When I got the XSX recently, it was so I can play Starfield when it comes out. That was basically the only reason. I did not realize the extensive backwards compatibility that this thing has. But since getting it, I’ve been playing FF13 trilogy, Fable games, Dragon Age series, Lost Odyssey, etc. Basically all games of note going all the way back to the OG Xbox will play on the latest console. Either with the original disc, or you can even purchase them online.

The point of my post is I think it’s a real travesty that PlayStation doesn’t do this. I don’t understand it. First of all, you cannot buy most PS1-PS3 games on the digital store. You can’t use the discs. The main way to get access to these games is through the top tier of PS+. But the selection is quite limited, and PS3 games in particular are streaming only.

With the selection, I want to point out that you can’t even play most of the Killzone series on PS+. This is a first party title. There is absolutely no reason that Killzone shouldn’t be available. Killzone 1 isn’t even on there. A PS2 title that is not graphically demanding.

As for the streaming of PS3 games, maybe this was justifiable back on the PS4 because the PS3 has a unique architecture that can be difficult to emulate without performance drops. But with the capabilities of the PS5, it’s not credible to claim that it can’t emulate a PS3. It certainly could, if Sony wanted to assign resources to make an emulator.

I am not a fanboy of one or the other, and I probably still play more on the PS5 than my Xbox, but I think Microsoft should market their backwards compatibility superiority a lot more than they currently do.

  • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    The hardware architecture on the PS2 and PS3 was so radically different, it effectively makes emulation impossible.

    The change made in the PS4 and PS5 makes the transfer of those games relatively trivial, but attempting the replicate the now abandoned Core processor of the PS3 is the hold up there, as is the PS2 Emotion Engine.

    The reason the PS3 was so expensive was including PS2 hardware to handle the backwards compatibility. They weren’t going to repeat that mistake with the 4 and 5.

    Meanwhile, on the Xbox side, Microsoft never had that problem.

    • TheFloydist@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Software emulation is very much possible. There is software for x86 and even ARM processors that emulate PS1, PS2(doesn’t work great on ARM I many cases) and PS3 (x86 only currently)which work well enough. If Sony cared to they could develop their own software emulation layer to run on PS5 to run just about everything from the previous generation.

      Also Microsoft had similar issues in hardware emulation because, while the original Xbox and the Xbox one were on x86, the 360 was a Power PC architecture similar in some ways to the PS3 which ran Power PC with other proprietary coprocessors. They had to develop a Power PC emulator in software to run 360 games on the Xbox one.

      • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        A first party solution can’t work “well enough”, it just has to work.

        PS1 emulation at this point should be trivial, 2 and 3 is not. The first time someone puts a disc in and it doesn’t work would be worse for them than not having it at all.

        I think the thing holding back PS1 emulation is that once they open that door, everyone will go “What about 2 and 3?”

        • LeylaLove@lemmy.fmhy.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          PS1 emulation is a breeze, but with current hardware in the PS5, I think a PS2 emulator on the platform wouldn’t be too insane. But yeah, PS3 emulation? Not happening.

          I think you’re wrong on the disc not working thing though. The original Xbox was only half supported for a long time.

          • upstream@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think the problem with emulating a PS1 is “don’t meet (play) your heroes”.

            Most of us played PS1 on dinky little CRT screens before we got used to the graphical fidelity we have these days.

            Playing PS1 games on your 65" OLED will probably hurt your eyes.

            It’s one of those things that you want to do because of nostalgia, but isn’t really great when it comes to it.

            Besides, at the end of the day Sony is selling every PS5 they make, just like they did with the PS4 and PS3.

            Adding backwards compatibility doesn’t make any financial sense as long as it’s not a killer feature that shifts sales towards Microsoft then Sony has little insensitive to do it.

            They much prefer you buy those new AAA titles or subscribe to PS+.

            • d3Xt3r@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Playing PS1 games on your 65" OLED will probably hurt your eyes. It’s one of those things that you want to do because of nostalgia, but isn’t really great when it comes to it.

              That really depends on the game and upscaling methods used. Duckstation for instance does a pretty amazing job of making most of those old games look good. Check out this video of Crash Bandicoot running at 4K for instance.

              • ampersandrew@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I actually go the opposite direction and add CRT/scanline filters, especially since a lot of sprite work back in the day was built to be viewed that way. Those games look much better on CRTs with scanlines than they do in crystal clear integer upscaling.

                • Carlos Solís@social.azkware.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  That, or a *decent* upscaling algorithm such as xBRZ. Old upscalers like Super 2x SAI made pixel art look like a cheap watercolor, and made later upscalers get a bad fame. Nowadays a good upscaler basically turns the game screen into a vectorized set of lines, and it looks much better, closer to what the pixel artists intended the end result to look like on a big screen.

              • upstream@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I meant without upscaling.

                Upscaling works well on some titles, others less.

                Sony, obviously, wouldn’t want old titles competing with new titles, so can’t make them too shiny.

            • Thrashy@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Honestly, I remember playing full 3D titles on friends’ PS1s back in the day and thinking they’d given me eye cancer, even with the fuzz of an old CRT TV working in their favor. I don’t think I would want to play them now without a boatload of emulator graphic enhancements to deal with all the wonky 3D projection and unfiltered low-res texture mess of OG PlayStation games.

            • LeylaLove@lemmy.fmhy.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m 22. I grew up playing my PS1 on with an upscaler on the 55 inch Vizio in the front room. I like the PS1 art style quite a bit and think that a good upscale and maybe a filter is all you need to make things look how I want.

              Idk, I think it would make a difference in the Microsoft v Sony sales. Nintendo doing the N64 and NES eShop have been massively successful. Xbox doesn’t really have any killer apps, they’ve really just had Sony beaten on software features the past two generations. Sony implementing the software features that Nintendo and Microsoft offer would make a decent difference.

              Plus, imagine how well a “play your childhood discs on your xplaytendo switchtion” would work in an ad campaign. Getting people to pull out their childhood game collection would make for a great viral campaign for gamers as well.

              Idk, the thing about the internet that I don’t think older people have realized is that it creates an even larger freeze in culture than ever before. If you started gaming in the 90s, you likely heard about older games via word of mouth and got your games at a physical store. There were no minor celebrities that would turn a cult classic into an actual classic. Nowadays? Old media is fully capable of wiping out new media in the right circumstances. Songs like “Dreams” by Fleetwood Mac and some Pink Floyd (if I remember correctly) have taken #1 Billboard spots in the past 2-3 years. LSD Dream Emulator went from a game nobody played to a PlayStation classic because of some YouTube videos. We’re in an age where there is an extremely high demand for old media and no way to access most of it without piracy. There is a TON of money to be made by charging money for emulation and moving things to new consoles.

              Mark my words, Skyrim will come out on the next generation Xbox, because Bethesda understands that accessibility is good enough to charge for.

              • upstream@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m 36, not feeling the nostalgia, but then again I was always a PC gamer and never really had to struggle with the lack of support for old games.

                I’ve played old games on newer hardware all the time over the years.

                The most common realization is that the games were simpler and looked worse than you remembered.

                Games also hold up better on PC, PS1 graphics was severely limited, and PS2 was a bit better, sure, but PC graphics were ahead of consoles.

                PS3 and Xbox360 finally got to a level where the PC vs. console graphics playing-field seemed more even, and since then console graphics have been properly good in terms of value for money.

                I paid more for my 3070Ti than my Series X, but I can’t really tell the difference without spending a lot of time optimizing the settings (or maybe I just need to break out other titles?).

                The huge difference is that I can play any of the games I’ve bought over the years, plus most of the ones I acquired in my teenage years - if I wanted to.

                Yet - what do I play? Surprise surprise - it’s not the games of yesteryear.

                Obviously I’m just one data point, but considering how many gamers I surround myself with and I can’t recall when any of them wanted to play games from the 90’s that weren’t readily available console classics from Nintendo or Sega I’m not convinced it would make a huge difference if the classic games were available.

                Maybe they’d sell more consoles, but people just don’t want to pay AAA money for 25-30 year old games. And it’s the games that make them money, not the consoles.

                Skyrim is a game that probably deserves to be mentioned along Pink Floyd and Fleetwood Mac.

                But in general comparing games and music is not that simple. Music production and recording has had high fidelity for ages. But pick up a worn cassette and put in an old tape deck and you might feel a bit what playing those old games feel like.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Only if you dramatically lower your standards for what backwards compatibility means. PS3 emulators might be progressing, but they’re far from the native hardware in actual functionality, especially with games that actually used the features of the hardware that made the PS3 a powerhouse.

        Emulators can wave that away as “it is what it is”. Sony advertising backwards compatibility couldn’t.

      • somegadgetguy@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’re almost at that point. PS3 emulation on the Steam Deck is ALMOST there. Another generation of hardware improvements should push us over the edge. Then it would be up to Sony to decide “hey, we want to make money on the titles we can license and put back in an online store…”