@neowarrior793: This would be a more effective argument if they were trying to make PS3 games backwards compatible, because the hardware requirements would be a hurdle. But, they're not trying to implement PS3 Backwards compatibility, they're going with the PS2. A 16 year old system. One that a computer with specs similar to the PS4 would have no trouble emulating.

@neowarrior793: Costs Microsoft nothing? Then, you go on to say all it requires from them is time. That is a contradictory statement. Not to sound cliché, but time IS money. Yes, the architectures of the 360 and ONE are both x86/x64, making for an easier transition. However, just look at how much trouble that's been for PC gamers in the past. Vista was an x86/x64 architecture, and when PC gamers upgraded to 7, they saw a slew of compatibility issues, which required that development personnel be redirected to fix the issue. It happened again, when transitioning from 7 to 8. And we're seeing it on a smaller scale, going from 8.1 to 10. That's time that could be spent on other projects, but is having to be allotted to fix problems. Indirectly, that costs money. It's the same thing with backwards compatibility on consoles.

Additionally, to provide the excuse that Sony has to rework the games to get them to work on PS4 is incorrect. They're choosing to, but they had the technology to emulate PS2 on the PS3, shortly after the PS3 came out. The launch model PS3s had the Emotion engine in them, which meant they essentially had a PS2 tacked on to the Cell processor based hardware. The Emotion engine was removed with the second wave of PS3s and the consoles utilized software emulation to play PS2 games. This, too, was later removed, but it does not change the fact that the console was capable of PS2 emulation, at no additional cost to gamers.

I understand that Sony is attempting to justify requiring a repurchase of PS2 games by providing achievements and some upscaling, but to those that own the games and would like to play them on a single console, this is BS.

@neowarrior793: It has nothing to do with likes, it has to do with highlighting that Sony is partaking in a business that exists solely to squeeze extra money from customers. Microsoft GIVES their players backwards compatibility, while Sony expects them to pay for it.

Awesome! I get to pay again for games that I already own! No thanks, Sony. I'll just keep using my launch model PS3.

More Hollywood SJW gender appropriation. They're comically hypocritical...

@stoney28z: No, I'm quite serious. 2142 was one of the best games in the series. Hell, they even teased a return to that setting with BF4's Final Stand DLC. What we got instead was a gimmick with a terrible name.

Disappointing. Very disappointing. 2143 was a natural choice and they couldn't even do that right.

That sounds absolutely atrocious...

Nien Nunb? Where's Max Reebo?!