# Why Are the New Systems Not Backwards Compatible?



## DemonDragonJ (Dec 8, 2013)

So, the Playstation 4 and the Xbox One are now available for purchase, which is great, but I have heard that they are not backwards-compatible with their earlier incarnations, which I find to be both odd and displeasing.

Why would the manufacturers of the new systems not make them backwards-compatible? Do they simply expect the players to give up their older systems when they purchase the new systems? What if a player wishes to continue playing their old games after purchasing a new system? Will they need to keep the older system to play the older games? Surely, it cannot be that difficult or expensive to make a system backwards compatible, and doing so would also be a way to ensure that one's customers remain with you? If I were a manufacturer of a video game console, I would definitely wish to retain customers, and having my consoles be backwards compatible would be an excellent way to ensure that, in my mind.

What does everyone else say? Why are the newest systems not backwards-compatible with their earlier incarnations? Why do you believe that the companies made this decision?


----------



## Canute87 (Dec 8, 2013)

Something to do with architecture. Inu-san is the best person to explain that stuff.

If the xboxone implemented that instead of kinect it probably would have been worth the extra $100 tag over the PS but oh well.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 8, 2013)

DemonDragonJ said:


> So, the Playstation 4 and the Xbox One are now available for purchase, which is great, but I have heard that they are not backwards-compatible with their earlier incarnations, which I find to be both odd and displeasing.
> 
> Why would the manufacturers of the new systems not make them backwards-compatible? *Do they simply expect the players to give up their older systems when they purchase the new systems?* What if a player wishes to continue playing their old games after purchasing a new system? Will they need to keep the older system to play the older games? Surely, it cannot be that difficult or expensive to make a system backwards compatible, and doing so would also be a way to ensure that one's customers remain with you? If I were a manufacturer of a video game console, I would definitely wish to retain customers, and having my consoles be backwards compatible would be an excellent way to ensure that, in my mind.
> 
> What does everyone else say? Why are the newest systems not backwards-compatible with their earlier incarnations? Why do you believe that the companies made this decision?


It would be the opposite actually.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Dec 8, 2013)

Because fuck you that's why.


----------



## Linkofone (Dec 8, 2013)

Something about making money.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Dec 8, 2013)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> Because fuck you that's why.



Are you saying that the console makers do not care about their customers?


----------



## Shirker (Dec 8, 2013)

Inu can explain it in a way that isn't a laced with copious amounts of bitter.

Until then though, the abridged version is "emulating games that ran on old hardware on new hardware is difficult and gets difficulter each generation". There's also the fact that it was never really stats quo to begin with.


----------



## Buskuv (Dec 8, 2013)

Got beaten to it, but it is the architecture of the old system.  They're not one in the same, so in order for the PS4 to play PS3 games, they'd have to pay to have the PS3's hardware and software running alongside the PS4, and that's expensive, not to mention unnecessary for a lot of people, who will buy the system if it is backwards compatible or not--which is most people.

Basically, it's expensive and, despite all the whining you hear about it, not really a deal breaker for 99% of the people interested in buying one.

It's the reason you got about 3 months of Backards Compatible PS3 production before that was scrapped--and don't let people tell you it was entirely Sony wanting to shuffle out a bunch of HD collections.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 8, 2013)

They want to force you to buy the rights to a digital copy from their store.

I ain't worried.  I have a playstation, a ps2, ps3, and a ps4.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 8, 2013)

^ that too.  you can download PS3, PS2 and PSX games, so there is really no reason for them to make their consoles backward compatible - in practice you can still play many older games via digital dload.


----------



## bigduo209 (Dec 9, 2013)

A PS3 works differently from a PS4, so games designed for the former won't work on the latter console. That's what people mean by different architecture of the consoles, same thing applies to the Xbox 360 and Xbox One as well.

Previous consoles like the early PS3 and Wii systems used pieces/parts of their predecessors' hardware to play PS2 and GameCube games. The 360 used software emulation to the original Xbox with limited success.

Doing BC through hardware is expensive because adding those parts into new consoles would increase the price, and doing something through software methods would be inconsistent and broken to a limited number of games you can play. Both Microsoft and Sony mostly have given up on doing BC. Sony will try to bring back BC through cloud gaming with Gaikai, but it would be a bonus option as an always-online system depending a good internet connection.

Will it limit how many people buy a PS4 or XB1? Initially it will, the only people buying it now are gaming enthusiasts and people who don't care about spending money on the next big thing. Not being able to play previous-gen games insures plenty others will wait until the PS4/XB1 is cheaper and there's a wider variety of games to choose from.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 9, 2013)

Drunkenwhale said:


> The only problem with that is you have to pay for the games again.
> 
> I see no reason they can't figure out a way to emulate the hardware of the previous generation and make it cost effective.



Because they're not strong enough. Emulation requires a lot of power, that is why people still have problems emulating PS2 games on their computers (albeit this is more the quality of the rom/emulator at this point), and why PS3/360 emulation is in its primitive stages despite PCs being far stronger.

The reason they're able to get away with it before is because they were able to add some of the same hardware that they used to run on previous consoles, this likely wasn't considered cost efficient though.


----------



## cnorwood (Dec 9, 2013)

IIRC most consoles released werent backwards compatable


----------



## Xiammes (Dec 9, 2013)

cnorwood said:


> IIRC most consoles released werent backwards compatable



Things that are not backwards comparability.

SNES(unless you count Super Gameboy, and unofficial hardware)
Sega Saturn
N64
Dream Cast
Gamecube


Backwards compatibility was never a thing, till Sony did it with all their consoles.


----------



## Joakim Mogren (Dec 9, 2013)

Because each new generation is progressively more complex and harder to emulate both power and computing wise.

PS1 and PS2 architecture is relatively simple, it doesn't have to produce realistic real-time lighting, shaders, HD textures, physics, etc., like PS3.

To have a PS3 backwards compatibility you'd have to basically stuff PSV inside PS4 and have it all working together flawlessly, which just doesn't have space for that in it's already crammed with high-techs insides.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 9, 2013)

Basically, they went with brand new architectures. 360 used PowerPC CPU which is not compatible with x86, and PS3 obviously had the Cell CPU, which straight up just can't be emulated by any hardware configuration at this point in time. Also, the PS3 used the RSX GPU chip, which is a custom Nvidia chip and would not play nice with their AMD APU.

In short; if Sony and Microsoft ever wanted to release consoles that were lowered powered, more energy efficient, and would not lose them money hand over fist for the first 5 years, they had to drop their existing internal components and start over. And that means no HW BC under any circumstances.

Luckily, Sony has Gaikai, as well as ways of rewriting their PS1 and PS2 emulation software. So we can probably count on software BC for PS1 and PS2 titles in the future, along with Gaikai for quick streaming of PS3 games. I don't know why MS doesn't recode their old OG Xbox software emulator. It was the way i could play NGB without having to pull out my old ass OG Xbox.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 9, 2013)

And just to route a possible "well wii u did it nyaa" i see sometimes, the Wii's components are literally *nothing* compared to 360 and especially PS3's internal components. They cost literally nothing to manufacture, and the Wii's actual performance output is beaten by even many cellphones of today. All Nintendo had to do was literally put a Wii inside of their Wii U, and i can tell you that planning that implementation was probably less than 1% of their R&D cost for the Wii U.


----------



## Yagami1211 (Dec 9, 2013)

It's about the processor architecture. PS3 were Cell CPU, PS4 are x86/x64.

In that case you need the source code to re compilate the game from scratch. Cause Cell CPU and Power PC type CPU and x86/x64 are not compatible with each other.

Sony choosed x86/x64 proccessors because most of the devs are aready familiare with thoses.

Sony wanted to use Cell CPU again for ps4 but devs got angry and asked for more dev friendly CPU's.

And it's almost the same with Xbox360 and PowerPC.

Since retrocompatibility can't be done we could have emulation, but ps4 is not nearly powerful enough to emulate ps3, because most of the CPU would go to translate the language in real time.

imagine PS3 using English and PS4 using spanish. an emulator would need to translate the data all the time in a language the ps4 can understand. Which take a LOT of CPU and Ram.

In Computers, PowerPC's are used on MACs. ( Which is the reason why the devs got angry in the 1st place, none of them were used to MAC's type CPU's. It took a long time to get used )
And x86/x64 are used on ... well ... PC's


----------



## slickcat (Dec 9, 2013)

to sell the old consoles and keep them relevant


----------



## Buskuv (Dec 9, 2013)

Guys, is it about the architecture?


----------



## Naruto (Dec 9, 2013)

Canute87 said:


> Something to do with architecture.



Correct. Chipsets change and so you're looking at emulation for backwards compatibility, which requires raw power that a single generation's worth of an upgrade doesn't provide (these days anyway).

*edit:* Read the whole thread, chuckled.


----------



## bigduo209 (Dec 9, 2013)

Dr. Boskov Krevorkian said:


> Guys, is it about the architecture?



*LOL!* Yeah I think we need to ease up about the architecture stuff. Is it all true? Of course it is, but to the majority of people it won't matter in the layman's sense of things.


You literally have a lot of people still investing money on the PS3 and 360 from a downloadable/physical gaming standpoint, those people aren't going to budge anytime soon if they know their previous gaming purchases aren't compatible with their much more expensive successor.


Pay 400 to 500 bucks for a similar functioning non-BC console? The dedicated gamers are willing to pay that premium and _then_ wait for the games to come, not so much for anyone else who wants to play those justifiably amazing games bundled with their console for the same price.


Most people are willing to catch up on older (now much cheaper) games they've missed out on this generation, they'll bite on the PS4 when it's around $350 or $300. That's $50 or $100 that can go to buying games on sell, or extra cash to put down on a PS+ subscription.


Being economical pays and saves big.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Dec 9, 2013)

Yagami1211 said:


> It's about the processor architecture. PS3 were Cell CPU, PS4 are x86/x64.
> 
> In that case you need the source code to re compilate the game from scratch. Cause Cell CPU and Power PC type CPU and x86/x64 are not compatible with each other.
> 
> ...




Cerny had already been looking into x86 when they started looking into making the PS4. It was done in mind with developers of course, but it wasn't because they "got angry" at the suggestion of using Cell again. They were already angry at having to learn the PS3 architecture to begin with  Cerny said that the Cell was just another one of their options they could have gone with PS4. He actually said that they could have looked into making it much easier to use, which would have been an interesting choice if they had upgraded the Cell's power and architecture and used it in combination with the same GPU they have now. Would have probably blown the Jaguar processor's out of the water.

Cerny's hypothetical system was something like


Upgraded Cell with AMD 1.84 tflop GPU and 128 bit bus GDDR5 @80gb per second with a 64mb cache of 1.1tb per second edRAM....mmm very interesting.


----------



## Missing_Nin (Dec 10, 2013)

cause $$$  make more money, it costs less, etc.


----------



## Deathbringerpt (Dec 11, 2013)

Something, something, more money.


----------

