• Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    At the time, backwards compatibility was attained by putting a miniature PlayStation 2 inside the console. It really wasn’t sustainable for the future.

    • thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      It really wasn’t sustainable for the future maximising shareholder profits.

      Maintaining PS3 backwards compatibility at launch was well within Sony’s operating profits. It was an international decision, which they proceeded to gaslight customers into believing want necessary or even wanted!

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Speak for yourself, man. I am more than happy that my Playstation 5 doesn’t have a Playstation 3 and a Playstation 2 bolted into its insides. That would make for a gargantuan console with tons of electronics waste.

        • thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          I specified one generation of hardware backwards compatibility; beyond that software emulation would be more than sufficient.

          The PS5 is backwards compatible with all but ~6 PS4 titles. Sure that’s entirely because of the shared x86-64 architecture, but it makes the PS4 stand out like a sore thumb for its lack of direct generational backwards compatibility.

          By the end of the PS3’s lifecycle the Cell processor has been die-shrunk multiple times, reducing power consumption, heat output and PCB space required. It could then share the rest of the PS4s existing IO chips and circuitry.

          There was literally no reason for backwards compatibility to be removed beyond corporate greed. Blindly accepting it, and actually trying to justify that as a good thing is one of the key reasons this hobby has gone down the toilet.