-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Why does Sony seemingly not respect its own legacy and history?
- Thread starter Deleted member 249
- Start date
Everything I've heard is that Sony basically did the port job for Konami. I might have heard wrong, but that's what I heard.
The PSP didn't have BC at launch either. It could only play PS1 games after the PS Store launched with the PS3 in 2006.
often times they're not even mechanically retooled
but yeah, I think you get it now. a remaster takes the base game and enhances it.
I mean, the "data" is kinda out there already. The lack of BC doesnt prevent sales (Switch/PS4), the lack of BC doesnt guarantee sales (Saturn/N64), the presence of BC doesnt prevent sales (Wii/PS2), and the presence of BC doesnt guarantee sales (Wii U, Vita)
All we can logically deduce is that BC has little if any impact on whether a console is successful or not. Is it smart to focus on BC ahead of literally ANY other means of achieving market dominance? Probably not.
Legacy games are still important. Many will never have had the chance to play ganes such as Colony Wars.
I agree they should focus on the future but in the same breath they have such a massive catalogue of old games itd ashame to not do anything with them.
sony took control of its heritage only from the ps3 onward..psone and ps2 mainly survived off third party exclusives with the occasional great second/first party series...so i suppose they are less keen togo on the nostalgia trip like nintendo does when said trip also means giving profit percentages to those third parties
about ps battle royale they were just riding the success of smash and seeing if they could get a slice of that, but they also realized that at the base of smash success there's not only its crossover nature but also a shitton of knowhow built throughout the years that they could not hope to match if not by investing more money that it was worth it.
about ps battle royale they were just riding the success of smash and seeing if they could get a slice of that, but they also realized that at the base of smash success there's not only its crossover nature but also a shitton of knowhow built throughout the years that they could not hope to match if not by investing more money that it was worth it.
the last data we got about BC use on xbox was posted in this chat. already, taken form the Xbox API. which microsoft refuted, without providing any data in response. in the time since that article, assuming an install base of around ~30M XB1 users. that 1.5% would be 450,000 users. given the install base has not grown exponentially since then even if you double, triple, quadruple or quintuple that number. Hell multiply it by 10. that's still 10% (4M out of 40M) of the active userbase using BC. if you believe it's much more than that, to the point that it's no longer a "minority". i would love to see *your* data.
youre right. which also played PS1 and PSP games
the psp was also a handheld and couldnt physically use the discs
Because it's better to focus on bringing new experiences, forging new paths and looking to the future, rather than relying on old IPs, old memories and old ideas to carry sales, like some companies.
You can ridicule Jim Ryan and "ancient, why would anyone play this" as much as you want, but I (and most people I think) would generally agree with that.
You can ridicule Jim Ryan and "ancient, why would anyone play this" as much as you want, but I (and most people I think) would generally agree with that.
I mean why is TLOU a remastered game but not those? Simply because they didnt change a few lines of codes and its being played through the xbox one?
Nope, it was news everywhere, it was Sony's initiative.
I think you don't know how much work went into TLOU Remastered...
I can agree with that but at the same time I think they could've handled the PS1 Classic lineup much better even just working with the same license holders they did. Not to mention the quality of the product itself could be much improved (emulation, UI, imaging options, save files, etc).
Sony definitely has a key ownership obstacle companies like Nintendo, Sega, SNK or Konami might not to the same degree when banking on on their retro platforms, but they still arguably should be doing better than they are too despite those obstacles.
Re-read your prior post. You said "BC does not move the needle at all". I say there is no proof of this. The Wii U comparison does apply because you're using PS4 vs X1 sales to downplay BC as a feature, and you are doing that in this very post I am quoting. The comparison is meant to illustrate that no one feature determines the success or failure of a Console, and the success or failure of a Console can't be used to determine the viability or appeal of said feature. I.e. PS4 outselling X1 despite X1 having BC does not imply BC isn't important to the success of a Console. It only clearly illustrates that Sony made a lot of good moves, and MS made many, many mistakes, and their Console had many problems at launch (including no BC I might add).
To reiterate, I am saying that PS4 outselling X1 doesn't prove anything with regards to BC, when so many other factors are in play.
You're right. I forgot about GoW3 and the other games you've mentioned. I only own one of them, but yeah, those games are simple ports sold as remasters.
Good remasters are usualy retooled.
What do you mean by "I think you get it now"? I didn't learn anything from your questioning.
I know the difference between emulation and remasters. And they're not one and the same.
It is kind of telling of the current situation on the platform where we'll be happy enough to at least have PS4 BC support when they could provide so much more.
I can't really agree with this. They already have a solid PS1 emulator that has been used on the PS3, PSP, and Vita. So we know they are capable of emulating PS1 games well enough. Even the PS2 emulation is pretty good, and could definitely be improved on both the Pro and especially the PS5.
Well it's clear the OP and the poster you're replying to are both talking about Sony's current stance on BC. So their past efforts don't really have much relevance here, especially if their attitude towards it has changed.
Also I think it would be a major factor if the PS5 did not have BC support for the PS4, considering how much digital sales have grown this gen. No BC support for the PS3 is understandable because of the unique architecture, but the same can't be said for the PS4.
show me *any proof* of BC moving the needle for a console.
no one feature does. but we're not talking about the success or failure of a console over it's life. in the time that BC was announced, we had metrics to measure it's impact then and there. sales for the month. the console with added BC *didnt do that much better* (if it did at all) when BC was announced for it and people were able to decide to go out and buy. im not talking about lifetime sales. im talking about current, at the moment sales, of when BC announcements are made.
oh I thought you did get it
basically a game that gets remastered can be considered a remaster even if it's not sold as a standalone thing
But here's the thing all those emulated games are from store. Not from Disc's like how Microsoft is doing it. You download the rom for sure on xbox but it validates it through your physical disc. I don't think they have the software written to use the disc drive to validate your physical PS1,PS2 copy.
Emulator happening in the background, so I don't know what the undertaking would be to rewrite how the OS would read and identify you putting in a PS2/PS1 disc.
Sony has been emulating PSX games since PSP and it was well done, yet they are releasing PS Classic with an open source emulator so your point is not valid
It is always the same thing. One company does something that others aren't doing and people get crazy talking about how incredible this thing is, forgetting that it was (in some cases) done before by those who choose not this time.
Remember when Sony did Crossplay with PC? and remember and how did people went crazy when Microsoft started doing it too?
Sony's legacy isn't nearly as coherent as Nintendo's legacy. That's why.
Nintendo's legacy has a repetition of key IPs that all seem to complement each other, whereas Sony's key IPs tend to change from generation to generation, and are a heavily mixed bag stylistically.
Nintendo's legacy has a repetition of key IPs that all seem to complement each other, whereas Sony's key IPs tend to change from generation to generation, and are a heavily mixed bag stylistically.
So what you are saying is Nathan Drake Collection/ and Last of Us Remaster are the same as Gears 1-3 running in BC on xbox one x?
THey have problems, but i dont think its as bad as your saying OP. They seem to want to give huge AAA treatment to their older games in the remake sphere rather than emulation, but i expect them to respect backwards compatibility next gen, it'll be mandatory with the shift in the marketplace
whew man don't get me started with this place's fever pitch about crossplay
The point is Sony tried to do like Nintendo with the Playstation Classic, and it seems they did it poorly. It's not the first time Sony doesn't deliver when it comes to legacy. They have to do a better job, period. It doesn't matter they have games like God of War or Spiderman around, that wasn't the point.
I only see speculation here, man.
I can't, man. Yon also can't show me any definitive proof that BC didn't ever move the needle for a Console (just as I can't necessarily provide definitive proof that it did). That's my point. For example, who's to say part of PS2's success wasn't BC? After all, it has BC when GameCube and Xbox didn't, and smoked the competition.
There were other factors, of course, but can you really say in this case BC didn't affect sales. Ultimately, all I'm getting at and the only point I'm trying to make is that saying BC isn't important is speculation, not a fact.
You and other people on enthusiast boards.
I don't. Lots of other PS users don't either.
it varies by individual game and I honestly don't know which games do what but yeah those are good comparisons as to the enhancements that some games receive
we have NPD data. that is the proof that BC did not propel said console forward.
So what about them reinventing and re-releasing games like Wipeout, Medievil, SOTC?
I can put my PSone game disc in my PS3 and play it though. I know it wouldn't be the same on the PS4, but it wouldn't be beyond their capability to make it work. Put in disc, read disc, and download game from store. Even if they stuck with just the digital versions, there is no good reason why they can't honor my purchases done on the PS3 to play on the PS4 if they ported the emulator.
The overall point is they can do it but they don't want to and it's disappointing to see people defend this decision when it doesn't benefit any gamer.
It doesn't have to be TLOU.. People went out and bought Dragons Dogma Remastered, Uncharted Collection, DMC trilogy HD, Burnout, Skyrim, Resident Evil Rev, etc.. alot of them games aint do nothing much but they are still REMASTERS
PS3 originally had PS2 hardware in it for BC.
PS4's would be 100% software emulation. So I don't know what that would entail OS wise to make it read those disc's.
I'll also argue how many Original Xbox titles are available for BC on xbox compared to the giant selection of xb360 games?
That's another thing you are omitting from the conversation. Try playing a PS1 game, let alone a PS2 game with a DS4 without getting frustrated at the deadzones.
I rarely saw people playing GAMECUBE games on their Wii's. But saw a lot of people playing gameboy advance games on their DS.
It honestly all depends. I agree that they should do more BC. But honestly I would rarely use it even with the giant collection of games that I own from PS2/PS1. I like that they would rather put a lot of money into remaking/reinventing an old franchise.
Bad remasters exist.
By your logic, games improved by the boost mode of the PS4 Pro are remasters.
PS Classic is a quick way to make money from SCE. Its not a big project for them.
Software wise, Crash, Spyro, SoTC, MediEvil, I'm sure I'm missing some: PS seems to value the nostalgia of their older franchises.
Thing is PS franchises now are on a whole a lot more popular and these older titles are not nearly as popular.
Not sure what you want OP. PS5 should have BC to PS4 at least.
Software wise, Crash, Spyro, SoTC, MediEvil, I'm sure I'm missing some: PS seems to value the nostalgia of their older franchises.
Thing is PS franchises now are on a whole a lot more popular and these older titles are not nearly as popular.
Not sure what you want OP. PS5 should have BC to PS4 at least.
Even if it's true that the PS4 can't read PSone discs but that still doesn't excuse them for not honoring digital purchases.
You think I'm discussing the difference between remasters and emulation because one isn't available on PlayStation?
The Last of Us Remastered is a remaster because it adds to the original game. It has enhanced and additional graphical features, double the frame-rate and a photo-mode.
And it took over a year to port over. It's not a PS3 game running on PS4.
You mean a game that gets x enhanced through emulation?
True and I agree. But then again what about Nintendo? They have fucked people over just as much when it comes to BC. Outside of their handhelds.
Yes it's great. But the point here is not to discuss what they do well ; but rather what they could do better when it comes to Legacy.
But that is part of the same thing? So in your eyes you would rather they put all their effort in letting you play PS1/PS2 games with their deadzones, bugs, and other things frame rate improvement and IQ quality can't fix than have them spend a good amount of money and effort in remaking/re-imagining their games for a brand new generation to enjoy?
I completely agree. I think the way they've handled the virtual console on both the Wii and Wii-U, making people purchase games over again and not honoring them or even offering them on the Switch. Biggest difference for me is that I haven't invested in the Nintendo ecosystem like I have on the PlayStation. I spent a good chunk of change on PS classics on the PS3. I knew PS3 games wouldn't be supported, but I thought they would at least include support for PS1 games since they did on every system after the PS1.
I think a large part of it stems from the company's history as a consumer products maker first and foremost. They make a huge line of products whereas a Nintendo focuses on their mascot characters and history as part of their brand. Sony's games legacy is a small drop in the bucket compared to their legacy as a tv/stereo maker.
Yea, when it comes to games purchased from the store I agree there is no excuse to have them come over. ESPECIALLY since they have shown their emulation for PS2 games seems to run pretty well on PS4. Hoping MS's BC initiative puts pressure on them to at least honor digital purchases from PS3/PSP/VITA.
People are buying their stuff regardless, so they don't care. They also know they can sell millions of copies remastering classics instead of offering backwards compatibility without any major backlash or boycott by the fans. Want them to make a change? Vote with your wallets.