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.

  • dark_stang@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sony changed their CPU architecture every time until PS4/5. The only reason some PS3s could play PS2 games is because they had also had PS2 hardware in them. Xbox has been x86 the whole time.

    • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The 360 is IBM power pc based.

      The simple answer is that microsoft is a far more advanced company in terms of programming an OS, the gap shows when you compare console securities, where virtually every nintendo or sony device had software vulnerabilities, while microsoft consoles tended to need to be hardmodded

      • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        As someone who programmed drivers for nt, it’s not, the reason it’s easier is because they started later.

        Xbox is a mature x86 windows platform, vs ps1 which is an embedded mips system.

        They started with their windows directx stack and just kept with it, while ps did a random walk all over the place.

        Msft also had really boring hardware, like, they started with a crappy pc, then made a crappy ppc pc, then went back to a crappy pc. The software was simplistic, while Sony made really interesting hardware designs, that turned out to be hard to program, till the ps4 when they just gave up.

        Msft traditionally isn’t very good at operating systems, they’ve just had infinite resources and infinite monkeys for 40+ years, and they’ve been stubborn enough to make it work somehow.

        • Dudewitbow@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It doesnt say anything about modern consoles though. Although its dofferent at the start, their modern consoles are still effectively full of exploits. Hell VERY recently, “backup” PS4 titles are running on the PS5. Security is the main reason why BOTH the PS5 and the Nintendo Switch do not have easily accessible web browsers while Microsoft can.

        • Zo0@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would argue they had to give it up to get the indie scene onboard as I heard many nightmare stories for indies from PS3 era. Was it worth it? I’m sure contributed a great deal to the success of PS4 but it made the PS into just a more affordable gaming PC.

          • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Totally worth it, they spent unimaginable resources trying to make those architectures programmable, now that’s all almost free, they just compete for published titles and maybe some secondary features.

            MSFT was in a better position because they didn’t need to spend those resources, and more importantly the devs didn’t either, they could write windows games then port them over easily. Now it’s just as easy to do that for ps4/5. All that matters is nailing exclusives and looking cool, plus some marketing which msft sucks at.

            • Zo0@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s too early to decide if it was. Yes it was the safest bet, Even though PS4 had a great deal of success you also need to keep in mind, a lot of it was because of politics. Nintendo and MS made huge mistakes at that time and Sony basically ate their lunch.

              The older generations were always innovative and pushed the envelop as far as possible, but now PS just a gaming PC that is not upgradable like an actual PC. if you don’t recall, the most hyped thing about PS5 was the controller, which is not what you expect the main point of buying a new consol to be.

              On the topic of exclusives, I personally hate them. I think it makes a false sense of value in modern consoles where in the past they were intentionally made to take advantage of the architecture to showcase the unique quirks (and ofc the power) of this machine in a tiny box. Now they are usually just political leverages even though the games can be ported to other platforms.

              So to reiterate, I agree it definitely had positive net for Sony in the short run, we’ll have to wait and see if it will payout in the long run.

              • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Exclusives are terrible for the customer, but they’re a way for corporate to control the market, which is a good for them.

                We’ll see, but I was on the dev side of that nightmare, Sony would have gotten crushed the next gen, they barely made it out of ps3 with their extended developers in tact, nobody liked programming the cell, everybody loves the current system.

                But it does reduce competitive surface area, so we’ll see. Nintendo is winning now because they didn’t follow the same path but they did innovate, more than almost anyone before.

                My question is: What innovation do you see that could have been worth a unique architecture to Sony’s developers?

                • Zo0@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I agree with your sentiment, after all what is a game console without games.

                  What I want isn’t necessarily a unique architechture, rather I want a unique experience. I think looking at Smartphone landscape expresses my concerns much clearer. All phones today are basically just reskins of same phone in design, purpose and architechture. Sure there are some novelty phones with smaller audiences for the sake of novelty but what makes you choose a phone over the other is just marketing at this point. I’m afraid that’s where we’re headed with consoles. The difference is the home consoles are replaceable.

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

        Oh I forgot about the xenon chips. Those are still much easier to emulate I think, at least compare to the cell and emotion chips Sony used early on.

    • kbity@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Xbox 360 was based on the same weird, in-order PowerPC 970 derived CPU as the PS3, it just had three of them stuck together instead of one of them tied to seven weird Cell units. The TL;DR of how Xbox backwards compatibility has been achieved is that Microsoft’s whole approach with the Xbox has always been to create a PC-like environment which makes porting games to or from the Xbox simpler.

      The real star of the show here is the Windows NT kernel and DirectX. Microsoft’s core APIs have been designed to be portable and platform-agnostic since the beginning of the NT days (of course, that isn’t necessarily true of the rest of the Windows operating system we use on our PCs). Developers could still program their games mostly as though they were targeting a Windows PC using DirectX since all the same high-level APIs worked in basically the same way, just with less memory and some platform-specific optimisations to keep in mind (stuff like the 10MB of eDRAM, or that you could always assume three 3.2GHz in-order CPU cores with 2-way SMT).

      Xbox 360 games on the Xbox One seem to be run through something akin to Dolphin’s “Übershaders” - in this case, per-game optimised modifications of an entire Xenon GPU stack implemented in software running alongside the entire Xbox 360 operating environment in a hypervisor. This is aided by the integration of hardware-level support for certain texture and audio formats common in Xbox 360 games into the Xbox One’s CPU design, similarly to how Apple’s M-series SoCs integrate support for x86-style memory ordering to greatly accelerate Rosetta 2.

      Microsoft’s APIs for developers to target tend to be fairly platform-agnostic - see Windows CE, which could run on anything from ARM handhelds to the Hitachi SH-4 powered Sega Dreamcast. This enables developers who are mostly experienced in coding for x86 PCs running Windows to relatively easily start writing programs (or games) for other platforms using those APIs. This also has the beneficial side-effect of allowing Microsoft to, with their collective first-hand knowledge of those APIs, create compatibility layers on an x86 system that can run code targeted at a different platform.

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

        The PowerPC cores aren’t the problem, emulating that is pretty straightforward. It’s the many SPUs that present a huge headache to emulate in a performant manner.

        And yeah, MS building everything on Windows and DirectX also makes things considerably easier.

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

          Funnily enough, one of the few legitimately impactful non-enterprise uses of AVX512 I’m aware of is that it does a really good job of accelerating emulation of the Cell SPUs in RPCS3. But you’re absolutely right, those things are very funky and implementing their functions is by far the most difficult part of PS3 emulation.

          Luckily, I think most games either didn’t do much with them or left programming for them to middleware, so it would mostly be first- and second-party games that would need super-extensive customisation and testing. Sony could probably figure it out, if they were convinced there was sufficient demand and potential profit on the other side.

    • Ghostalmedia@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      As other noted, this is not true. The early 360 development kits were literally PowerMac towers purchased from Apple.

      360 games require emulation, and MS has been slowing plugging away at expanding its emulation library for years. None of this was easy.

    • Admetus
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I heard that the Xbox is basically like a PC (since Microsoft is so adept at this), so backwards compatibility is natural. But what you said about x86 architecture is interesting.

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

        The original Xbox, Xbox One, and S/X are all basically x86 PCs, but the 360 was basically a Power Mac. Microsoft was literally using PowerMac G5 towers as early development kits for the 360.

        Supporting 360 games is pretty time consuming and requires emulation. MS has been slowly chipping away at it for years.

  • Ghostalmedia@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lots of weird incorrect answers in the comments. MS 100% has changed CPU architectures and needs to emulate old games. The 360 was basically a PowerMac.

    My guess - the Xbox One’s launch catalog was trash, and MS doubled down on emulation to build it out. Then they never stopped. They kept plugging away at it, and now they have a giant asset for GamePass.

    MS got a head start because they were desperate for good games in the early days on the One.f

  • 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…”

  • UrLogicFails@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Xbox’s Backwards Compatibility is definitely a big deal; but as someone who loves old games as a concept and has never thrown out a console, it’s not as big a selling point as you would think/ hope.

    I personally wanted to try some of the PS2/PS3 only games and didn’t have a PS3, so I bought one used a while back. I probably only logged maybe 10 hours in it before getting completely side tracked by my backlog of modern games. And while I know that’s anecdotal evidence, it really seems like the allure of classic games might not be enough of a selling point.

    This is something I think Xbox had the right idea about. While BC is very useful in concept, there aren’t so many classic games that would draw people away from modern games; so you only have to support those few games.

    With that in mind, I think Sony could offer BC for their relevant PS2/ PS3 exclusives since they would only need to guarantee emulator performance for a much smaller number of games. I don’t think it’s likely for Sony to do this until they are no longer the dominant console, though, as they can make more money selling their PS3 subscription service.

    From a game presentation standpoint, BC is a huge issue and I would personally love to see it happen for the PS5 (and I’d like to see it expanded to all games for the Xbox as well); but I doubt there would be much return on investment for developing the BC features, and that’s the only motivation for corporations.

    • Omegamanthethird@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re absolutely right. However I will add to your initial point. If I could have paid an extra $100 - $150 (for the hardware) in order to have PS1-PS3 games play on my PS5, I would have just so I could have it as an option. Bonus points if the entire PS3 digital library (especially the PS1 classics) were still available.

      • JCPhoenix@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Not the original commenter, but I did pay the extra $100-150 for the PS3 for backwards compatibility. In retrospect, I shouldn’t have. I played maybe like 3 PS2 games on it. I was far more interested in then current-gen games. I sorta got swept up in the hype of BC back in the day, especially when Sony stopped production of BC PS3s. I literally ran out and got one before they all disappeared; I still have it.

        Looking back, the option wasn’t worth it. But we’re different people, different consumers. Our needs and wants differ.

  • SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s because backward compatibility would cannibalize the sales on new games. Same reason Nintendo limits releases of old games. If you have an extensive back catalog of games, then new games are less appealing.

    • Ghostalmedia@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or you do what MS does. Put the old games in your subscription service. Make money with monthly fees from people who don’t have the disks or don’t have an optical drive.

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

        Part of the issue with buying an x-box is that there’s a limited catalog of games and very few exclusives. MS has to offer something more than just new games. PlayStation is the dominant gaming platform globally and has been for a long time. They want people buying new games at $70/ea. They don’t have to incentivise people to come to their platform as much.

  • MoxFcCloud@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    The simplest and most likely reason is just because they don’t have to. Playstation is leading Xbox by a lot this generation (so far, things can change) and PlayStation just has no incentive to add value to something they’re already selling record numbers of. Xbox is trying to attract customers, customer playstation has left on the cutting room floor, and backwards compatibility is a way to do that.

    • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not to mention the closer you get to modern day, the more games rely on company servers to remain running. Long gone are the days of simple platformers like Super Mario Bros. Many games made in the last 15 years are multi-player games with a basic ass single player added on for ‘compliance’ reasons. It’d still be great for those that want it, but I don’t feel like I’m missing out on much that I can’t replicate myself with ROMs and emulators should the need arise.

  • loops@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is part of the reason why I haven’t thought of buying a console since the PS3. There are a lot of games that were made for the ps2/1 that I really loved and I can probably never play them again because PlayStations lack that feature. They have effectively been erased, which is really sad.

    I sold my PS3 a long time ago, and I’ve been using Steam on my PC since then. Now I won’t have to worry about losing access to titles I bought just because they’re locked to certain hardware that will eventually not be made any more.

    • NightOwl@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What I’ve liked best is that the settings menus makes it so that the game can scale with your hardware. So if you have the capable hardware you aren’t left waiting a decade for a remaster release and nextgen console release to play with some settings turned up.

  • almar_quigley@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    lol, I’d rather have the first party modern bangers Sony’s pumping out then…checks notes…literally no good first party games on my xsx since I bought it. Backwards compatibility is great, but I don’t spend $600+ on a console to play old games. I can keep my old consoles around for that or emulate.

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

        I have all there of those on my PC/Steam Deck. They’re not really XBox exclusives.

          • prole@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wasn’t being disingenuous… I can and have played all of those games and I have never owned an XBox in my life. That’s not exclusive.

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

      Yeah. I also have a Steam Deck, if I want to play an old PS1 or PS2 game and it isn’t on PS+ then I’ll just emulate it.

      I will say though, there are a few PS3 games that have yet to be remastered that are kind of a blind spot, but that list is getting shorter.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Pretty sure the PS5 drive can’t actually read CDs, so that’s the PS1 library and most early PS2 games gone right way, even though they can be emulated pretty easily. The PS3 should be possible, but they haven’t bothered when you can play it streaming.

    I guess the awkward truth here is that there’s no real business need to have it. Most of us into retro games will have a way to play them already, either via PC emulation or old consoles. And if you show a Gen Z kid some of the horrors we used to enjoy on PS1 (although I maintain Sheep, Dog ‘n’ Wolf is an underrated classic), they’d run screaming back to Fortnite and CoD.

    It would be nice to have it, but nobody is not buying a PS5 because they can’t run Terracon. They’re still selling them as fast as they can make them, even with the economy in shambles.

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

      I remember when Sony announced they were stopping production on backward compatible PS3s. I ran out and got one, because I still had PS2 games I wanted to finish. The BC PS3s were more expensive than their non-BC counterparts. And the PS3 was already an expensive machine.

      I think I played 2 or 3 PS2 games on it. And never with consistency. Plus, these older games looked terrible on modern HD screens. And frankly, I was more interested in playing current gen titles. For example, I got a PS5 so I could play FF16. Not so I could keep playing FF15 or FF13. It really ended up being a real waste of money to buy that more expensive PS3.

      And many of the games eventually re-released on other platforms: PSP/Vita, Steam, Switch, later-gen consoles, etc. I play a lot of JRPGs, so that helps.

      Backwards compatibility is something I really don’t care about. It’d be nice, I guess. But I still have my PS3 and PS4. If there’s something I really want to play, I can boot those up. Or just see if the game is available on Steam.

  • BigTrout75@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    A while back I bought Metal Slug 3 on the ps4 for super cheap on sale. It was just the ps2 version emulated. So Sony has a PS2 emulator

    • tombuben@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re perfectly capable of running old games, they proved it times and times again. They just don’t want them to be backwards compatible so you have to buy them again.

  • Uprise42@artemis.camp
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are rumors of the Switch getting a successor next year. My biggest wish is for it to be compatible with the current games, included digital purchases. Honestly, if I can import my digital library and saves I’m already sold on a switch successor

  • Zo0@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wish that was true, there are so many games I would go back and play again. PS3 was a technical marvel for it’s time, however using it was so complicated that we only got to see it’s true potential by the end of it’s lifecycle with games like TLOU. So just speaking of raw power, PS5 could %100 not emulate PS3 games flawlessly as we barely have PS3 emulation on PCs. Technical part aside, it just doesn’t make business sense for Sony to invest in it. You also have to keep in mind if Sony offers PS3 emulation, it can’t stutter or crash on some games. it needs to be a commercial grade product which is not even guaranteed with PS2 or NES emulation on PC

    • NightOwl@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve played lot of games on the PC without issue like lollipop chainsaw, asura’s wrath, drakengard 3, and shadows of the damned without issue at 4k/60. Was really surprising to me, but rpcs3 has made great strides and if a game has been marked playable it’s been a fantastic experience. And that’s with someone unaffiliated with Sony making it possible. Seeing what Xbox accomplished with Xbox One when it came to 360 compatability it wouldn’t surprise me if Sony did better than what RPCS3 did.

      There’s some notable attention given the games that don’t emulate well like MGS4 and red dead with it coming across as buggy, but lot of other titles do run really well as if they were official remastered ports.

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

        This is what I am saying. They don’t have to offer the whole back catalog. But they can at least try and offer what is currently working in emulation.