped loads since bc came in , it's essential to me but not every one.

[Condemnedman]

maybe Sony tech's are not as cleaver as Microsoft's?

just putting it out there.

[ShaunCameron]

Or maybe Sony finally wised up and realized that selling consoles at a loss is no longer a viable business model to continue after the PS3 experiment?

[rynodigital]

TBH, I'd just like to be able to throw my PS2 discs into my PS4 but it doesn't seem like that's ever going to happen

[nitus10]

Well you can and they won't damage the machine but they won't work.

[rynodigital]

Nice try, but that's how I ruined almost half of my Laser-Disc collection!

[MoveTheGlow]

Because backwards compatibility depends on your long-term plans, and when Sony adopted Cell processors, they thought they were the future. Their R&D team didn't see the resurgence of PC gaming and the on-par PC/console experience via Steam happening back then. Cell wasn't the future, so they changed over for developers to make it easier to make games for their new system. This got them a huge sales edge that they didn't have previously, and as a tradeoff, backwards compatibility went out the window. It's business.

I do really, really wish I could at least put my PS2 discs in the thing and they'd be emulated, either through a digital download or off of the disc. Hardware and software-wise, that's possible. The sorry amount of PS2 games on the Store doesn't help. I bet this isn't possible because you're in some way making a copy of the game by doing so, and copyright law is tricky like that - any digital copy made would infringe on the rights of the publishers, some of which don't even exist anymore. Argh, can I just play the Onimusha series? (and this is why the whole UMD to digital thing never happened, and therefore why PSPgo was a joke.)

This is also where Playstation Now was supposed to help, but it's a rotating collection (bc copyright) that's heavily dependent on a quick internet connection (bc hardware differences), and it's so overpriced when you might already have those games on the shelf (bc copyright).

When you buy a PS4, you are not buying into an older sustainable library of games. You are purchasing the product of a company that made a bad decision one generation ago, and fixed it this generation. It's that simple. Plenty of people bought PS4s, so it worked out just fine.

[Hedstrom]

Its probably because their is a very low demand for it. Its not like MS has sold more consoles than Sony since they intruduced BC.

[Shineon]

Ps3 cpu is more powerful than the Ps4's cpu#Fact!

[Mr_Writer85]

Because Sony wasn't actually lying when they said it's impossible to emulate a PS3 on a PS4...

I don't remember MS saying the same. They did said it you have BC you are backwards. Until they starting losing market share, BC quickly became relevant.

Sony on the other hand have always supported BC. But had a tough call, either sacrifice BC in order to go for a more PC like developer friendly, off the shelf parts console which could be made and sold for profit with a reasonable RRP.

Or sink millions into RnD to make a console that might have BC but would be a pain for developers and would have to launch at a high RRP and probably still make a loss to recover the RnD money..

They clearly made the right choice.

Also despite having BC, X1 is still getting out sold, so people don't really care.

I'd love BC, but the PS4 is more suited to my needs as a gamer than the X1.

[uth11]

Backwards compatibility was never a feature of the PS4.

If you want to play old games, keep your old system, buy remasters or classics, or do PS Now

[iTechHeads]

It doesn't have backwards compatibility......
Only re-releases and ports.

[ILostMyMind]

Only Nintendo Wii has BC.

[SmokingMonkey]

This is pretty sad FUD.

BC is great, but I would much rather scramble to try and finish platinuming Uncharted 4 before No Man's Sky comes out than have 100% BC on PS4.

[ITPython]

Its pretty simple really. For the xb1 to play x360 games is quite easy since the architecture is so similar. Its kind of like pc players being able to play "last gen" games on a newly built pc. There is a tiny bit more involved with the xb1 due to whatever propitiatory software/hardware they use, but its a fairly simple process.

However the ps3 and ps4 are completely different in pretty much every way with hardware and software. To have a ps3 game backward compatible on the ps4 it essentially would need to get rewritten from the ground up.

Although I don't really care if the ps4 has backward compatibility or not, I'm here for new games. And if I want to play old games I'll fire up my ps3.

[cyber_daemonx]

Still going on about this. Tbh if bc was such a big deal then PS4 wouldn't be selling like it is. Yeah its a nice feature but if I ever get the urge to play last gen games I just stick on my PS3 which I still have like I suspect a lot of others do. I didn't really get a PS4 to play last gen games on as I suspect a lot of others didn't either. I've got enough of a backlog of this gen titles without worrying about what PS3 game is gonna be next on bc. And with nms out soon, bc be damned. Ultimately its just another way to troll PS4. Xbox fans should be happy, its a feature they can brag about lol.

PS4 doesn't have bc and probably never will have because it doesn't really need it.

[Utalkin2me]

Sorry, i bought a PS4 to play new games not PS3 games. If i want to play PS3 games i will stick a disc in it and play. Dont get me wrong backwards compatibility is a feature, thats right i didnt say good or nice. But i'm not one to play old games over and over. To each to their own i guess.

[mastershredder]

3 years later...wait what that noise? Oh I know! Me not caring again that my HUGE Playstation (1-3) library is not playable on my PS4.

[rainslacker]

Same here. Over 1200 PS games(1-3), which I play on my full BC PS3. Guess I'm just smart enough to keep the hardware that allows me to play my games.

Full BC, or even partial, or some kind of solution would be cool and all, but won't prevent me from playing my PS4 games on the PS4, and my other PS games on the PS3. I do so routinely, and since I'd have to get up to change out a game anyhow more often than not, no big deal if I have to go from one console to another. I routinely go between numerous consoles from all different manufactures and have for years since BC has really only ever been a thing in the PS home systems up until WiiU, and now with a partial solution for the X1.

[nitus10]

I don't have a huge library of PS1 (30 off), PS2 (60 off) and PS3 (40 off) games but even the ones I have I rarely play preferring my PS4 games. Sure I do get the odd nostalgia kick but not for long.

[WelkinCole]

3 years in PS4 fans have way too many games to play to even think about going back to play PS3 games. Yes some might want to go back and play a PS3 game once in the blue moon but they already have a PS3 and the PS3 game for that.

This whole PS4 needs BC crap needs to end. Why?. Because it does not need it. The majority of gamers don't need it. The market has already said so since last gen.

[bleedsoe9mm]

ps4 doesn't have BC , sony will sell ya some old games you already own

[MazzingerZ]

Don't miss it. Retired my fully BC (with PS3) PS3 after playing all the games I was interested in.

To want to replay old games in my new console would only mean one thing: It's not delivering what it should and I feel force to make it sound as it is a big deal and the main reason why everone gets a next gen console...To play old games...yeah...

A good feature during the transition period, first year maybe (like PS2 BC on PS3), but after that, no way you should have time for old games, new ones are supposed to take over and turn old ones in exactly that: old.

If we miss BC 3 years into the console life-cycle then it's means something is missing.

Seriously guys...people bash new good games with fresh ideas due To "poor" graphics, gameplay or whatever but would like To replay ancient games with poor graphics and awkard gameplay controls.

I prefer to keep those good memories intact.

[Godmars290]

Sony didn't plan on it where MS did. With their DRM policy, the control they've have through their original DDL resell plans, MS always intended to introduce 360 titles on the XB1. Only when those plans blew up to the degree they did, causing them to fire the last division head, they did BC as a free instead of a paid feature.

[gigoran]

BC is not a requirement. thats why they call it next gen. if you had the previous gen and a collection of games the smart thing to do would be to keep that old console. the stupid idiotic moronic thing to do would be to sell it and cry when the next gen is more focused on next gen gaming.

[trouble_bubble]

I wonder if they can work something out with PS Now, like if you stick your PS3 bluray in your ps4 it acts as a verification that you have it which can then let you stream it free from PS Now.

Downloaded games should be easier as all your licenses are saved on your PSN account already.

Either way, they spent millions on gaikai, they gotta start pushing PS Now in more creative ways. At least do some sales or PS Plus free one month streams or something. People have been complaining a lot about plus, start offering up some free PS Now streams or something, if BC aint ever gonna happen.

[chobit_A5HL3Y]

honestly, most people who want to play old games still have their older consoles. if you got rid of them, then you obviously didn't want to play those games very badly lol i have good memories of games back from ps1 and 2, but i couldn't care less if i could play them on my ps4 right now. would it be nice? yeah. but i really don't want to play older games that much, tbh. i bought my ps4 to play current gen games.

[Artemidorus]

It's not three years yet.

[rainslacker]

Something that doesn't exist can't be bad. It can be bad that it's not there, but the actual feature has no defining qualitative values to ascribe to it.

So, someone is exploring for something that simply doesn't exist on the PS4. Seems like a silly reason to write an article. It's like some of those silly Alien life shows on the History Channel. They talk it all up, then don't find anything, and still try to be taken seriously.

[jznrpg]

They need to split this site into sections if they're going to have these stupid opinion articles, one tab for actual news and another for people trying to help market their console of choice or hurt their competitors

[Sevir]

Lol. If people buy next gen consoles to play retro games of generations past make me laugh. Anything to make the number one selling console with some of the best games. Its cool. I'll take new games over last gen ones.

[Tito08]

Dumb article from a no name site.

[NecoTehSergal]

PS2 and PS3 were not made with 'Friendly' in the design/specs for either porting, optimizing and remastery. Anyone who doesn't have long-term memory loss in this industry should know that Ken Kutaragi made weird hardware that, unlike Xbox, was never made to be like a PC. PS3 needed the EE engine inside of it just for them to do things quick and properly, but that'd cost them per unit since of it being old chips for newer hardware. They can't just keep doing that. You can't just compare Xbox compatibility with Sony's history of hardware.

So, blame Kutaragi more or less, cause BC was 'lost' because of the various complications of not being able to make a Pure software emulation that is successful enough for the huge library that Playstation has. They may be working on a first-party emulator in their divisions so that when they finish, and whoever is working on it can more or less conclude 'Most games should emulate without bugs going to hell' then mayhaps they'll release it. That'd be my two cents.

[Shineon]

Cant even play psone games and thats a first for a Sony console

[Razuel]

ps now should include games you already own, for the low price of *free. Might actually be interested in the service if they did it this way.

[NohansenBoy]

Because Sony has nothing to gain from adding BC.

[Tross]

I am so inconvenienced by the PS4's lack of BC. What's a guy with a working PS3 to do? Oh wait...that's what my PS3 is for. I also have a PS2 for my physical PS2 games. Why do articles like this get approved?

[mad-dog]

People always so concerned with playing old games on new machines.. Baffling.
Anyway, as we here should ALL know: The PS4 is COMPLETELY different than the PS3 in architecture.

[C-H-E-F]

Dude, is it really that serious? When my dad bought me my ps1 back in 94, guess what. I wasn't complaining about not being able to play MK on Super Nintendo my brother and I would hook it up and play it if we wanted to. Sure, not many PS4 owners have a PS3 or had one cool, that's not my fault or sony's especially with how cheap it was at the end of the gen and how many great games were on the platform. If I were to buy an Xbox, I won't be complaining about not being able to play 360 games that aren't supported by BC I would simply need to buy an Xbox One and 360, that's my fault. As a consumer I didn't support the product when it was relevant. Now I will need to go back and do so.

Also, the PS3 is harder to emulate on PS4 software than the 360 is to the xbox one.... The "cloud" emulator that Sony has is the best way to emulate the PS3 however that cost alot of money to create so guess what it costs money to use. Yall always want stuff that cost alot of money for FREE... WAKE THE ....... UP I have no idea what world yall live in but everything costs money even the air you breathe.

[Pastorfuzz]

Doesn't matter to me. Still have a PS3.

[esmittystud101]

Now that I went out and bought a new PS3........I could care less about the B.C. feature. Yes, we know Sony totally "whiffed" on the sceme and lost out on a great feature.

[rlow1]

I love how everyone is a expert on what it would take for Sony to do B.C.. I'm sure the tech challenge would not be worth the cost, but to say it's not possible is B.S.. Also, B.C. for Xbox is an advantage that they have cultivated. Right now I can just pop in my old games and play. No extra cost of any kind involved. So when people try and down play the feature they're just showing their bias attitude. If the boot was on the other foot PS fanboys would be shouting it from the roof tops.

[GrimDragon]

I would be happy if Sony just let me own the digital rights to a BC game. I despise the tons of games they have streaming that can only be rented. Let me buy it and stream when I please. I see no valid excuse for not doing this only greed.