gaming PS4 "Backwards Compatibility"

[Guest]

So I have been playing with Sony's solution to backwards compatibility on the PS4. (Shy of rebuying PS2 games, I'll give that a try when they actually release some I don't already have a better way to play or actually want). It's in the form of Playstation Now, a PS3 streaming service that allows you to stream PS3 games to your PS4. It should be noted that this is not playing the games natively, but streaming from a server in place of Microsoft's Xbox backwards compatibility model. There are some advantages though, and disadvantages.

 

So I chose to start a 7 day trial and see how good or bad the service is. I chose to start with an old classic and a game that wouldn't be "too" intensive on the stream, Resident Evil 4 HD. A classic remade for the PS3. So here's my experience after a few days, I'll start with the benefits and the good, because believe it or not, there is some.

 

• Renting a game for cheap (as low as $3) is an option. This is good because truthfully sometimes after you beat a game you don't pick it up again and a lot of games don't take long to beat.
• The service... Actually kind of works. Like it does feel like I'm playing them on a PS3.
• You have access to games you didn't PREVIOUSLY own, unlike the Xbox backwards compatibility. That is a big advantage here for those who got a PS4 this generation and missed out on all of those PS3 titles. The catalog is already about as big as the Xbox One compatibility list.
• The amount of games people actually care about is higher than the Xbox One. Sorry, Microsoft, but not even having Halo 3 on day 1 was kind of crap. The PS4 definitely wins in terms of bringing titles people care about.

But of course there are drawbacks...

 

• You can only play when connected to the internet. Any interruption of connection, you lose the game.
• You can't leave the game paused for too long or it times you out of the server.
• Even with my connection, Verizon Fios, there are a few lag spikes, nothing major but definitely stuff that wouldn't happen previously.
• If you are paying month to month, the service is $19.99 a month which is pretty steep! Sadly there is no discount for a yearly service, only a quarterly service where the price is $45 for 3 months, effectively a $15 discount. It's a very steep price.
• If you stop your service, no access to any of the games you've played.

 

Ultimately... The service isn't as "terrible" as I thought it would be, and it has some perks over the Xbox One... But really... I think this is just... It's not really close to the mark enough to say that streaming is "here" as the future of gaming yet.

[Guest90210 3,569]

I prefer Microsoft's approach to Backwards Compatibility. I dislike not actually "owning" the games I play. With Playstation Now, you have to pay for a service to stream your games temporarily. Once you stop paying, your games are gone. With Xbox One, Backwards Compatibility is provided free of charge.

 

I (along with lots of people) already own a selection of PS3 & Xbox 360 games. With Xbox One, I could pop in a game and not pay a dime to play it again (assuming its currently compatible). With PS4, I can't do that, which is disappointing.

[Guest]

I prefer Microsoft's approach to Backwards Compatibility. I dislike not actually "owning" the games I play. With Playstation Now, you have to pay for a service to stream your games temporarily. Once you stop paying, your games are gone. With Xbox One, Backwards Compatibility is provided free of charge.

 

I (along with lots of people) already own a selection of PS3 & Xbox 360 games. With Xbox One, I could pop in a game and not pay a dime to play it again (assuming its currently compatible). With PS4, I can't do that, which is disappointing.

 

I agree, however Microsoft's approach is also inferior to Nintendos where the games just work by default. The issue I have with Microsoft's approach is that it is limited to whatever games they choose, and they are restricted by licensing. Also their catalog is much smaller and it seems to only be growing slowly with no certainty that every game people may want will be playable. While it's a step above Sony's approach, there are some things Sony has done better.

 

Also I detest how it obligates you to install 360 games onto the hard drive of a system that doesn't let you change the internal hard drive. Most people I know who got the One have a SIZABLE 360 library.

[Megas 28,155]

Microsoft's approach isn't perfect, but at the very least I get to keep games I've already own. The whole "renting and streaming games I haven't owned before" while nice, still isn't a good compromise imo, if I own the game I should be allowed to keep it, and relying on internet blows too

 

 

 

I agree, however Microsoft's approach is also inferior to Nintendos where the games just work by default. The issue I have with Microsoft's approach is that it is limited to whatever games they choose, and they are restricted by licensing. Also their catalog is much smaller and it seems to only be growing slowly with no certainty that every game people may want will be playable. While it's a step above Sony's approach, there are some things Sony has done better.

Only in a perfect world can we get both companies to take the Wii U approach and have perfect, native BC. But because native BC isn't built into the hardware like the Wii U, and the fact they both have to get some games for up digital purchase as well(as not all games are available digitally, notably multidisc games), which is probably why they have to do their weird way of BC to get them to work such as licensing.

 

I have a ton of 360 games though and I'd like to see at least 90% of them show up at some point, I'm really craving to play the Transformers Cybertron Duology(fuck RotDS) and Vanquish again

[Guest]

@, I feel you. Honestly I would gladly have paid another $50-100 for a system if it played all the old games, which would be probably around what it would cost to put the hardware in necessary to do so. In Microsoft's case I would have preferred that over the Kinnect. If they offered the system for $100 more on launch but instead of the Kinnect it had the hardware necessary to play 360 games, I'd gladly get that.

 

However their current approach is more or less putting a bandaid on a system that isn't performing well.