• 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.

DSP

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,120
Why does it matter that those other platforms don't have BC (I care myself, especially with Switch, but that's besides the point)? None of them compete with PS5 man, Xbox does. It absolutely does matter that Xbox has a better implementation of this feature than Sony, they are direct competitors. By that same token, I think it is completely fair to compare them, just like it's fair to say Sony has better exclusives than MS. But Sony is failing on the BC front, and failing hard, and it should be fair to criticize that, especially when the direct competition is doing so much better by comparison.

Every company has their own core competency and advantages. I am saying Sony can't just pull it out of their hat and other companies in tech have similar challenges. Microsoft is in a unique position in this respect and that comes from decades of experience, really more than anybody else in the business. Obviously to the end user, it does not matter, they just expect the best, some people just think it is a given that future hardware should run their old software while in most places it is the contrary. It is not because Sony is incompetent or they don't care, they obviously want to make it happen, it is money for them when they can easily sell back catalog software.
 

Liabe Brave

Professionally Enhanced
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,672
But the blog post says almost 100 playable at launch. Not boosted, just playable. So not even 100 will be playable. cut and paste from the blog -"Lastly, we're excited to confirm that the backwards compatibility features are working well. We recently took a look at the top 100 PS4 titles as ranked by play time, and we're expecting almost all of them to be playable at launch on PS5."
The blog post is massively less detailed than the presentation speech and slides, so I suspect they're just eliding. But even if we take this at face value, let's assume 5 of those 100 games won't be playable at all. That would imply that about 95 percent of the library will work, not that 95 titles period will work.

If that would've been the case, they would've said it already.
My suggestion is that they did say it already, during the presentation. Reverse it, and assume all titles run boosted (and thus few work). Then why did the slide list PS4 and PS4 Pro legacy modes? What does that mean?

This is from Psblog after Cerny meeting

"Lastly, we're excited to confirm that the backwards compatibility features are working well. We recently took a look at the top 100 PS4 titles as ranked by play time, and we're expecting almost all of them to be playable at launch on PS5. With more than 4000 games published on PS4, we will continue the testing process and expand backwards compatibility coverage over time."
So you think they would say the features are "working well" if a grand total of 90 games out of 4000+ are actually functional?

Sony's history with BC has been spotty at *best*, and they've almost never supported true 100% BC for their previous systems.
The PS2 played basically all PS1 games. The PS3 played basically all PS1 and PS2 games. That's 2 out of 3 home consoles. By comparison, Microsoft has yet to release any system with 100% BC. But when they do later this year, it'll be 1 of 3. Nintendo has released 2 out of 5 (or out of 6, if you count Switch as a home console too).
 

Theswweet

RPG Site
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
6,403
California
The PS2 played basically all PS1 games. The PS3 played basically all PS1 and PS2 games. That's 2 out of 3 home consoles. By comparison, Microsoft has yet to release any system with 100% BC. But when they do later this year, it'll be 1 of 3. Nintendo has released 2 out of 5 (or out of 6, if you count Switch as a home console too).

Vita didn't play all PSP games digitally, nor all PS Classics digitally. PSTV didn't even play all Vita games, including ones that would work, but just weren't whitelisted.

While PS3 *at launch* supported all PS1/PS2 games, most PS3s that were sold did not support PS2 BC at all.
 

Love Machine

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,216
Tokyo, Japan
I'd love to be wrong, but it's a bad look when we can't even be sure we'll be able to play Bloodborne @ 1080p on PS5 when MS is showing HDR/4K OG Xbox games day 1 on Xbox X, along with 100% XB1 compatibility + enhancements.
It really is a bad look. Higher res and stuff aren't even an issue - if we simply can't play our PS4 library (disc in, or download digital from our account) on day 1 then that's a hard pass for me. I've spent so much on games this gen (a lot of indies and discounted titles that I've yet to try) that I can't justify throwing away for a shiny new console.
 

Dancrane212

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,962
Then why did the slide list PS4 and PS4 Pro legacy modes? What does that mean?

Because, as repeated many times in this thread, those modes are interpreters for PS4 instructions. Just like Cerny mentioned in the talk, the issue is the PS5 will then run those instructions faster than a PS4 would so the games all need to be tested for compatibility.

There is no "boost mode" everything is boosted.
 

DealWithIt

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,669
It's really starting to piss me off that all of the PS1-PS2 games I've purchased on PSN are stuck entirely to one console.
I don't care about enhancements. I'm perfectly content with just having access. My PS3 won't last forever.

It probably doesn't help that my PS4 library is anything but top 100 games, so it's doubtful that I'll ever be able to trade that in. Maybe I should renovate my house. I'll need an extra room just to house Sony consoles.
This is the thing that I find unacceptable. The fact that they don't spend the resources to make the psp/PSV backcompat stuff portable is inane.
 

Vito

One Winged Slayer - Formerly Undead Fantasy
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,041
I had the same thought but then I read this on reddit:

Here's the actual part where he talks about backwards compatibility.](https://youtu.be/ph8LyNIT9sg?t=1623)

"The very first thing he says is "The Playstation 5 GPU is backwards compatible with Playstation 4." He goes on to say that the way they achieved backwards compatibility is by putting PS4 logic into the PS5 chip. It seems like PS4 (and PS4 Pro) games can use a "legacy mode" to play exactly like they would on their native system. This sounds to me like every PS4 game will be playable in legacy mode, because the PS5 basically switches to behave like a PS4. No upgrades, but the games are playable. Then he talks about playing PS4 games at "boosted frequencies" and the boost is "massive." This is where the "top 100 games" comment comes in. I believe he's referring to playing games in "boosted mode" rather than legacy mode, and most of the 100 games they tested will be playable like this on launch."
I really hope you are right.

If I can't put a PS4 disc on my PS5 and play it without donwloading anything then I will have to keep my PS4.

Sony better not fuck up.
 

TaterTots

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,962
Dropped ball imo. People keep screaming they want BC and they announce limited titles? Should have taken more time to make all PS games BC. It doesn't make sense that the console is too fast to play older titles when the next Xbox is BC.
 

Evolved1

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,619
This is the thing that I find unacceptable. The fact that they don't spend the resources to make the psp/PSV backcompat stuff portable is inane.
It's bullshit and I'm fed up with it. Today was kind of a reality check, personally. I'm as much to blame for buying these games expecting Sony to do the right thing when all evidence points to the contrary.
 

SNRUB

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,009
New Jersey
You think with the PS4 being a golden goose that it is that BC would be a top priority for the next generation. Especially with MS basically outrunning them in that department.
 

Liabe Brave

Professionally Enhanced
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,672
Vita didn't play all PSP games digitally, nor all PS Classics digitally. PSTV didn't even play all Vita games, including ones that would work, but just weren't whitelisted.

While PS3 *at launch* supported all PS1/PS2 games, most PS3s that were sold did not support PS2 BC at all.
I specified home consoles, because that's what we're talking about with PS5. As for the change in PS3, okay let's say 1.5 out of 3 machines had 100% BC. That's still a higher percentage than Microsoft or Nintendo.

Because, as repeated many times in this thread, those modes are interpreters for PS4 instructions. Just like Cerny mentioned in the talk, the issue is the PS5 will then run those instructions faster than a PS4 would so the games all need to be tested for compatibility.

There is no "boost mode" everything is boosted.
I don't think the bolded is so certain. No one said that, and Sony's history with boosting for BC suggests otherwise. They were paranoid enough to make it optional for a 111MHz jump, but then make it obligatory when going up by ~1.4 GHz?
 

Theswweet

RPG Site
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
6,403
California
I don't think the bolded is so certain. No one said that, and Sony's history with boosting for BC suggests otherwise. They were paranoid enough to make it optional for a 111MHz jump, but then make it obligatory when going up by ~1.4 GHz?

The bolded *is* certain if BC's being done in hardware. Zen 2+RDNA2 is *not* 1:1 to Jaguar+GCN. It's a more significant difference than the differences between base PS4 and Pro, obviously, where Boost Mode *already* has issues with some games, and since the difference is on an architectural level there's no way to turn this inherent "boost" off.
 

thebigword

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,326
Was never expecting PS1-PS3 BC. But not full BC with PS4? That's ridiculous. They really dropped the ball here.
 

Dancrane212

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,962

That's what Cerny was referring to when he said games have to deal with a faster machine. It's not just clock speeds, you can't suddenly turn the entire structure of a PS5 into a PS4 unless you have the actual chip in there (which is why Cerney talked about the PS3 BC before that slide as a comparison).

It is going to run faster.
It is not an "obligatory" feature.
It is just how the hardware works.
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,320
Seattle
So you think they would say the features are "working well" if a grand total of 90 games out of 4000+ are actually functional?

"we are expecting almost all of them to be playable at launch" is also a direct quote from Cerny. He didn't say "in boost mode", he just outright made that statement. Pretty odd if he meant "in boost mode"; and then there is the PS blog..
 

Theswweet

RPG Site
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
6,403
California
Worth noting that even if you limited the PS5's CPU to the same clockspeeds as the PS4, the performance would still be significantly faster. Same with the GPU - that's what we're talking about. IPC is the main thing here, it's what Cerny was alluding to. Technically there is a boost mode, but you just can't turn it off, and obviously that means there will be compatibility issues.
 

Netherscourge

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,900
How can hardware be "too fast" to run an older game?

They don't know how to throttle per BC title?

I mean we have dynamic resolution/performance on current gen consoles. Why can't that be adapted conversely to mainain expected rates for older titles?
 

Theswweet

RPG Site
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
6,403
California
How can hardware be "too fast" to run an older game?

They don't know how to throttle per BC title?


I mean we have dynamic resolution/performance on current gen consoles. Why can't that be adapted conversely to mainain expected rates for older titles?

Please, don't talk about a topic that you clearly don't understand anything about. With PS4 Pro it was easier to manage - IPC was more or less flat. That certainly isn't the case here. Even at the same clockspeeds you'll have wildly different performance.
 

Netherscourge

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,900
Please, don't talk about a topic that you clearly don't understand anything about. With PS4 Pro it was easier to manage - IPC was more or less flat. That certainly isn't the case here. Even at the same clockspeeds you'll have wildly different performance.

So it's not possible to set caps on higher-end hardware to create an emulated environment of an older platform?
 

BreakAtmo

Member
Nov 12, 2017
12,824
Australia
"we are expecting almost all of them to be playable at launch" is also a direct quote from Cerny. He didn't say "in boost mode", he just outright made that statement. Pretty odd if he meant "in boost mode"; and then there is the PS blog..

I just watched the video, this is the full quote after he talks about the PS4 and PS4 Pro Legacy Modes:

"Running PS4 and PS4 (pro) titles AT BOOSTED FREQUENCIES has also added complexity. The boost is truly massive this time around, and some game code just can't handle it. Testing has to be done on a title by title basis. Results are excellent though - we recently took a look at the top 100 PS4 titles, ranked by playtime, and we're expecting almost all of them to be playable at launch on PlayStation 5."

He's very, very clearly talking about when you're running them with increased clocks.
 

Deleted member 224

Oct 25, 2017
5,629
Doesn't give me hope for PS1-3 during its lifespan.
Honestly, I don't even think we'll get a majority of PS4 titles working on Ps5 in its lifetime. Sony hasn't really instilled a lot of confidence with how they've handled legacy software this generation.
 

Nostradamus

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,280
Well we know that PS3 compatibility is impossible due to its architecture but they should ensure that all PS4 titles run at launch.
 

litebrite

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
21,832
As somebody who didn't own a PS4, but will probably get a PS5 to play PS5 and PS4 exclusives. I just hope all Sony's first party PS4 games are BC and some/most get PS5 upgrade patches.
 
Nov 8, 2017
13,086
The blog post is massively less detailed than the presentation speech and slides, so I suspect they're just eliding. But even if we take this at face value, let's assume 5 of those 100 games won't be playable at all. That would imply that about 95 percent of the library will work, not that 95 titles period will work.

The implication is that regardless of whether or not they "would" work, they would not be available for conumser use until testing had taken place.

His statement in the presentation is ambiguous because he could have been referring to 95/100 games in the top 100 working for boost mode only (since it followed discussions on boost mode), or he could have been recapping the whole back compat section by saying 95/100 top 100 games have been tested in general. The blog post implies the validity of the latter interpretation, but if that's not true, then they really need to clear that up and make a firm, unambiguous statement.
 

Nanashrew

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,328
The PS2 played basically all PS1 games. The PS3 played basically all PS1 and PS2 games. That's 2 out of 3 home consoles. By comparison, Microsoft has yet to release any system with 100% BC. But when they do later this year, it'll be 1 of 3. Nintendo has released 2 out of 5 (or out of 6, if you count Switch as a home console too).
PS3 BC was super spotty and the EU never even got a PS3 with hardware based BC.
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,320
Seattle
I just watched the video, this is the full quote after he talks about the PS4 and PS4 Pro Legacy Modes:

"Running PS4 and PS4 (pro) titles AT BOOSTED FREQUENCIES has also added complexity. The boost is truly massive this time around, and some game code just can't handle it. Testing has to be done on a title by title basis. Results are excellent though - we recently took a look at the top 100 PS4 titles, ranked by playtime, and we're expecting almost all of them to be playable at launch on PlayStation 5."

He's very, very clearly talking about when you're running them with increased clocks.
That would be a terribly written speech; you don't make a statement like "expecting almost all of them to be playable at launch on Playstation 5" if you meant that sentence to be refer to a "boost mode" you never mention, or if the statement about "boosted frequencies" 3 sentences earlier was meant to be a huge qualifier.

You'd say "All PS4 titles are backwards compatible" if you weren't writing a horribly written speech.

And then you forget to tell the people writing your blog to mention that all games are actually BC? And their statement about "most of 100" being playable never mentions boosted anything?
 

Liabe Brave

Professionally Enhanced
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,672
The bolded *is* certain if BC's being done in hardware. Zen 2+RDNA2 is *not* 1:1 to Jaguar+GCN. It's a more significant difference than the differences between base PS4 and Pro, obviously, where Boost Mode *already* has issues with some games, and since the difference is on an architectural level there's no way to turn this inherent "boost" off.
That's what Cerny was referring to when he said games have to deal with a faster machine. It's not just clock speeds, you can't suddenly turn the entire structure of a PS5 into a PS4 unless you have the actual chip in there (which is why Cerney talked about the PS3 BC before that slide as a comparison).
I agree that there are changes besides the clockspeed. However, regarding the architectural differences Mr. Cerny had this to say:

Mark Cerny said:
Achieving this unification of functionality took years of efforts by AMD, as any roadmap advancement creates a potential divergence in logic.

That is obviously claiming that very substantial work went into ensuring legacy instruction support no matter what new features were also added. It would be odd if the result of this incredible effort was that...almost no games work.

And again, the exact same points apply to PS4 Pro as well: enhanced microarchitecture and higher clocks than its older sibling. And Sony's response was to make the clock boost optional, even though only a very small portion of titles are affected. I therefore am skeptical that in a situation where the clocks are enormously more different, and the end result is nearly complete failure, that they'd make the clock boost mandatory.

"we are expecting almost all of them to be playable at launch" is also a direct quote from Cerny. He didn't say "in boost mode", he just outright made that statement. Pretty odd if he meant "in boost mode";
When he said that, two sentences earlier he'd just mentioned the clock boost as the confounding factor that necessitates game-by-game testing. How would it be odd to mean playable with boosting?

Worth noting that even if you limited the PS5's CPU to the same clockspeeds as the PS4, the performance would still be significantly faster.
For the legacy modes, it is very likely they do limit the PS5 GPU to PS4 or PS4 Pro speed. That's shown by the GitHub leak, and it matches to their Pro approach. Yes, there's still a discrepancy in performance. But as I showed above, years of work was applied to making this functional anyway.
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,320
Seattle
When he said that, two sentences earlier he'd just mentioned the clock boost as the confounding factor that necessitates game-by-game testing. How would it be odd to mean playable with boosting?

It's a prepared speech with a blog that cribs from it word for word where no "boost mode" is mentioned, and neither makes the statement that all PS4 games are backwards compatible.

Do you just think they are the worst speech / marketing blurb writers in the world?

It seems clear to me all BC is done with boosted performance; hence for any BC on the system games need to be tested. Why wouldn't they mention "regular vs boosted" BC? And if they did have "regular BC", why not tout the fact all games are playable?
 

BreakAtmo

Member
Nov 12, 2017
12,824
Australia
The Legacy Modes and the increased speeds go hand in hand. Those modes will interpret the PS4 games instruction sets and the PS5, with its "increased frequencies", will execute them.

The whole point of the Legacy Modes is that they will not have increased frequencies, only increased IPC, which is very clearly not what he is talking about there. He discusses the legacy modes, then moves into what happens when you turn on the PS5's higher clocks for BC games.
 

Dancrane212

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,962
I agree that there are changes besides the clockspeed. However, regarding the architectural differences Mr. Cerny had this to say:

Of course it was hard to bring something into the PS5 to interpret those instruction sets, Cerny said as much in the presentation! But it's still just interpretating instructions, the PS5 is going to run them at faster speeds. It's explicit in that presentation.

He discusses the legacy modes, then moves into what happens when you turn on the PS5's higher clocks for BC games.

OK, let's say there are real "run everything" PS4 modes. Why are they not mentioned in the blog? Also, where was it mentioned the point of those Legacy Modes was not have increased frequencies instead of interpreting the instructions?
 
Last edited:

Surface of Me

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,207
Nope, not feasibly. That's why MS' solution through software was the smarter route - Sony is trying to match performance with hardware downclocking, which is incredibly difficult, and might even vary on a game by game basis.

Didn't Sony patent some sort of software based BC a while back? Or am I completely misremembering?
 

BreakAtmo

Member
Nov 12, 2017
12,824
Australia
Of course it was hard to bring something into the PS5 to interpret those instruction sets, Cerny said as much in the presentation! But it's still just intreping instructions, the PS5 is going to run them at faster speeds. It's explicit in that presentation.



OK, let's say there are real "run everything" PS4 modes. Why are they not mentioned in the blog?

Oh, I have no idea. It's really fucking weird and they need to make this more clear. But Cerny said what he said. Also, consider this - both the Pro and PS5 have the same number of CUs, so the state of things must be different between the Legacy Mode and the full clocks Native Mode. Otherwise there would be no point to the PS4 Pro Legacy Mode.
 

TitanicFall

Member
Nov 12, 2017
8,260
They're literally talking about how it's a difference in hardware performance that's causing the issues. MS' solution in software does not run into that problem, assuming the system itself is powerful enough to run the games in the first place.

I think there are multiple interpretations of what Cerny said, so best to just wait for further confirmation.
 

Zelus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
990
This is some bullcrap. I can understand nothing prior to PS4 but PS4 isn't exactly guaranteed either? What's the point of buying any more multiplatform titles if I don't have a guarantee I can play them on PS5 then? And if they're having this much trouble with PS5, how much worse is it going to be with PS6?
 

Dancrane212

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,962
Oh, I have no idea. It's really fucking weird and they need to make this more clear. But Cerny said what he said. Also, consider this - both the Pro and PS5 have the same number of CUs, so the state of things must be different between the Legacy Mode and the full clocks Native Mode. Otherwise there would be no point to the PS4 Pro Legacy Mode.

Perhaps having the same number of CUs helps with overall compatibility, but I don't see how you can build a gap between Cerny talking about the difficulty of making something that would interrupt PS4 instructions—that there is always the chance of variance—and the speed of the PS5 in relation to PS4 titles causing issues. That he actually pivoted to talking about a "boost mode" that no one explicitly mentions afterwards seems a pretty big leap.
 

12Danny123

Member
Jan 31, 2018
1,722
I do wonder how Sony will be able to keep BC going throughout future consoles.. I do expect at some point Sony will need to start from scratch in order to get BC working properly. But it's clear that PS4 architecture and OS was not designed for Backwards Compatibility in mind, hence the patchy job in BC.
 

Liabe Brave

Professionally Enhanced
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,672
The Legacy Modes and the increased speeds go hand in hand.
But this was never explicitly stated. And PS4 Pro doesn't operate that way. And according to the GitHub leak, neither does PS5.

PS3 BC was super spotty and the EU never even got a PS3 with hardware based BC.
I believe launch PS3 supported about 95% of the PS1 and PS2 libraries. The first EU PS3 had the PS2 GPU, just not also the CPU. In addition, all PS3s have basically 100% BC with PS1. In any case, as I said even counting PS3 only partially still puts Sony's track record better than Microsoft or Nintendo. (Or if you like, they're the least bad--100% BC hasn't been a common choice for anybody.)

That would be a terribly written speech; you don't make a statement like "expecting almost all of them to be playable at launch on Playstation 5" if you meant that sentence to be refer to a "boost mode" you never mention....
It was mentioned, two sentences earlier. (The intervening statement is "Results are excellent, though." Which to my ear hardly sounds like something you'd say if you'd managed to get only ~90 out of 4000+ games playable.)

You'd say "All PS4 titles are backwards compatible" if you weren't writing a horribly written speech.
So, something like:

Mark Cerny said:
..The PlayStation 5 GPU is backwards compatible with the PlayStation 4. What does that mean? ...Even as the technology evolves, the logic and feature set that PlayStation 4 and PlayStation 4 Pro titles rely on is still available in backwards compatibility modes.

It's a prepared speech with a blog that cribs from it word for word where no "boost mode" is mentioned, and neither makes the statement that all PS4 games are backwards compatible.

Do you just think they are the worst speech / marketing blurb writers in the world?
I think that parsing every public statement as if it's fully perfect isn't the proper approach. I do agree that, even if the correct interpretation is as I say, Sony did a poor job of making it clear, and very much need to expand what they said.