Confused over how Sony handles PS4 versus PS3

eric21456

eric21456

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
I'm struggling to see the logic behind the PS4's very mediocre selection in it's PS online shop versus the PS3's. I got a PS4 this christmas and it's basically my first playstation console ever. I'm not sure what to do seeing as how there are plenty of PS3 and PS1/PS2 games I'd like to play that are on PS3/PS3's online store and not on PS4's at all.

Could they be doing this on purpose so as to still encourage people to buy PS3s? That is the only reason i could think of. Also, if the rumors i heard are true about the PS4's hardware having built-in PS3 emulation, then would it be wise as a CAG to put off buying a PS3 in case Sony has backwards compatibility plans up their sleeve, similar to what Microsoft did at E3?

For example, I really want to play through all of the Final Fantasy games. They're all available for PS3/PS3 online, and only a small handful of final fantasy games are available with PS4. Being a CAG, it's also difficult for me to see physical PS3 games I want for $20~ all over, yet at the same time not wanting to buy a whole new console since I can totally see sony revealing backwards compatibility this E3 or so to compete with microsoft.

All thoughts are appreciated
 
Yea, its one of the many problems with the PS4. I guess Sony really wants you to keep the PS3. I see games like Suikoden 3 that I would love to run through again, but nope, PS3 only. They are starting to bring PS2 titles to PS4 but they are $15 a pop.

 
I think it comes down to that anything you could download on PS3, has to be re-released on the PS4 becuase it's a completely different system. I think it's because they also weren't able to allow users to re-download their downloadable games from the PS3 to the PS4. Maybe that's why? I'm not sure. 

 
While you're right that one of Sony's reasons is to reduce cannibalizing PS3 sales, the main issue I think is more technical than business.  Remember the PS3's cell processor/architecture - while it was a huge selling point by Kutaragi at the PS3's introduction - made the PS3 a difficult and expensive system to develop for.  This often led to PS3 ports of 360 games having more technical issues like screen tearing and uglier textures.  

Bottomline - PS3 emulation is probably a much more costly endeavor for Sony and its other developers.  Microsoft, on the other hand, with Xbone has retained the same architecture from 360.  Their two systems are more alike, and that (without a doubt) gives them a leg up on backwards compatibility.  Recall the 360 also had an easier time emulating the Original Xbox games.  

I don't expect Sony to offer backwards compatibility this generation (they all but abandoned it during the PS3 era - their way of doing it then was to literally put a PS2 inside a PS3 - a move that made the system cost skyrocket).  Besides, it's not something they need to do to sell the system - after all, they're nearing 40 million sold.  By last count, Microsoft stopped reporting consoles sold - I recall them stating they had shipped 15 million -- clearly, Microsoft is way behind and desperately needs features to flaunt, so they're spending the money to provide it.  I don't see any reason why Sony would bother with it.

Personally, that's fine with me.  I don't need them to waste time/resources on trying to get old games to work.  Backwards compatibility is always a nice-to-have, but I'm doubtful it moves the needle much at all in persuading buyers.  For example, the Wii U offered Wii compatibility, but that clearly did nothing for it.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
romeogbs19 said:
While you're right that one of Sony's reasons is to reduce cannibalizing PS3 sales, the main issue I think is more technical than business. Remember the PS3's cell processor/architecture - while it was a huge selling point by Kutaragi at the PS3's introduction - made the PS3 a difficult and expensive system to develop for. This often led to PS3 ports of 360 games having more technical issues like screen tearing and uglier textures.

Bottomline - PS3 emulation is probably a much more costly endeavor for Sony and its other developers. Microsoft, on the other hand, with Xbone has retained the same architecture from 360. Their two systems are more alike, and that (without a doubt) gives them a leg up on backwards compatibility. Recall the 360 also had an easier time emulating the Original Xbox games.

I don't expect Sony to offer backwards compatibility this generation (they all but abandoned it during the PS3 era - their way of doing it then was to literally put a PS2 inside a PS3 - a move that made the system cost skyrocket). Besides, it's not something they need to do to sell the system - after all, they're nearing 40 million sold. By last count, Microsoft stopped reporting consoles sold - I recall them stating they had shipped 15 million -- clearly, Microsoft is way behind and desperately needs features to flaunt, so they're spending the money to provide it. I don't see any reason why Sony would bother with it.
Click to expand...
This. There may have been an option if the PS3 had not used the cell processors but my guess is that emulation was not possible with the processing power inside the PS4. I would hazard a further guess that PS4 emulation would be possible with the PS5 since they went with a more mainstream processor choice.

That said, notice the number of PS1 and PS2 games available on the PS4 and note the lack of PS3 titles. That about says it all.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top