Surprised Sony isn't porting more PS3 games to PS4

[Sora9669]

1 hour ago, DARKB1KE said:

It's not up to Sony, it's up to the gaming studio that developed/produced the game. 

 

I'm talking about 1st party games lol.

[Infected Elite]

On 11/01/2018 at 0:34 PM, Sora9669 said:

For all the talk and hate on Sony releasing PS3 games on PS4 they have released very few themselves.

 

Just Uncharted 1-3, The Last of Us, God of War III, Journey, Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls unless I'm missing something.

forgot Okami, all those hd collections and darksiders 1 and 2. but I get what youre saying. they should if anything just make psnow cheap like 5$/month and have all ps3 library on it. that way you just play anything from ps3 on your ps4 at a cheaper cost.

[Sora9669]

17 hours ago, LegacyJKO09 said:

forgot Okami, all those hd collections and darksiders 1 and 2. but I get what youre saying. they should if anything just make psnow cheap like 5$/month and have all ps3 library on it. that way you just play anything from ps3 on your ps4 at a cheaper cost.

 

Okami is Capcom. Darksiders is THQ. I'm talking first party. PS Now is not what we're talking about, that's a completely different service.

[snakebit10]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 5:22 PM, diskdocx said:

 

No, it was more a response to the OP saying Sony themselves hadn't ported many of their IPs. I'm trying to think of a Sony IP that would be worth porting that hasn't been? Serious question - if Sony could port one of their PS3 games, which would you want?

 

The one's I want the most would be the Infamous games remastered. Would love to play those again. If I had a second choice I'd say the Killzone series without the MP like they did with the Uncharted games.

 

 

Back on OP. I am glad to see the remasters slow down. Even though personally I have no problem with them because it has allowed me to re visit some games I really enjoyed and play some games I may have missed on PS3.

[Gotakibono]

To be honest, I'm glad they aren't. I'd rather see development teams put time and effort into creating new games, as opposed to regurgitating the same games every generation. Also, PS3s are readily available, they're cheap as chips, and every single classic can still be bought for dirt cheap as well.

 

For me, any avid gamer who might've been too young to experience the PS3 generation would be advised to go down the route of buying a PS3 and the games; PS Now has fallen on its arse and has been poorly implemented and supported. The real shame with PS Now is that streaming might be the way to go to finally having a fully backwards compatible Playstation, one that's able to play games from the PS1 era right up to the modern PS4 games. But yeah, it's not turning out that way.  

Edited January 14, 2018 by Gotakibono

[SirPigFace]

I was thinking this the other day. I recently bought Ezio collection and Uncharted collection for PS4 because it had removed the online play, this is the only reason I never played through Brotherhood and Uncharted 2 and 3. I would of love to see a Red Dead Redemption PS4 version, I think it would of done well sales wise with the second one coming out soon. I mean I am certainly not against it but they are 100% worth it if they remove online play that might of put people off certain games. 

Edited January 14, 2018 by SirPigFace

[Sora9669]

On 15/01/2018 at 0:15 AM, Gotakibono said:

To be honest, I'm glad they aren't. I'd rather see development teams put time and effort into creating new games, as opposed to regurgitating the same games every generation. Also, PS3s are readily available, they're cheap as chips, and every single classic can still be bought for dirt cheap as well.

 

For me, any avid gamer who might've been too young to experience the PS3 generation would be advised to go down the route of buying a PS3 and the games; PS Now has fallen on its arse and has been poorly implemented and supported. The real shame with PS Now is that streaming might be the way to go to finally having a fully backwards compatible Playstation, one that's able to play games from the PS1 era right up to the modern PS4 games. But yeah, it's not turning out that way.  

 

Porting games rarely affects the development of new games.

[dzstrpc]

Yes and No

 

YES. Remakes like Crash Bandicoot N.Sane trilogy I can understand because the games are old but still popular.

But isn't it good enough now, won't it withstand the test of time 25 years into the future?

Do we really need Crash Bandicoot N.Sane trilogy REMASTERED on PS5 running in 4K@60FPS,

and later on PS6 running in 8K@120FPS or whatever?

 

NO. Remasters of PS3 games feels like there's to little improvement from the original,

it's like re-encoding a 128kbps mp3 to 320kbps and expect better sound quality.

Wasn't The Last of Us good enough on the PS3?

 

I also see the potential for backwards compatibility through streaming services.

Your hardware won't last forever. I still have 14 games in my PS3 backlog,

if it breaks I'm screwed because there's nowhere to get a new one in Sweden, where I live.

Same goes for the Vita. I know PS NOW isn't available in Sweden but I'm talking about it's

potential not what it is today.

When my PS3 breaks halfway through a game, I would love the possibility to buy a months worth of PS Now to finish the game I was playing

rather than wait for a remaster with a new trophylist, leaving the PS3 trophylist forever incomplete (the horror).

[Dreakon13]

14 minutes ago, dzstrpc said:

NO. Remasters of PS3 games feels like there's to little improvement from the original,

it's like re-encoding a 128kbps mp3 to 320kbps and expect better sound quality.

Wasn't The Last of Us good enough on the PS3?

 

Assets are typically made in higher quality and scaled back depending on hardware limitations (the non-3D assets anyways).  Since the developers have access to the raw assets, they aren't just "resizing" low quality textures... and even if they didn't have the raw assets anymore, they have the ability to re-create certain ones without remaking the whole game.  Plus, things like resolution/framerate improvements are independent of the original games asset quality.

 

If people want a better version of The Last of Us, then it doesn't really matter if it was good enough.

Edited January 15, 2018 by Dreakon13

[bruin-rocks]

On 2018-01-11 at 3:54 PM, SuperSmexy500 said:

There's just a lot of ports this generation in general. Nintendo is also porting a heck of a lot of games from the Wii U to the Switch. There's definitely been more Playstation exclusives ported than any Xbox exclusives (I can't even think of any)

Halo Master Chief Collection. That's all I can think of. 

[Sora9669]

12 hours ago, bruin-rocks said:

Halo Master Chief Collection. That's all I can think of. 

 

Gears of War, Halo Wars. I know some Kinect-only games were ported.

13 hours ago, dzstrpc said:

Yes and No

 

YES. Remakes like Crash Bandicoot N.Sane trilogy I can understand because the games are old but still popular.

But isn't it good enough now, won't it withstand the test of time 25 years into the future?

Do we really need Crash Bandicoot N.Sane trilogy REMASTERED on PS5 running in 4K@60FPS,

and later on PS6 running in 8K@120FPS or whatever?

 

NO. Remasters of PS3 games feels like there's to little improvement from the original,

it's like re-encoding a 128kbps mp3 to 320kbps and expect better sound quality.

Wasn't The Last of Us good enough on the PS3?

 

I also see the potential for backwards compatibility through streaming services.

Your hardware won't last forever. I still have 14 games in my PS3 backlog,

if it breaks I'm screwed because there's nowhere to get a new one in Sweden, where I live.

Same goes for the Vita. I know PS NOW isn't available in Sweden but I'm talking about it's

potential not what it is today.

When my PS3 breaks halfway through a game, I would love the possibility to buy a months worth of PS Now to finish the game I was playing

rather than wait for a remaster with a new trophylist, leaving the PS3 trophylist forever incomplete (the horror).

 

It's about making it playable on PlayStation 4.

[AJ_Radio]

On 1/14/2018 at 5:15 AM, Gotakibono said:

To be honest, I'm glad they aren't. I'd rather see development teams put time and effort into creating new games, as opposed to regurgitating the same games every generation. Also, PS3s are readily available, they're cheap as chips, and every single classic can still be bought for dirt cheap as well.

 

For me, any avid gamer who might've been too young to experience the PS3 generation would be advised to go down the route of buying a PS3 and the games; PS Now has fallen on its arse and has been poorly implemented and supported. The real shame with PS Now is that streaming might be the way to go to finally having a fully backwards compatible Playstation, one that's able to play games from the PS1 era right up to the modern PS4 games. But yeah, it's not turning out that way.  

 

The first PS3 model from what I understand was backwards compatible, but after that none of the discs from the PS1/PS2 worked on later models. 

 

The problem I see is kids who are just now getting into gaming are probably going to look at the PS3 era as “old”. Someone like me who has been gaming since 1992 has no problem plugging in a PS2 or a PS3 for that matter. For kids it’s a different story. 

 

They’ll see Horizon Zero Dawn at Best Buy and they’ll want to get it. But then they’ll see a game like Dead Space that is much older and has not-so-good graphics and they’ll turn heads. You can sell an old car to older people but you can’t sell an old car to younger people. 

 

I have both my PS4 and PS3 hooked up next to each other and by my TV. PlayStation Now has a joke of a list of games, and quite frankly it’s a lot better to just play the first God of War on your PS3 anyway. Then there’s Gamefly which I use to rent PS3 games for a monthly fee, a number of which aren’t readily available on PS Now. So that further makes it more of a joke. 

 

As a whole, todays big budget AAA games haven’t been as innovative and ground breaking as games from the past have done in previous generations. 

[Super-Fly Spider-Guy]

PlayStation fans: NINTENDO IS JUST PORTING OLD GAMES TO SWITCH

PlayStation fans: Surprised Sony isn't porting more PS3 games to PS4

[AlchemyAwesome]

I think it's great personally, PS3 still has far better games overall than PS4, as you'd expect from an older console.

[DarkSoleride]

I am just sitting here waiting for that Burnout Paradise remaster to be true 

[AJ_Radio]

12 hours ago, AlchemyAwesome said:

I think it's great personally, PS3 still has far better games overall than PS4, as you'd expect from an older console.

 

Yes. Games that were a bit more original and innovative in their design. 

 

Today it’s about releasing a hundred remasters of games we got on the PS3, and releasing more polished versions of games that are really not much different from games in the PS3/360 generation. 

 

The jump from PS2 to PS3 was significant. The jump from PS3 to PS4, not so much. 

[Uchiha_Snake__]

They pretty much port all of the PS3 relevant exclusives (except for the inFamous,Resistence and the Ratchet and Clank sagas) the rest were ports made it by third parties, still i don't think anyone would ask for another PS3 port but a sequel... Heeelloooo Hevenly Sword ?

[AJ_Radio]

I still wish Ratchet and Clank: Tools of Destruction, Resistance: Fall of Man and the first Assassins Creed would get trophy support. But I don’t think that’s ever going to happen.

[ChristianHenares]

Honestly. I love every port to come to PS4. New platinum and great games also. And the developvers get money for releasing a "cheap and not too hard to do game".

Everyone's happy. I really don't see anything wrong about ports or remasters.

[Leenewbe]

i just wish they'd hurry up and add more ps2 classics to the list there are plenty i'd like to replay, i still have my ps3 so i din't really have much of an opinion on this as i have choices.
i wouldn't mind some of the older ps3 games being ported though, pre-trophy titles such as folklore & heavenly sword.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Leenewbe

[SGRevan]

On 28/01/2018 at 2:07 AM, Leenewbe said:

i just wish they'd hurry up and add more ps2 classics to the list there are plenty i'd like to replay, i still have my ps3 so i din't really have much of an opinion on this as i have choices.
i wouldn't mind some of the older ps3 games being ported though, pre-trophy titles such as folklore & heavenly sword.

I agree.

Def. with Folklore. Such a hidden gem.

[Leenewbe]

8 hours ago, SGRevan said:

I agree.

Def. with Folklore. Such a hidden gem.

unfortunately i missed out on it but loved the demo, there was only 1 game shop in my city that had a single copy but the price never dropped for it so i was never able to afford it.   

[Infected Elite]

surprised RedDead Redemption didn't get a port or HD release on ps4. especially from the delay of RDR2 twice.  it's still early to tell though. 

[SGRevan]

17 hours ago, Leenewbe said:

unfortunately i missed out on it but loved the demo, there was only 1 game shop in my city that had a single copy but the price never dropped for it so i was never able to afford it.   

Aw man, yeah, it's a pretty rare gem. I really hope they bring it to the current gen so you can play it (and so I can play it again :p).

[kraven_15]

I'd take a Resistance remastered campaign collection (no online trophies) for sure!

That, and Eternal Sonata. I would love them to remake that game.

Nintendo porting their own games isn't really a surprise. With Switch already outselling the Wii-U (I'm led to believe), then there's a lot of people who missed out on them. Nintendo have the best first party games so I see no reason to re-release them for those who most likely missed them. I won't buy them as I have the wii-u versions, but being able to have them as a handheld could be fun too...