Sure, but why is that other version available for play on PS3, PSP and PSV, and then NOT on PS4? Sell the PC port as a PS4 game if you like, but I should be able to play the version that I've already paid for, and is playable on pretty much everything else that can access PSN on the new console. But then... who would bother handing over the cash for the lazily ported PC version, eh?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Sony's BC debacle justifiable? Maybe
- Thread starter pixelbox
- Start date
Sure, but why is that other version available for play on PS3, PSP and PSV, and then NOT on PS4? Sell the PC port as a PS4 game if you like, but I should be able to play the version that I've already paid for, and is playable on pretty much everything else that can access PSN on the new console. But then... who would bother handing over the cash for the lazily ported PC version, eh?
This is the thing though. I think if they could, they would. But the issue is "dead or unwilling publishers" that don't want to pay for the licensing. Plus if it is an emulator, it's considered a new platform because of the PowerPC/MIPS based conversion to x86.
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
But the method by which they are delivering these means that it would actually be additional work to just support PS2 Classics in an OS level emulator (the way the PS3 does). It may be harsh, but it probably just isn't cost-effective to bother.
Also (and this is pure speculation) I imagine that Sony fucked up in the past and didn't think to have the old games licensed to a service (i.e PSN) rather than a platform. From looking at the store listing all the new titles are listed in the store as "PSN Game" "Playable on: PS4". I imagine that they have done deals this time to allow the games to be playable on any PSN capable platform in future should they wish, rather than having to cut a new deal for each hardware. It is then up to Sony to ensure the software is built in a way that will play nicely on future consoles / services.
autoduelist
Member
It's apples and oranges, really.
You're looking at it from the perspective of the the person licensing the content: of course Sony would prefer to license all content, on all Sony devices, for all time. That's a given, and when they go to write contracts that's what they [essentially] want.
However, those licensing content generally want the exact opposite. They want to draw the smallest license box possible -- specific platform, specific time frame, specific everything... because that opens up the possibility to renegotiate later, or to relicense in other ways. This is the same in every industry; as the content creator, you might only want to give one publisher of your book the right to do hardcovers in North America, reserving international and/or digital rights.
Now, the other thing you're forgetting is that a content creator in gaming is also potentially beholden to their own licenses. For example, Rockstar licenses a lot of popular music. They need to keep these licenses in mind when they then license content to Sony -- if you can only use a song for 10 years, you can't then go write a contract with another party to use your content container [game] for 15 years.... you don't have the legal right to. You're forced to limit your contracts, and Sony is also forced.
Likewise, Rockstar may want to have control over their own IP... and giving 'forever' licenses to Sony would prevent that. It's better, from Rockstar's perspective, to renegotiate on a regular basis. Your IP is effectively power... bargaining chips for the future. If you do this, we'll remove all GTA games from your store -- if you do that, you can have exclusive rights to our older GTA properties for 5 years, etc, etc [while these examples are made up, I'm just showing why it's in a IP holders best interest to retain as many rights as possible].
My point, basically, is that licensing is a complex, ugly mess... and assuming Sony can just require 'forever' licenses [on all future platforms, for all time] is just not the case. It wouldn't even be on the table as an option in many cases, let alone something Sony could require.
The transition to new hardware for consoles is nothing like an iterative device like iphones or PC. It's more like the shift from Apple IIgs to MacIntosh, or MacIntosh to Iphone, or whatever.
Memorabilia
Member
This. Until that happens this is a PR train wreck for Sony. It's not PSNow levels of ineptitude, but its not good.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
FFVII is a native port. Stop accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you as drive-by posting, or as having not have put any thought process into it.
smh
Yes, I definately said everyone. Its right there.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
Like I said, if someone said something factually wrong, quote him/her and explain. This vague attack on anybody disappointed by Sony's handling of classics games won't do much good.
Silent Chief
Member
That's besides the point. What matter is Sony's costs in providing this. Sony's cost to acquire the right to redistribute those ISO. The way I see, the trophy support is just a small incentive to add some value to the customer.
I paid $80 for a new ps2 2 years ago. Now, I'd be lucky to pay that much for a used one.
Legally, something may have changed.
Yep. Let's not forget that not all PS1 classics or even PSP games are playable on the Vita without having to transfer from a PS3.
A lot of things are in play in the background that lead to this. It's not just money, even though that is certainly part of the reason.
How did Sony manage to provide Cross-buy for PS1 Classics on PS3, PSP, and Vita then?
Yea, the bolded is true in regards to "the method by which they are delivering these".. but they're the ones choosing to deliver them this way, rather than just provide them in a similar manner to the PS3.
As for the licensing stuff, that's pretty likely to be true.. even for MS who have stated that they require approval from publishers in order to put a game up for use on XB1. What they have shown us though, is that plenty of publishers are actually willing to do so, because much like on Steam it's worth having your library available for potential long-tail purchases. I'd imagine in the PS2's case, this wouldn't extend to discs, as there's basically no monetary gain possible from that for them, unlike the 360 (where games are still being sold new and have potential DLC purchases), but digital purchases seem unlikely to have met any significant resistance... especially as this has seemingly not been true for the Vita, which also would've been excluded from the initial digital licensing deals.
Basically, the details here don't really matter, because Sony would have created those details too. We're only looking at this from an end-user standpoint, where the main benefit of purchasing something digitally is removed, and functions completely differently from what numerous other ecosystems (and much of Sony's other devices) have set the standard expectation to be.
Whilst true, as mentioned above this would likely have precedent with the VIta, and isn't far removed from MS having to negotiate terms for XB1 releases of 360 games. The games shouldn't simply be wiped from future consoles unless a PC version exists to be re-monetized.
Enter the Dragon Punch
Banned
Well, if you're going to lay a blanket statement down and not refer to specific people, you're going to come off as referring to everyone.
Silent Chief
Member
Somebody would likely sue them because one game or another doesn't work well enough and the emulator would become a vector for piracy. It's not worth it.
That didn't happen with the PS2 emulator on the PS3. My 80GB PS3 emulator had some pretty serious issues.
To think they actually tested all the PS2 games to see which had issues and created a list of them for free. That was an insane thing for Sony to do lol
Alright. So please explain to me, since you seem to be very versed in how Final Fantasy VII is running on the PS4, technically speaking, how something like the trophy system knows how to activate a particular trophy when a criteria is met in the game. That just one thing different from the PSOne classic. There is also the uprez (which is the only thing I would expect if this was a free "upgrade") , the cleanup of dialogue, the cleanup of the UI (which isn't just an uprez) and other things that you, I , and the other guy/girl have no clue about.
Because apparently its super duper easy, just do it!
See, when I bought the PSone Classic of FFVII, the game systems it said it works on, it did. I also got a Sony Smartwatch 2 and a PS4 and am very surprised that it does not run on these items. In fact, I definitely expect the PSone classic of FFVII to run on PlaystationVR, because reasons.
mejin
Member
Most certainly. And there would be no spin to save them.
Branniganz Love
Member
Backwards compatibility on consoles really needs to go the way of steam. You really need to put the focus on the library and not the device. The console should be the means to accessing your library. I know with consoles there are technological limitations, ie ps3 to ps4. But going forward console makers need to put a focus on keeping people connected to their libraries and planning ahead.
MS and sony both could have managed backwards compatibilty better but MS has definitely come out better. I dont agree with the people saying to keep all your old consoles hooked up, I dont want 3 generations of xbox consoles and 4 generations of sony consoles in my living room, what a mess. Going forward I think both companies will work to put the focus on the digital library and being able to bring it with you each generation but for now MS seems to understand the value it adds to their costumers while Sony seems to see the value it adds for themselves.
MS and sony both could have managed backwards compatibilty better but MS has definitely come out better. I dont agree with the people saying to keep all your old consoles hooked up, I dont want 3 generations of xbox consoles and 4 generations of sony consoles in my living room, what a mess. Going forward I think both companies will work to put the focus on the digital library and being able to bring it with you each generation but for now MS seems to understand the value it adds to their costumers while Sony seems to see the value it adds for themselves.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
What are you even talking about? Are you all right?
Just because you don't understand the difference between emulation and port doesn't mean nobody does.
And the "if it's so easy why don't you do it yourself" argument? Really? Are you also the type of person who can't handle negative reviews because "if this person think it's so easy to make a game/movie/whatever they should just do it themselves"?
Shrennin
Didn't get the memo regarding the 14th Amendment
I still much prefer MS's solution over Sony's AND it's not like the BC can't get better. The emulator can be updated, and MS's long term goal is to have the Xbox platform be able to play all Xbox games just like the PC can player older generation PC games. The emulator for the XBO is the start to a longer strategy that will be awesome for consumers. Phil Spencer in particular has gone on record saying that your gaming library shouldn't end with a generation.
As it is right now, I hope Microsoft is successful over Sony here. One is much better for consumers than the other. It's not even a contest in that regard. Also of note, Microsoft is able to add value to existing releases as they did with Gears Ultimate, Fallout 4, and Rainbow Six Siege (adding previous generation games for free with the newer game's purchase).
Look, you may be perfectly fine with the idea of rebuying the same games over and over again (or having to keep a trail of old consoles perpetually hooked up to access the previous versions), but that doesn't mean everyone else is. Digital sales make this basically inexcusable. If the new hardware can run the old software without trouble, then it should. It's basically the only way to ensure content is preserved as we move more and more towards a digital market. Sonic 1 & 2 are currently delisted on XBLA, but I can still play my copy of them on XB1, because the purchase I made for them on the 360 is valid to allow me to play them on XB1 even if the games themselves will never go back up for sale (though they probably will in this case)... severing a user's purchases in favour of rereleases tends to cull all but the most popular games of previous eras. Everything else dies, tied forever to the consoles they debuted on.
Branniganz Love
Member
Great post. Couldn't agree with you more.
protomouse
Member
If NX is what I think it is, Nintendo might be the first one taking the step towards building a modern console platform (akin to iOS). The sooner these companies stop treating every single piece of hardware as its own platform, the better.
CircleOfFire
Member
Nailed it, while I don't think the first bit would necessarily take that long, it seems that a lot of people think they can just take the whole PS2 catalogue and convert it in 20 minutes.
Yes, just look at all the sueing and piracy of PS2 games on PS3! Come the fuck one with the crappy excuses.
On Friday, Jeff Gertsmann was using cheat engine to go through RAM values in older games. Things like Mario and such. In certain cases, it is a lot of trial and error just to find the exact RAM value that triggers when something happens. It was a good insight as to how this stuff actually works.
They've announced various games from other publishers that will be coming in the future. December's list is simply what they deemed ready for BC.
Anyway, yes, they didn't call it backwards compatibility but they should at least give the option for users who bought PS2 classics in the past to play those games for free without the extras (not 1080p and no trophies).
CircleOfFire
Member
Except that doesn't make sense, mobile platforms release new hardware at least once a year, so they have to have some level of continuity. Plus unless people keep updating old games/apps, they eventually cycle out anyway because they limit how far back the apps stay compatible because of their SDK.
This should be the first post in every PS2->PS4 complaint thread
CircleOfFire
Member
I remember a friend doing this with a tool a long time ago with Big Red Racing to give us 4 billion turbo boosts. Depending on how the game has been written it could end up being either the stuff of nightmares or impossible, if those bits of data aren't held in convenient fixed memory locations.
Microsoft does not alter the game IIRC. Sony's "emulator" up-resses and adds trophies.
Agent X
Member
That's exactly what Sony did with PS1 games on PS3. You could use your actual discs, or you could purchase digital versions from the PlayStation Store. It was a great arrangement.
That's true, Sony treats "PS2 classics on PS3" and "PS2 classics on PS4" as distinctly separate digital entities. That is exactly the problem, and it is a problem that Sony created themselves. It is also a problem that does not currently exist with PS1 classics on PS3/PSP/PS Vita.
Good point, and I'm glad you brought that up.
It is true that there are some digital PS1 games and PSP games that cannot be played on the Vita.
It is also true that Sony did not create distinct "PS1 classics for Vita" or "PSP classics for Vita" which were sold separately from the previously existing versions they sold on PS3 and PSP.
If a PS1 or PSP game was not deemed "playable" on Vita for some reason (either compatibility issues, or licensing restrictions), then Sony simply didn't make that game available on the Vita platform, period. They didn't try to resell their customers a repackaged version and claim it was something different.
StereoVsn
Gold Member
Yeah, done with buying any PS1/PS2 games on PSN unless Sony changes their stance. I could accept an upgrade price for new features such as trophy support (in reality couldn't give a damn about it) but base functionality should have been brought over.
Meh, I had to pay twice to get VC games on WiiU to get the upgrade from Wii.
Albeit there was a discount and now it looks like I won't be paying for future iteration (I'm not holding my breath).
Sony could offer a discount for the players who got the ps3/vita version otherwise it seems pretty much par for the course really, nothing to call a debacle really.
Albeit there was a discount and now it looks like I won't be paying for future iteration (I'm not holding my breath).
Sony could offer a discount for the players who got the ps3/vita version otherwise it seems pretty much par for the course really, nothing to call a debacle really.
GhostOfSparta305
Banned
While no PS2 disc support should've been expected, no support for PS2 Classics via PSN is beyond stupid. Almost as stupid as some of the damage control replies in this thread defending it:
No. It's just an upscale done by a fancy emulator. Similar to how BC PS3's upscaled PS2 games or Vita upscaled PSP (with new control options). For free.
No? Kojima did (MGS4). Rockstar did (GTA4). Bethesda did (FO3). Capcom, LucasArts, NIS, EA: they've all done it. Heck even Sony did (Uncharted 1, Warhawk, PAIN, SSHD).
Everyone except current Sony, apparently.
No. It's just an upscale done by a fancy emulator. Similar to how BC PS3's upscaled PS2 games or Vita upscaled PSP (with new control options). For free.
No? Kojima did (MGS4). Rockstar did (GTA4). Bethesda did (FO3). Capcom, LucasArts, NIS, EA: they've all done it. Heck even Sony did (Uncharted 1, Warhawk, PAIN, SSHD).
Everyone except current Sony, apparently.
I get your point, but PS2 games on PS4 are actually being rendered at 4x their original resolution and not simply upscaled.
Not that this excuses Sony throwing their digital customers from the PS3 under the the proverbial bus.
SinCityAssassin
Member
Something something utilize Nintendo's process of giving you the game at discount if you have it on your account/system. Granted, the games are just straight ports remapped for the controllers Wii U can use along with the addition of save states and classic manuals, but at the very least if you had owned the game on the Wii they give you a massive discount for the newer version.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
PS2 sold like 100m consoles and they sold like hundreds of millions of games, "only targets a very small group of gamers" is the silliest thing I saw on GAF today, congrats.
The point I was trying to make is that there may be some legal issues which prevents full BC. Now for the classics, I think not receiving discount isn't fair but apparently the works justifies the means.
There are no legal issues with providing disc BC. A company sold a commercial PS1 emulator called Bleem before the PS2 even came out, and there was a version for the Dreamcast. SCEA filed suit, but the only point of legal contention was how the Bleem makers were using screenshots of Sony's games in advertising, and SCEA lost the suit.
The short version: The Dreamcast could legally play PS1 games. Why can't the PS4?
And before you say something about pissing off publishers, remember the PS3 when launched could play PS2 discs, and all models can play PS1 discs. There's making publishers angry, and there's just giving into their slightest whims at the expense of the consumer.
And share and remote play as well as screenshot's Oh and the other share features.
Pretty much. Sony is the one that created this expectation with how hard they pushed cross-buy. Any backlash is their own fault.
There was original hardware used for ps2 BC and as for the PS1, (including the newer ps2s) the same emulator was used up this point. Things change and companys are alot more greedy. My point is it's more than just Sony creating the issue.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
There's something out there that makes me think people don't remember as well as they think. Some people don't get that it's a legacy platform or anymore reason to why games should be released beyond 2010.
It's more of a legacy to their history and not so much as a privilege. You can talk about it till the cows come home, but if people want something they probably got to pay for it. We got a console at a good price, great modern games, and titles that we've already played. I don't think they have to, but fans of PS want it. I'd love it, but I also didn't sell something.
I think there's people who don't get it at all. They just want a modern game period or they can't understand what a Classic line means.
You can give kids a MOBA or a FPS, but they couldn't tell the difference between one PS2 game and another unless they really care.
It's more of a legacy to their history and not so much as a privilege. You can talk about it till the cows come home, but if people want something they probably got to pay for it. We got a console at a good price, great modern games, and titles that we've already played. I don't think they have to, but fans of PS want it. I'd love it, but I also didn't sell something.
I think there's people who don't get it at all. They just want a modern game period or they can't understand what a Classic line means.
You can give kids a MOBA or a FPS, but they couldn't tell the difference between one PS2 game and another unless they really care.