this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
185 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

31158 readers
9 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ghostalmedia 28 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] jasonhaven@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago

This is the answer.

If Sony was losing the console wars, they'd be doing BC, and not MS.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 27 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 6 points 2 years ago (5 children)

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 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NuPNuA@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

Didn't stop them putting out a HDMI Mini PSX. You get around that by cleaver pixel replication and filtering upressing, etc. The PS3 PS1 emulator actually had options for this.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] conciselyverbose@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 3 points 2 years 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...."

[–] NuPNuA@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

PS2 games work almost flawlessly on my steam deck under emulation and the PS5 is more powerful than that, and Sony have access to the OG system engineers, software and hardware to work from, note they already had PS2 games working on the PS4. The PS3 is the tricky but people do have it working on PC so no reason Sony couldn't. There's no excuse not to have PS1, PSP or PSVita emulation games as they're all easy

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UrLogicFails 16 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MoxFcCloud@kbin.social 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Intelligence_Gap 11 points 2 years ago
[–] loops 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] almar_quigley 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] NuPNuA@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Depends on your tastes doesn't it. I'll take a hundred smaller projects like Pentiment, Hi-Fi Rush or Psychonauts over another generic open world adventure or sad dad simulator.

[–] prole 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] NuPNuA@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They're Xbox console exclusives, don't be disengenuious.

[–] prole 4 points 2 years 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 6 points 2 years 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 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 4 points 2 years 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.

[–] fox 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I wish Jet Set Radio Future was able to work on the new Xbox.

[–] ghostalmedia 5 points 2 years ago

Many suspect this one has been trapped in licensing hell.

[–] Uprise42@artemis.camp 2 points 2 years 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

load more comments
view more: next ›