It is more due to the fact that we didn't truly have backwards compatibility this generation when they promised it both microsoft and sony. Why should we expect it a generation later? Many will keep their past consoles depending on what games they still value. I wish they would transfer services and come out with a way to download your ps3, ps2, ps1 disc catalog.

I really hope Gaikai and Sony can find a way to do B/C between PS3 to PS4, that doesn't involve having the customers pay again for the title they already have and just want the ease of playing it on one system, instead of having to have both systems always hooked up.

I understand Gaikai are working primarily on cloud gaming and PS Cloud, and B/C won't be a feature when the PS4 launches. But maybe come E3 2014 and around Holiday 2014, Sony can announce a B/C program/cloud-utility, where you insert your PS3 disc into the PS4, and the data gets sent to the cloud and back again to be playable on the PS4.

I want to play new games. If backwards compatibility was a real, important issue (and not just something for boring people to constantly complain about), I'd have taken the issue up years ago with Nintendo over my Super Nintendo not being able to play my NES games.

Are all the people crying over backwards compatibility willing to pay extra to have the new PS4 architecture be able to read all their old games? Think about it, you might as well be asking the Xbox 720 to be able to play PS3 games. Sony are moving forward and creating something new. Let's all move on and get excited for the new generation.

im just getting everything I want done on ps3 done before 4 comes out, then I can sell it. If anything exclusive to ps3 comes out after 4...oh well

Keep the old console if you really want to play its games.

BC tends to be rubbish anyway.

Yes it does BC does matter but are ppl willing to cough up MORE MONEY for it? Yes but thats like what %10. Why add it if ppl dont want to buy it? We seen it early on in the ps3's launch that MAJORITY of the ppl will not spend $600 just for BC. I myself would love BC but I will not spend $700 just so i can have BC. Same reason I stopped paying for xbl because I feel playing games I buy for $60 should give me free online multiplayer & cross chat isnt worth paying for either, I dont care what anyone says.

Bottom line is if u want BC then stick with the ps3 & dont buy a ps4. Its simple as that. Im buying my ps4 to play ps4 games not ps3 games, ill leave that for my ps3 to play ps3 games.

Digital psn games is what make me worry i rightfully pay for i didn't rented them.

I would like Sony offer another SKU that offer BC, because they always talk about heritage. What is the point of talking about your heritage if gamers from another generation will never experience past generations.

If Sony does not offer an add-on or another SKU, there are always emulators.

If I buy a new pc not only can It still play all my old games, they'll look better! Why can't a console be like that?

It don't matter to me. If I want to play PS3 games I hook up my PS3. I like keeping my older console for a while anyway. When I got a PS3 I kept my PS2 for 3 more years.

for f!cks sake backwards compatibility should be no sweat by now, what if people don't have enough money for a ps4 at launch and want to sell their ps3 for credit/money towards PS4? Ever think of that? I know I would have before I heard about this non-compatibility BS. Looks like I'll HAVE to keep my ps3 if I want to replay ALL these amazing games this gen. And no I'm not rebuying them like a slag..

I think the real problem is that people think that the company has an obligation to give you BC. They don't.If they would prefer to divide their profits between PS3 and PS4 and continue letting the PS3 be sold instead of risking it being ignored for a new system that is a solid business decision.It has been done many times over the years.People are always crying that they spent so much money on a console and they deserve BC. But companies have left technology behind before.Nintendo left the N64 behind to make the Gamecube after I spent so much money on it.

Not that I don't understand. BC would have been even more gravy on the already juicy PS4 steak but you have to remember that the PS3 only just recently started to turn a profit for Sony. For them to make the PS4 BC would mean a whole bunch of unsold PS3s and losses.Besides it isn't as if they aren't giving us any other options and just simply leaving us out in the cold. How is it any different then Nintendo selling you N64 games on the Wii instead of making the games compatible? There is always the possibility that a company would decide to go in a different direction and leave the past behind with a new product. That's business.

Besides what's with people clamoring for Sony to have BC and be a multimedia device. When they were doing these things with the PS3 I thought it was a 'waste of time and money' and now suddenly it is taboo not to do it? Before you claim that you want it,would you pay more for them to do it? If it takes more money to make the PS4 BC would you pay the money? Or b***h about how expensive the PS4 is? I am guessing the latter. Nintendo dropped the N64 without so much as a sorry or anything and moved on to the Gamcube after I paid so much for it and I never heard as much griping over it as I am hearing about the PS4.

Another reason why PC is the best platform for games. Though PS4 would not be as powerful if it had a cell processor to support bc because it would raise the cost and make the architecture more complicated. Sony made the right choice.

It isn't mandatory, but I do like having that option. Less console clutter sitting around is a lot better. At least by knowing this early, I'll know to hold on to my PS3 when I get a PS4 if I want to play my ps3 games. If nothing else, I have an extra BR player.
Hopefully, the next Xbox will offer BC. Be nice if at least one of these consoles did.

Personally I'd pay $1000 for a Mega Playstation with every chip if it upscaled and smoothed out older games. But that's obviously not feasible for market and based on what happened with PS3, neither is any hardware level B/C at all. They tried to do exactly what you people want and it was a big factor in driving the cost up. It would add at least an extra $100 right on top of the PS4 cost just to allow it to play PS3 games. Doesn't even make sense to have a premium version because that means far more engineering and reworking the entire guts.

Disc based games just require the console you bought them for. This is why I love the PSOne classics on PSN. I
already own half the games I bought, but I really like having a smoothed out version available on any of my PS systems.

It doesn't matter. I can only think of 2 original Xbox games that I put into my 360 in six years of owning it. Backwards compatibly really doesn't matter.

If you all don't want your PS3's, I'll take it off your hands. Free of charge :)

Heres how I look at it. If BC is so important then why werent there any complaints of dvd owners not being able to play vhs movies ppl had? CD players not being able to play records ppl had. Ipods not being able to play my cd's. My bbq grill cant fry chicken. My hair clipper cant cut paper like my scissors lol.

I have a fool-proof method of retaining your ability to play any and all of your glorious PS3 games even after the release of the soon to be glorious Playstation 4.

1) Unplug PS4
2) Plug in PS3

Now if you follow the above steps I assure you that you will still be able to play your beloved games of a generation gone by.

Should you wish to contact me for further advice feel free to drop me an E-mail on CaptainObvious@Priorities.co.u k

If you need to sell your console to buy a new one, then you're poor and shouldn't be playing video games.

Get off your ass, go to college, and get a job like the rest of us.

I buy a new console to play new games.

I think BC is very important. I like being able to give away an old condole to a niece or nephew. But in the case of the PS4 I understand it. From what I've heard is is extremely hard to get the Cell any smaller because of heat issues. Then it seems that it can't be placed on a single die with the GPU for the same reasons. If that is the case, it dies add too much cost and isn't worth it to add the chips to the PS4.

BC mattered more to me in earlier gens. The ability to play PS1 games on the PS2 at launch was a defining factor in my decision to purchase the PS2 at launch. It was a feature that was one of the reasons I bought a PS3 at launch.

To be honest, though, I only played 2 PS2 games on my PS3 since launch, and I didn't finish either of them on that console. I've purchased digital versions of PS1 titles, and I've gotten some of the PS2 HD re-releases, and those are what I use when I hanker for retro gaming on PS3. Otherwise, I play my PS1 and PS2 libraries on my PS2.

People can moan about the importance of BC, but the initially sluggish sales of the PS3 proved that price, rather than features, mattered most to consumers. Once Sony removed the 'inner PS2' from the PS3, and lowered the price of the PS3, its sales picked up. If BC was so crucial to gamers, the PS3 would have had a more successful launch window. Sony learned a lesson from consumers' tepid response to the higher-priced console and have carried that over to the PS4. I don't fault them for that. It's the reality of the business.

Would BC be a great feature for PS4? Yes, but not including it makes sound business sense, particularly if the Gaikai service proves to be successful. It seems that gamers want to have things both ways - a cheap next-gen console with full BC. But as the Stones sang, "you can't always get what you want."

One has to wonder if there will be this much rationalizing if the next Xbox doesn't support BC out of the box. Somehow I do not think so.

You can't compare PS2 games to PS3 games. PS3 games are more 'alive' in the sense that they are more connected(online play, leader boards) and can grow(add-ons, DLC packs). Not having BC means fragmentation not only amongst the user base but also in your playtime and data. Seriously I'm not even sure to buy PS3 games anymore. Console makers HAVE TO fix the data portability issue now, before advances on the PC side become more viable.

It's only relevant for the first 6-18 months, then people are too busy with next gen games to care about it.

Why do people think it's mandatory to trade your current console in towards the next one, you had 7-8 yrs to save for the next gen consoles. Even $5 a week would have enough saved up in 2 yrs.

You have 8-9 months, to save up, and as another guy put it you won't get much for a ps3 when you eventually trade it in.

Wuchang is great. Nine Sols didn’t have a physical copy so I never played it but I’ve heard good things so I will check it out. I stopped playing sports games many years ago when before the card dlc’s or whatever they’re called.

Last comment… ):

Great month for others, but not me. Hate soccer and soulslikes. Maybe Nine Sols is good.

🫡 it was fun while it lasted, N4G.

FC26!

I hated that he died. The game was good but you never want to see a character you can relate or enjoy to die off like that. We wanted more Joel not less. Still a really good game but that part will always sit poorly with many

I really didn’t mind his fate. It was the way it was executed was the problem

Not gonna lie, I think they made a big mistake. I mean I like a big unimaginable shock moments as much as the next person. It was just too soon though. If you’re going to kill off the main character you need a solid back up that people love just as much to carry the weight of the loss. If you’re setting it up for a trilogy then he really should have died at the end of 2 or half way through 3.

Who cares, that was like 6 years ago.

I don't mind the story, I think it is interesting in its own. But I would much prefer it stays as a story between Joel and Ellie (And I don't hate Abby, but it just feels like a third wheel when I play the game, feel like it is not a story about her). Joel can live with the consequences in a different way than just get killed off, his emotional conflicts between him and Ellie, Abby and everyone else would have a lot of interesting stories to tell, not any less than just get killed off.

So we as players, who controlled Joel in the first game, can get immersed and feel the guilt with him, instead of getting angry that he got killed.

TLOU Part 2 was a great game, but the entire game made me mad

Personally I liked that they killed off Joel, his death scene was great. The story was good and how revenge drives a person. The last quarter of the game was dumb after Tommy told Ellie where Abby was located. She leaves the farm goes in an arduous trek killing many more people along the way. Finds Abby in a cage releases her they fight, Ellie gets two fingers bitten off, and suddenly she doesn’t want to fight and kill Abby anymore, lets her leave with a warning even though she was the one losing the fight. Why go the rough all of that hassle just to let the focus of your hatred just leave. Should have stwyed home with Diana and keep all her fingers intact. Still a great game with a good story and I liked Abby I saw no reason for all her hate.

They could have killed Tommy and made it a revenge story with Joel and Ellie going after Abbie.

ND was trying so hard to make me sympathize with Abbie and it just wasn't working. I just don't understand how you make a "revenge is bad story" while having me mow through hundreds of NPCs just to get to the main culprit and just...not finish the job. Druckman is a terrible story teller.