PlayStation 4 Will Stream PlayStation 3 Games

The difference in architecture between PlayStation 3’s CPU and PlayStation 4’s means that the only way to make Sony’s upcoming console backward compatible with its predecessor is fitting it with a unit containing the whole PS3 Cell CPU with its 9 processing units. Practically, this means that Orbis won’t be able to play PlayStation 3’s games without a hefty increase in its price.

But it seems that Sony has found a clever solution that would allow all previous PlayStation games to play on Orbis without adding a single dime to its hardware cost.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Sony will solve this problem by using its game-streaming service, Gaikai.

Gaikai offloads all processing and rendering to its servers in the cloud and sends the rendered frames directly to its PC or console client to be displayed. The client also captures user input and sends it the server in real time.

Gaikai was acquired by Sony in July 2012 for $380 million.

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


can they be even more lazy,

can they be even more lazy, seriously ps3 cant ******* emulate ps2 games, ps2 is like ******* ancient piece of garbage, and once again, why the **** do they make completely different architecture every time, so much ******* time is wasted relearning how to develop for their ******* ****, and it turns out its slower than things off the shelf. i like ps but their ******* architecture is bs

Every system is difficult as

Every system is difficult as to emulate no matter how '******* ancient' they are - that's the nature I emulation, a software copy is never as fast as hardware (look at software rendering vs. hardware for example). And if they used the same system architecture the PS1 just so developers could recucle their terrible code, then they would never be able to produce a console that has the speed or power to compete with other consoles.

You're right about the

You're right about the emulation part, but the architecture part is utter bs. PCs have had the same architecture since the 80's, give or take a few enhancements (like sse and 64 bit cpus). They have always thrived with just faster components. For a more recent example we have the xbox, which was a boxed pc at first, then the second version too and if rumors are true the third version will follow suit. Sony made 2 generation defining consoles ps1 and ps2, they tried to keep it up with the ps3 but as game quality goes up, so does dev time and costs, no one wants to spend so much time learning a new architecture these days, especially so because they know it will be gone in a few years. However it seems sony realized that and went with a pc-like architecture this time.

The first version of the Xbox

The first version of the Xbox was a gimped Pentium 3, and the Xbox 360 uses a PowerPC-based processor just like the PS3. The PS2 also uses a completely different hardware architecture the the PS1, yet was the most successful console of all time. The Nintendo 64 used a MIPS Microprocessor and the GameCube used a PowerPC G3. "PC's" have used dozens of different hardware architectures over the past thirty years including basic microprocessors, ARM, x86, x86-64 and PowerPC. On top of this, any competent programmer worth their salt will have enough of an understanding of languages and the kinds of modern multithreaded architectures that the majority of their code will run platform independently. After all, only low-level hardware dependant code (Sound, Graphics, Input and I/O - which without libraries provided by hardware manufacturers are usually written in assembler) is platform dependant.

Back in the golden days of

Back in the golden days of gaming (nes,snes,n64,ps1) different architectures per platform and generation was the norm. Nowadays its the opposite, the complexity of games has increased so much that its not really a good idea to have platforms which are so different. The 360 uses a PowerPC cpu, true but the ps3 uses a PowerPC BASED cpu, not the same thing at all since there are several apus lying next to it which require PLATFORM DEPENDENT CODE to be used as they're not general processing units. ignore those or use them poorly and you're under utilizing the PS3's power which is the case in most multi platform games. Sorry, PCs are x86, x86-64 is just an extension, not a different architecture, PowerPC (despite the name PowerPC based computers aren't PCs) ARM is for mobile devices, they're computers too but not PCs. Low level hardware dependent code is the thing for consoles and the lack of it is what limits PC gpu performance. Sure, GLSL and HLSL may simplify some of it but theres plenty that doesn't go into shaders too.

There are so many facts wrong

There are so many facts wrong in your post I can't even be bothered to point out all of them. Do you think PowerPC and ARM are the same processor? Or are Mac's not "PC's" in your book? Is an ARM tablet a PC? Because to most people it is - and ARM CPU's have always had a market for power-efficient embedded PC's... Just... I don't know whether you're trying to 'win' by keeping up false assumptions or if you actually believe all of this...

From a marketing standpoint,

From a marketing standpoint, it's genius. Test a streaming service people are willing to pay for by digitally buying a PS3 collection. And if it fails, they'll see an increase in PS3 hardware sales. From a consumer standpoint, Sony is shooting themselves in the foot with a 12 gauge.

"means that the only way to

"means that the only way to make Sony’s upcoming console backward compatible with its predecessor is fitting it with a unit containing the whole PS3 Cell CPU" - Really? Just like the solution to run debug builds of android/IOS apps in PCs is to fit ARM CPUs inside a devs PC right? Lets forget about emulation because its such an insignificant and useless science.

If they're using it for a

If they're using it for a significant portion of the console, it obviously works more than 'barely'. I think it's to curb second than game sales of PS3 games once the new console comes out - they won't be manufacturing new discs for the old console, so how can they force people to pay them new-game prices for seven year old games and see the profits from each sale?


i think for many costumers the problem is forking out some 500usd and have 2-3 titles to choose from that also cost 50+usd each. Obviously backwards compatibility is important, especially if it is further able to improve these titles. Streaming is not a pretty solution. I think should MS be able to have backwards comparability at higher resolutions/better frame rates + extra AA what not, that would be a big deciding factor

Yea its much easier for

Yea its much easier for microsoft to add backwards compatibility since they didn't go for a funky architecture with the 360. The 720 would be basically the same as you buying a new, more powerful rig and running games you already own in it.

PS3 Streaming

I knew it !! I knew this would happen !! well, at least the console streaming part, but I was sure Consoles would become extinct when the Streaming process was PERFECTED. Anyhow, if you wanna see what Streaming games is like then go to and try it yourself.... personally i think it is horrible, of course I like action games and can't deal with the lag. but you may have a different opinion.

You are correct, streaming

You are correct, streaming offers several advantages to companies such as the end of piracy and the end of second hand game sales as the games are stored and run in the companies servers, the console becomes nothing more than an internet box, unable to run games on their own.

Add new comment