PS4 - Get discussing

[IsolateMutate]

Maybe, but I think you may be giving Sony too much slack here. They pulled backwards compatibility out of the PS3 because it was "too expensive", then straight up told people at one point (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Look, it's never coming back." Now they're selling PS2 Classics on PSN and busting out a bunch of HD remakes at retail. It's a safe assumption that, if PS2 discs worked on PS3, gamers would be more likely to ignore these releases. Why pay $40 for something you already own? I fully expect them to do a similar thing with PS4.

Nintendo is a good example of a company that at least tries to east their customers into the next system. The Wii played GameCube discs even though they were an odd shape, not to mention they went out of their way to include GC controller and memory card slots too. With the original DS, they added a GameBoy Advance port. In contrast to that, the Vita doesn't support PSP games and uses completely different (and unique to the Vita) memory cards.

I'm not trying to vilify Sony or anything, they can do what they like, but I'm not sure their excuse is completely honest. That being said, I admittedly don't know much about the technical side of things (as far as the Cell processor and how expensive/complicated it is) but I do know that if they really cared, they would have figured out a solution.

It's incredibly hard to say since we can really only speculate, but I don't think it has anything to do with how much they "care", it's all about money. I'm sure backwards compatibility would sell the system for a lot of people, so I'm sure that they've at least considered it, but concluded that with the new hardware, it just won't pay off to add the backwards compatibility in the long run. Yeah, I'm sure the selling of PS2 (and in this case, PS3) classics had an influence on the decision, but I highly doubt Sony gathered their smartest crew to come up with the most villainous way to screw over their consumer. As for the Vita having a dedicated memory thingamajig, I completely agree on that, I fucking hate those specially designed Sony memory cards and I think it was a stupid decision to go that route. Definitely killed the system for me until it gets a price drop.

As for Nintendo and their use of backwards compatiblity, I must once again refer to just how little I know about the economic and technical side of this. I'm sure someone with better knowledge of console hardware than me could come up with a point for this discussion, though.

[Revuhlooshun]

Now they're selling PS2 Classics on PSN and busting out a bunch of HD remakes at retail. It's a safe assumption that, if PS2 discs worked on PS3, gamers would be more likely to ignore these releases. Why pay $40 for something you already own? I fully expect them to do a similar thing with PS4.

HD ports look better and often times perform better than the original games. The only real noticeable exception is the Silent Hill HD collection, but that's because the people porting the games thought that they needed to be fixed somehow. I wouldn't call it a safe assumption that people would not buy HD ports if the PS3 could read PS2 discs. Many of the people who own these original games have a PS2 to go with them, or a backwards-compatible PS3. I'm sure that the people who loved Shadow of the Colossus are glad to have a version of the game that isn't plagued with framerate drops, for instance.

Nintendo is a good example of a company that at least tries to east their customers into the next system. The Wii played GameCube discs even though they were an odd shape, not to mention they went out of their way to include GC controller and memory card slots too. With the original DS, they added a GameBoy Advance port. In contrast to that, the Vita doesn't support PSP games and uses completely different (and unique to the Vita) memory cards.

Again, it's very easy to add backwards compatibility to a system when you're just now displaying your games in 720p in 2012. Nintendo puts out some of the least advanced tech in the industry; comparing them to technologies which modern PCs have trouble emulating is not an apt comparison.

but I do know that if they really cared, they would have figured out a solution.

The solution is adding a Cell processor onboard the PS4, thus jacking up the price by $100 and making everyone complain about how expensive the system is. It's either that, or Gaikai.

[Corduroy Turtle]

HD ports look better and often times perform better than the original games. The only real noticeable exception is the Silent Hill HD collection, but that's because the people porting the games thought that they needed to be fixed somehow. I wouldn't call it a safe assumption that people would not buy HD ports if the PS3 could read PS2 discs. Many of the people who own these original games have a PS2 to go with them, or a backwards-compatible PS3. I'm sure that the people who loved Shadow of the Colossus are glad to have a version of the game that isn't plagued with framerate drops, for instance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing the validity of HD ports. Obviously they look better (for the most part) and they give players who missed them the first time around a chance to check them out. There's nothing wrong with having that option.

I was simply questioning Sony's motives for removing backwards compatibility and refusing to bring it back. Why wouldn't you want to support the games from a wildly successful platform? Seeing as they were still selling brand new PlayStation 2's for $99 up until a few months ago, I'm sure they didn't see it as a priority. Plus, I remember reading somewhere a few years back that it only cost around $24 to manufacture a PS2. Why cut off that profitable revenue stream?

Either way, I'm not trying to come off as argumentative; just trying to clarify myself. Backwards compatibility isn't all that important to me personally, but I know it would be a huge convenience for a lot of people. Back when I worked at GameStop, I had many, many customers groan and complain about it's removal.

[Arttemis]

If they created a manufacturing process that created two models, one with a unified cell architecture added in for $100 extra, the other with the same motherboard but no PS3 socket and chip, they would have no added expense than the R&D to implement it. I'd pay as much as $150 extra for both consoles in one box.

[N7]

If they created a manufacturing process that created two models, one with a unified cell architecture added in for $100 extra, the other with the same motherboard but no PS3 socket and chip, they would have no added expense than the R&D to implement it. I'd pay as much as $150 extra for both consoles in one box.

Same here.

[Corduroy Turtle]

Good call, Arttemis.

[Revuhlooshun]

Except creating two models will raise the cost of both of them. Guys, these things don't exist in a vacuum. Following this idea, you now have to produce two different assembly lines, two different motherboards, two different packages, and then divide your retail in space into stocking two different models while also trying to gauge which unit has more demand (which is also not free and requires people going over sales data and internet trends to gauge that demand). What if the backwards compatible models don't sell well, or vice versa? Then what? Now you have leftover stock that you have to sell at a loss, in addition to all of the money that you've spent doing everything that I've just described in order to cater to a very small crowd that wanted a very specific feature. And do not get it twisted: You guys are that very small minority, despite how vocal our little internet crowd is. PS3 slims have sold tremendously well despite the lack of backwards compatibility. The majority has shown that it can live without the feature.

Just sit and think about it for a second: If it is really as easy and profitable as you guys think that it is, why wouldn't Sony have done it? Sony is a business -- it's not going to turn away any money that it thinks that it could make.

[Corduroy Turtle]

Except creating two models will raise the cost of both of them. Guys, these things don't exist in a vacuum. Following this idea, you now have to produce two different assembly lines, two different motherboards, two different packages, and then divide your retail in space into stocking two different models while also trying to gauge which unit has more demand (which is also not free and requires people going over sales data and internet trends to gauge that demand).

The Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and Wii U all run with at least two SKUs at all times. Dividing retail space and gauging demand is something they already do constantly. I realize that the those SKUs may not be severely different but I thought I'd bring it up.

What if the backwards compatible models don't sell well, or vice versa? Then what? Now you have leftover stock that you have to sell at a loss, in addition to all of the money that you've spent doing everything that I've just described in order to cater to a very small crowd that wanted a very specific feature. And do not get it twisted: You guys are that very small minority, despite how vocal our little internet crowd is. PS3 slims have sold tremendously well despite the lack of backwards compatibility. The majority has shown that it can live without the feature.

The original 60GB BC PS3's were highly sought after, especially when they became scarce after production shut down, so I can't say I totally agree. Also, are you suggesting that people would rather re-buy games (either digitally or HD re-release) instead of having backwards compatibility built into the system? If people didn't want to play those older games, Sony wouldn't bother releasing their Classics line or HD ports in the first place.

Just sit and think about it for a second: If it is really as easy and profitable as you guys think that it is, why wouldn't Sony have done it? Sony is a business -- it's not going to turn away any money that it thinks that it could make.

Because it's more profitable to resell these games over and over than to support the physical or digital copies people already own. As you said, they are a business.

[Revuhlooshun]

The Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and Wii U all run with at least two SKUs at all times. Dividing retail space and gauging demand is something they already do constantly. I realize that the those SKUs may not be severely different but I thought I'd bring it up.

And now what happens when you introduce another factor that splits those two SKUs up? We have a 250 GB PS3 and the 500 GB PS3, but those don't have backwards compatibility. Do we make the backwards compatible PS4s carry one standard hard drive size? What if people want to pay less for a smaller hard drive? Do we have a 250GB BC model, a 500GB BC model, a 250GB no-BC model, and a 500GB no-BC model, just to cater to every single vocal minority? Do you see the nightmare that this snowballs into?

The original 60GB BC PS3's were highly sought after, especially when they became scarce after production shut down, so I can't say I totally agree. Also, are you suggesting that people would rather re-buy games (either digitally or HD re-release) instead of having backwards compatibility built into the system? If people didn't want to play those older games, Sony wouldn't bother releasing their Classics line or HD ports in the first place.

I didn't suggest anything. There are people who want to play older games, but I'll get to that in a minute.

Gamers live in a bubble where we think that the people we talk to on the internet and in our personal lives are representative of the consumer as a whole. "All of my hardcore gamer friends wanted a BC PS3, so it must be in high demand." Well that can't be the case if Sony managed to sell more PS3s without the feature than at any point in the PS3's lifetime. You and I are a part of a very vocal and insignificant minority. We all cry about $15 map packs and wonder why companies don't listen to us when we don't buy them -- it's because we don't matter. There are millions of people outside of our little gaming bubble who will buy $15 map packs and $10 online passes, just as there were millions of consumers willing to buy a PS3 without backwards compatibility. The feature is not vital as we think that it is.

Because it's more profitable to resell these games over and over than to support the physical or digital copies people already own. As you said, they are a business.

These HD ports aren't the most profitable things out there. Again, this goes back into the gaming bubble that we mistake for the rest of the world. Do you think the average consumer wants to play an update of some game that he's already played? Do you think the average consumer sits down and says, "Naw, fuck the new shit -- give me that old game!" These HD ports appeal to a very small segment of the consumer. I'm sure that a few of these ports have made decent money, but they're largely fan service for a quick, cheap buck. The time and manpower needed to produce them could be better spent on making new games that are more profitable (which is why most, if not all, HD ports are outsourced to third party companies).

[usedtabe]

Just one thing Rev, I think the PS3's success minus BC was more to do with price drops. Or to put it better, the BC units didn't sell so hot becuase lol $600. IMO. Everything else I DUNNO.

[Revuhlooshun]

And removing the backwards compatibility from the models were a factor in being able to reduce that price (along with a reduction of the costs to produce the other components). As we covered before, the EE chips were not exactly cheap. If backwards compatibility was really a big a deal as we seem to think that it is, I can't imagine the PS3 slim being as successful as it was. Obviously, it's not a breaking point with the average consumer.

We are faced with the same choice today: Either we have more expensive units with backwards compatibility, or cheaper units without it. History has shown us that the cheaper units win out, which is what I'm driving at.

[usedtabe]

Nuh uh. They later admitted cost had nothing to do with removing BC. CHECK AND MATE SON U BEEN BREACHED

[Revuhlooshun]

OH HERE WE GO AGAIN.

[Arttemis]

And now what happens when you introduce another factor that splits those two SKUs up? We have a 250 GB PS3 and the 500 GB PS3, but those don't have backwards compatibility. Do we make the backwards compatible PS4s carry one standard hard drive size? What if people want to pay less for a smaller hard drive? Do we have a 250GB BC model, a 500GB BC model, a 250GB no-BC model, and a 500GB no-BC model, just to cater to every single vocal minority? Do you see the nightmare that this snowballs into?

This is such a menial issue. Just like every piece of hardware with as many or more options than models, the premium model with the higher price gets the premium options. There can be just two SKUs, which is all but guaranteed anyway. The PS3 did this with USB ports and card readers without needing multiple assembly lines. Laptops are done this way, just like printers, TVs, and most electronics.

As for the cost of adding optional hardware to a manufacturing process, it doesn't have to be a remarkable expenditure that couldn't be offset with a per-unit premium. There ABSOLUTELY is no reason to have two manufacturing lines, two motherboards, or even a major alteration to the manufacturing process. Just like most every example of hardware manufacturing, devices are made modularly. The cost of creating PS3 backwards compatibility is incurred at the R&D stage, where an additional daughterboard/expansion card/unified Cell processor socket is designed for implementation in all PS4s, and a then only implemented in select consoles during the same installation stage where the others are installed.

Yes, there would have to be two boxes and divvied shelf space, but that's going to happen anyway.

The PS3 removed hardware BC in favor of software BC and eventually dropped it altogether without ever removing the traces on the motherboard that would support its reinstitution. I'm not familiar with the 'Super Slim' model, but at least every PS3 made prior to it is merely a firmware, socket, and single chip away from playing PS2 games naively.

Also, there's no way the PS2 CPU/GPU used in the PS3 cost as much as $27 when it was removed from the console. That source I linked before was undoubtedly out of date or irrelevant to the unified chip used on the PS3.

Bottom line is it probably won't happen - for no other reasons than to sell the previous gen hardware for maximum profits and avoid hardware sale cannibalisation. Not because it's unfeasible or too costly to be manufactured.

[Revuhlooshun]

This is such a menial issue. Just like every piece of hardware with as many or more options than models, the premium model with the higher price gets the premium options. There can be just two SKUs, which is all but guaranteed anyway.

So what do we do then? Have a smaller hard drive model with no backwards compatibility, and then a larger hard drive model with backwards compatibility? The higher hard drive SKUs are priced at $100 more. If we're going to add backwards compatibility onto it and toss in a Cell and a Reality synthesizer, we're talking at least another $100+ tacked on. Do we want another $600+ PlayStation unit? That didn't seem to work last time. Why put out such a bloated piece of hardware when you know most people don't want it and will easily buy a unit without it? And why make a unit like that when they can just stream PS3 games onto the system as it is? Let the user put the disc in, and bam, they can play their game again through Gaikai. We're talking about this issue right now as if the PS4 has no backwards compatibility whatsoever.

It just makes no financial sense to go this route when there's a better one available.

Also, there's no way the PS2 CPU/GPU used in the PS3 cost as much as $27 when it was removed from the console. That source I linked before was undoubtedly out of date or irrelevant to the unified chip used on the PS3.

There's nothing to prove your assumption though. That's all conjecture on your part vs the documentation you yourself linked.

[usedtabe]

Sounds like a whole lot of REV GETTING BREACHED in here. And I used to think you were a master debater.

[Revuhlooshun]

This dude right here. Give me your face. I'll show you a master debater.

[usedtabe]

<3 <3

[Arttemis]

Hot damn, why are we hung up on the premium surcharge from the hard drive? Why would the increased hdd premium remain $100 in this scenario? The 100GB larger hard drive cost differential is under $10 to a company like Sony.

[Revuhlooshun]

Dude, the higher hard drive SKUs are always $100 more. It doesn't matter if it only costs them $10. Shit, Nintendo launched a 8 gig Wii U and a 32 gig Wii U, and they charged $150 for it -- I damn well know that a 32 gig flash card does not cost $150 to make, even with their crappy little Nintendoland and the extra cradles that cost them 4 cents!

These are businesses, not charities -- they will mark up the costs as much as they can to make back money. If they're willing to mark up a $10 hard drive or a 32 gig flash card by $100, I can't wait to see how high Sony will mark up a Cell processor and a Reality synthesizer. Just citing the costs of these things misses the other factors that go into selling a console, like labor and advertising, and the fact that they're doing all of this to make a profit on top of those other costs that they have to make back.