Clearly Microsoft is king here, but I'm amazed that Nintendo and Sony are neck and neck in votes here. With Nintendo you've got some kind of fair argument maybe, but why the hell is anyone voting for Sony?
It better not be, at least as far as PS4 backwards compatibility goes. That at least better be native. I really, really would like to get PS3 backwards compatibility though.Yeah I really hope they take note of what Microsoft have done this generation and go down that route with the PS5
As a PS4 owner I'm looking at those 4k 360 ports with envy
RDR1 in 4K looks so good
I'm expecting PS Now to be all we get though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_backward_compatible_games_for_Xbox_OneEven the original crackdown looks decent in 4k! What are we up to now ? Something like 550 back compat games or something. That's great.
Oh. I consider the microconsoles existing at all to be a mark against Nintendo. I'm not buying a novelty chunk of plastic that's going to end up in my closet after a week. Put those games on Switch.You mean some PS2 games? No PS1 is the bigger issue when PS4 could easily do it.
Their microconsole effort is also well below the standard Nintendo set.
Its greedy as fuck what Sony and Nintendo are doing.It's clear that both Nintendo and Sony want recurring purchases for classic games, they don't just want you to have a game that you keep forever that's cross buy with future consoles. Nintendo's solution, after having separate VC libraries for every console, was to settle on a subscription service to make sure consumers would continuously spend money to play classic games. Sony sticks with remasters and rereleases which may or may not be carried to next gen.
Sony did a microconsole too though. They just did it way way worse.Oh. I consider the microconsoles existing at all to be a mark against Nintendo. I'm not buying a novelty chunk of plastic that's going to end up in my closet after a week. Put those games on Switch.
Vita has a bunch of PS1 games.Sony did a microconsole too though. They just did it way way worse.
For active platforms Sony has PS4, which has PSNow (ymmv) and a small selection of PS2 remasters that's apparently done being added to.
For active platforms Nintendo has Switch and 3DS. Switch has NES Online, small selection now but continually being added to, and some older Nintendo arcade games licensed to Hamster for Arcade Archives. 3DS has a Virtual Console, probably the worst VC (NES, GB, GBC and SNES for n3Ds) but still significantly better than what Switch or PS4 have scraped together.
Vita's not an actvely supported platform for Sony. It's in the same camp as Wii U for Nintendo.
Not sure what difference that makes tbh. It's newer than 3DS and is available to play now.Vita's not an actvely supported platform for Sony. It's in the same camp as Wii U for Nintendo.
If MS are doing the best then why did you vote Sony in the poll?
If support stopped years ago and production is ending it's not an active platform. Vita and Wii U are now legacy platforms themselves to be considered for legacy support on newer systems, while 3DS (much to Era's chagrin) isn't. It's still being pushed, still being promoted, has 1st party games still in development and even got a new hardware model last year. Vita isn't "newer" in any way that actually matters.Not sure what difference that makes tbh. It's newer than 3DS and is available to play now.
pretty much seems like a way to complain about mini consoles and rebuying old games lolI assume to take a shot at Sony since it doesn't mention remasters. Don't get me wrong MS is the best on this no questions asked, but I hope Sony remasters pretty much everything from the PS1/2 era.
From this perspective though Nintendo would also be ahead of Sony with Virtual Console, Classic Minis and their many more remakes and remasters. So why'd you vote for Sony over them?I specifically mentioned BC efforts. Sony has done a lot more under the PS Classics umbrella. Not all of them are available on PS4, and the PS Classic mini console didn't turn out in the best possible way so far, but in the grand scheme of things Sony is doing a lot, including their PSP remasters on PS4, in particular Castlevania Requiem which is huge deal. That's a different level of depth that MS just can't offer.
Sony: 1/10. PS Classic exists, at least.
Nintendo: 2/10. Classic systems exist, and they have that limited paid online thing.
Microsoft: 6/10. Some actual backward compatibility and the ability to buy said games. Discs work. Compatibility is limited though.
PC: 8/10. For the most part things work. If they don't you can usually fix them one way or another. Generally no need to rebuy things unless you want to for accessibility purposes or possible improvements. Not always easy and a few things can't be made to work right though.
How so? PS4 has a lot more old gen titles available than Switch does.Nintendo is objectively better than Sony this gen wrt to this though. They're still not ideal.
From this perspective though Nintendo would also be ahead of Sony with Virtual Console, Classic Minis and their many more remakes and remasters. So why'd you vote for Sony over them?
How so? PS4 has a lot more old gen titles available than Switch does.
Sony doesn't have PS Classics on PS4 either though, they also killed ther PSP store (although you can still sideload games from PC/PS3), PS+ and PSNow both dropped PS3/Vita... their retro efforts also seem largely focused on legacy platforms and those are at an end too, the west hasn't gotten a PS Classic release in over 2 years (3 years for Europe). The strikes against Nintendo you laid out here all also appear to apply to Sony so I can't really follow the reasoning? Feels more like a preference in search of a rationalization.The Nintendo that killed Wii Shop (and the DSI shop) and doesn't even have Virtual Console on Switch? And I actively detest what they're doing with the NOS.
Nintendo used to be amazing, but at this point in time they're really really not. Anything good that they have left is legacy from Satoru Iwata's era, and it looks like they want to cut off those ties as quick as they stop turning in the biggest bucks.
PS4 is 3.5 years older than Switch. And it still has fewer legacy 1st party titles available.How so? PS4 has a lot more old gen titles available than Switch does.
Nintendo is objectively better than Sony this gen wrt to this though. They're still not ideal.
With objectively you mean :
- One has unified Account System giving you access to Cross Purchases and Cross Save while other don't.
- One has a hardware that can make remakes/remasters that really have a nice upgrade over the OG versions, specially last gen ones, while the other don't.
- One has a Streaming Service with previous gens games available not only on their own plataform but also on PC while other don't.
- One has a selection of Classics on their current plataform while other don't.
Objectively you could say that N doing Retro Mini Consoles better than Sony and I would agree. But that's all.
With objectively you mean :
- One has unified Account System giving you access to Cross Purchases and Cross Save while other don't.
- One has a hardware that can make remakes/remasters that really have a nice upgrade over the OG versions, specially last gen ones, while the other don't.
- One has a Streaming Service with previous gens games available not only on their own plataform but also on PC while other don't.
- One has a selection of Classics on their current plataform while other don't.
Objectively you could say that N doing Retro Mini Consoles better than Sony and I would agree. But that's all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_backward_compatible_games_for_Xbox_One
530 atm out of 2103. Which is nearly a quarter of the games released on the 360.