this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Gaming

30533 readers
71 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 2 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 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

spoilerasdfasdfsadfasfasdf

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sony changed their CPU architecture every time until PS4/5. The only reason some PS3s could play PS2 games is because they had also had PS2 hardware in them. Xbox has been x86 the whole time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The 360 is IBM power pc based.

The simple answer is that microsoft is a far more advanced company in terms of programming an OS, the gap shows when you compare console securities, where virtually every nintendo or sony device had software vulnerabilities, while microsoft consoles tended to need to be hardmodded