Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games)

PS3's New Back-Compat Limit Outlined 108

Posted by Zonk from the less-is-more-i-guess dept.
We spoke last week about the EU version of the PS3 having a more limited backwards compatibility offering than its US and Japanese cousins. Now, via Gamespot, Sony's Phil Harrison has clarified what kind of support the machine will be offering. His comments in an interview on the 'semi-official' ThreeSpeech blog state that emulation of the PS2 won't be a huge barrier to backwards compatibility. "Our thinking involves being able to bring the latest hardware specification of the PS3 to Europe, although that does mean an initial slight reduction in the number of PS2 components. But it's important to put that into context: there will still be thousands of PlayStation and PlayStation 2 titles playable on the PS3 at launch ... The situation is changing every day, but on March 23, we expect the list to include over 1,000 PS2 titles." Harrison goes on to say that they'd likely be concentrating on 'big' titles, and that they generally don't consider back-compat very important in the grand scheme of things; in their view people buy the PS3 for new games, not old ones. If you haven't had a chance to read it yet, there's an opinion piece over at Next-Gen that completely agrees with Harrison's statement. Colin Campbell penned a missive entitled 'Why Sony is Right', and lays out what backwards compatibility looks great on the side of a box, but just isn't that big a deal.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PS3's New Back-Compat Limit Outlined More

PS3's New Back-Compat Limit Outlined

Comments Filter:

  • Could be great news ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Brigade ( 974884 ) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @02:25PM (#18196830)
    As long as I can still play my PS2 Barbie Horse Adventures .. then I'm sold!

  • PlayStation consoles break. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepplesNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday March 01, 2007 @02:26PM (#18196840) Homepage Journal

    Sony stopped making the PSone. Sony is expected to stop making the PlayStation 2 Slimline before the PS4 comes out. So after the optical drives in existing PS1 and PS2 units wear out, what are players supposed to use?

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Wicko ( 977078 )
      Emulators.

      The same way every other console survives, like NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, etc. There may not be any emulators out, but PS2s haven't phased out yet either. I believe emulators are legal if you own the console, and the roms are legal if you own the game.
      • PS2 emulation is improving but unless you have one of of a system you can't run most of the games or even render the environment correctly. However the leading project is moving fast right now so that could change in the next 2 to 3 years.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Wicko ( 977078 )
          True, which is why i mentioned they aren't phased out yet, you should be able to buy them for a quite a while longer.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Emulators are generally legal, you don't need to own the console. The only legal issue is copyright on the system roms (if applicable). Roms are not legal even if you own the title, though I'm sure they'll be out of copyright (and therefore legal) in another 120 years or so. Cartridge based systems are generally very resiliant, so if you'd like to stay legal there's no real reason you can't break out your NES 20 years from now...well, other than their crappy 72 pin cartridge port. If you'd like to do the sa

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Wicko ( 977078 )
          Possibly, but we're lucky the newer consoles use media we can read with normal PC components, so roms become unnecessary (unless you like the ease of use, with virtual drives or something). Is it illegal for roms here in Canada, or is this just a US thing? I find it kind of ridiculous that it would be for an outdated system like NES or something, but I guess they want to be able to resell them like they are through the Wii or something along those lines.
          • That is largely true (caveat: dreamcast GD-ROMS aren't), unfortunately newer consoles are much harder to emulate. I'm sure we'll see really good emulators for DC and PS2 at some point but until that happens you'll still need the physical machine. Saturn emulation is still pretty spotty and that's now a 12+ year old console, ditto for the 3DO and Jaguar.

            Possibly, but we're lucky the newer consoles use media we can read with normal PC components, so roms become unnecessary (unless you like the ease of us

    • In this senario which is most likely? That the optical drives in the units wear out and can not read data OR that the CD/DVDs get scratched by normal use to where data is unusable.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by tepples ( 727027 )

        In this senario which is most likely? That the optical drives in the units wear out and can not read data OR that the CD/DVDs get scratched by normal use to where data is unusable.

        In the case of early runs of PlayStation and PlayStation 2 game consoles, the former. Remember having to turn the console upside down to get the laser to read anything? Sure, discs get scratched, but that's what SkipDr is for. SkipDr has its limitations, but scratches that it cannot correct pose a problem primarily if you don't keep your T- and M-rated games out of reach of the EC-rated kids.

        Out-of-print games are also a problem, but I'll save it for anti-MPAA discussions where I can draw analogies to

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by despisethesun ( 880261 )
        I see you've never owned a PS2.

    • Sony stopped making the PSone. Sony is expected to stop making the PlayStation 2 Slimline before the PS4 comes out. So after the optical drives in existing PS1 and PS2 units wear out, what are players supposed to use?

      The PSP with its many many ports of PSX games coming out conveniently at the right time.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by tepples ( 727027 )

        The PSP with its many many ports of PSX games coming out conveniently at the right time.
        Because the store does not run natively on a PSP, you need both a PS3 and a PSP to buy PSP games. Worse, even fewer titles are ported to PSP than work on PS3. Finally, does multiplayer work?
    • Sony is expected to stop making the PlayStation 2 Slimline before the PS4 comes out.

      Haven't you heard? There will be no PS4. Sony is going out of business in like three weeks.
    • Emulators?

      Honestly, nobody ever promised this stuff would last forever. You might as well complain that OSX doesn't natively run Apple IIe software.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jdwilso2 ( 90224 )
      Emulators ---

      Seriously. Emulators for PS2 will be great by the time PS4 comes out.

      Top that off with the fact thta copy protection circumvention is permissible under US law for video games as long as the device on which it is intended to be read/playedback is no longer available or supported.

  • When do we decide? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quaz and Wally ( 1015357 ) * on Thursday March 01, 2007 @02:26PM (#18196842)

    Final thought - it would be fascinating to see a commercial test of consumers having to actually pay for BC. Having forked out a significant amount of income for the hardware, how many would pay an extra $30 or so to play all their PS2 games?
    I'm sure many people would have liked to have paid $30 dollars less for a PS3 with no backwards compatibility. The question is, why is Europe paying more instead?

    At least to my knowledge, I haven't heard of the EU PS3 being cheaper, but rather more expensive.

    • Re:When do we decide? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Volante3192 ( 953645 ) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @02:41PM (#18197034)
      $30 bucks is nothing compared to another $120 PS2 when it breaks. My former roommate was always playing PS1 games on his PS2, it was like half and half. I camped out for the Wii basically because I was getting a Gamecube (a $100 piece of hardware) at the same time and currently been playing a lot of GCN games I missed out on because I didn't have one.

      Plus without backwards compat, you would need to keep both consoles hooked up or swap cables out. One box is just one set of cables and cuts down on the clutter.

      It might not *seem* like a selling factor to analysts, but real people have different ideas.
    • I'm sure many people would have liked to have paid $30 dollars less for a PS3 with no backwards compatibility.

      Well, I'm sure many people would have liked to pay $11 more for a Ford Pinto [wikipedia.org] that didn't pose as big a risk of a fiery death, but hey, apparently, you can't please everyone.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
        "Well, I'm sure many people would have liked to pay $11 more for a Ford Pinto that didn't pose as big a risk of a fiery death, but hey, apparently, you can't please everyone."
        Actually the Pinto as a fire hazard was way over blown. It was actually statistically no worse than any other care of it's size. In fact the Datsan 210 had a much higher fatality rate than the Pinto.
        The Pinto just made the news.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Applekid ( 993327 )
        Well, I'm sure many people would have liked to pay $11 more for a Ford Pinto that didn't pose as big a risk of a fiery death, but hey, apparently, you can't please everyone.

        Wow, I'm going to pretend you didn't just compare not being able to play an old version of Madden on your new PS3 to people burning to death in a firey inferno. Instead, I'll pretend your post is about a Genesis that you could buy an adaptor for that would let it play Master System games.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by VJ42 ( 860241 ) *
      We pay more for everything, the PS3 is going to be £425 (~$800) here in the UK, but My Wii was £179 (~$360), after I bought two games, Wii Play as a 3rd game and Wiimote and an extra nunchuck I'd spent over £300 (~$600). Yes, I could have bought a PS3 in the US for what I spent on my Wii on launch day. Add in what I've spent since, and you can see we get very thoroughly ripped off by everyone here in the UK.
    • The question is, why is Europe paying more instead?

      Same reason why every other consumer product/commodity in the EU is more expensive. Because their willing to pay more. High tarrifs also contribute.
    • There was an excellent article at next-generation about the cost of building a ps3. The 20 gig version cost about $800 and the 60 gig version with the wireless stuff about $840 (blue ray components are only $125 out of that, the most expensive component being the RSX chip by Nvidia--not 100% sure of the cost but around $165).

      Note that this does not include packaging and cables.

      In any case, the European numbers are closer to the break even point.

    • At least to my knowledge, I haven't heard of the EU PS3 being cheaper, but rather more expensive.

      You can't really tell that just from the retail price. If you are in the U.S. and want a cheaper PS3, then go to Canada. You want one even cheaper then you go to China. The European price would be higher even with the exact same hardware. There are taxes, cost of employment, ... and evil things like how much the market will bare.

  • As a PS3 owner (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fistfullast33l ( 819270 ) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @02:27PM (#18196862) Homepage Journal
    I'm going to say this is a big deal in the short run, but not a big deal in the long run. In two years the library will be large enough for the PS3 that few people will be using their PS2 games that much. Right now, however, the library is much smaller and so PS2 games definitely substitute for that lack of games. I myself have bought a few (I didn't own a PS2) since getting the PS3 and have had no problems since the 1.5 update.

    I'll temper the statement with the fact that a lot of great games are coming out in the next two months or so, including Motorstorm, Enchanted Arms, MLB 07 The Show, and Lair. That's coupled with the two fighting games that just came out and older games like Oblivion and FEAR, neither of which I've played for various reasons. So this might not be as important right now as I think.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by miyako ( 632510 )
      I would like to second this. I have a PS3, and the vast majority of the time I'm using it for playing PS2 games at the moment (currently FFXII and God of War) and there are still new PS2 games that are on the horizon that I will be wanting to play (God of War II for sure). In the long run, it won't be such a big deal, but as it stands right now, once you finish Resistance you're pretty much left with fl0w and a bunch of PS1 and PSZ games.
      As an aside, you're comming games list isn't bad, but for the love
      • Good to know about Enchanted Arms. Thanks!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hords ( 619030 )
          Yes, I agree. I picked up Enchanted Arms for the 360 as well. Boy do I wish I hadn't. Maybe it gets better once you get into it further (I sure hope so!) Having a gay guy hitting on you over and over might be funny if the voice acting didn't make you want to hurl.

    • In two years the library will be large enough for the PS3 that few people will be using their PS2 games that much.

      Strongly disagree. Most PS2 owners I know have and play at least one PSX game on a regular basis. And for kids, they will play anything for a change. Older games are pretty much always cheaper so it's a feature that consumers want, especially parents.

      However, Sony doesn't want this feature. They want to sell new games.

    • I'm going to say this is a big deal in the short run, but not a big deal in the long run. In two years the library will be large enough for the PS3 that few people will be using their PS2 games that much. Right now, however, the library is much smaller and so PS2 games definitely substitute for that lack of games.

      The problem is, you're assuming that Sony is effectively "golden". By that, I mean you're assuming that the PS3 is inherently going to have a strong library in two years. However, console sales

      • I'm going to point you to my Journal on the Wii and PS3 here [slashdot.org]. I really don't think the PS3 is in as much trouble as people say it is. There's a strong offering in the pipeline and they're in a much better place now than the Xbox 360 was a year ago. I think Sony would be in big trouble if the console wasn't as widely available on the shelf as it is today. The $600 to the 360's $400 isn't that intimidating, IMO, once you factor in Xbox Live ($50 for a one year subscription, right?) and HD DVD. The down s

        • The PS3's $600 vs Wii's $250 *is* intimdating. Personally, neither the X-Box 360 nor PS3 interest me, and that in large part has to do with neither system having much selling point above the Wii except the HDTV that I probably won't buy for at *least* a couple years. And again, the fact that both the X-Box 360 and PS3 have BC issues is certainly a strong reason to not want to buy them.

          Btw, a short skim through your journal and I'd like to make a small comment. It sounds like you're fundamentally arguin

  • If you haven't had a chance to read it yet, there's an opinion piece over at Next-Gen that completely agrees with Harrison's statement.

    Of course they would agree. It's called "Next-Gen" after all, why bother looking back on the past?

    The lesson that the big console makers are going to learn, if they haven't noticed it yet, is that backwards compatibility doesn't really help them (as a business) in the long run. BC represents older titles that will run on a new machine, but it also promotes the sale of

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HappySqurriel ( 1010623 )
      Not everyone rushes to buy a new videogame system in its first 2 years ...

      For third party publishers backwards compatibility is a huge feature because it means that it is safe for them to begin working on a title for the previous generation system even after the next generation hardware has been released. If you were 3 of 24 months into the development of a PS2 title today you'd be very upset if you found out that Sony's PS2 Backwards compatibility strategy was not going to allow your game to run perfectly

    • Microsoft and Nintendo playing "me too" against the PS2's backward compatibility

      Just nitpicking here, but Nintendo had been doing back-compat a couple years before Sony. The Game Boy Color [wikipedia.org] was released in October 1998, which IIRC was the first of the GB line to do back-compat. The PS2 [wikipedia.org] was released in March 2000 (ok, not quite 2 years, but you get the point). Unless you're talking consoles only, Nintendo was in the back-compat game before Sony. Even if you are, Nintendo isn't really me-too-ing it with the Wii, since it's basically the same hardware as the GC. It only made sense to make

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cgenman ( 325138 )
        To further this statement, the Atari 7800 was backwards compatibile with the 2600 and the Genesis was backwards compatible with the Sega Mastersystem. I believe these were the first instances of this in gaming.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Dreamlandlocal ( 978245 )
      ...other than Microsoft and Nintendo playing "me too" against the PS2's backward compatibility...

      Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but, I thought Nintendo announced their BC first and then Sony and MS followed suite. Certainly in terms of implementation, the Wii has done BC considerably better than the other two.

      Now perhaps the Wii is really just a GCN 1.5 still...

    • Although, when the price tags were announced, I remember thinking "at that price, it better play PS2 and PS1 games. And do my taxes, while we're at it."


      It can do your taxes, the built in web browser should be sufficient, and if it isn't there's Firefox via Linux.
    • Backwards compatibility was one of the 2 key reasons I decided to purchase a PS3 despite it's sluggish initial sales and the rants of nay-sayers. Being able to provide 2 generations of dominant platform compatibility is no joke. I still have a large library of PS1 and PS2 games. I wish I could say the same about all my other consoles that have died.

      My other reason was that blu-ray was quickly taking over the market. So I feel like I have a good investment in my PS3 even if it doesn't do that dominate as a g

  • PS3 for those of us who missed the PS2 boat (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Golden Gecko ( 790781 ) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @02:43PM (#18197064)

    I never had a PS2, and since none of the launch titles appealed to me I've been using my PS3 almost exclusively for PS2 games. I'm actually quite happy playing "old" games like DQ8 and FF XII that I've never had a chance to play before.

    The PS2 compatibility was a huge selling point for me.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Floritard ( 1058660 )
      It was initially an incentive for me as well (still haven't had 600 bucks just lying around unused, but here's hoping). I sold my ps2 a while back for an xbox (mistake), and missed a bunch of cool sony ps2 titles I've been meaning to go back to with the ps3. WTF is going on with new system launches anyway? There was a time not long ago when you didn't release a new system without a solid set of launch titles -- to, you know, give the consumer an actual reason to purchase your silly machine. Super Mario Brot
    • That includes those of us that chose an xbox for last generation that want to switch to sony for this console generation. :) Being able to buy some of the ps2 games I missed and 1080p resolution are my only two reasons for considering purchasing a ps3 recently. (I put it off for now in favor of upgrading my PC for Oblivion, though :)
  • The statement about how many titles are compatible is completely useless. I don't own the universe of PS2 titles; I have my personal set that I dig and relish returning to. If even one of them is rendered incompatible, I feel like I've lost a long time friend, far more than my $40 purchase cost. If any one of my fav titles were so dinged, I'd happily pay $50 to Sony to get it "back". I'd happily pay Sony another $50 for an IR port; another dumb decision by the same penny pinching decision maker. I thought S
  • Does anyone know how many titles there are for the PS2, specifically in Europe? I'm interested in the % of titles 1000 would constitute.

    • Re:1000+ Titles? (Score:5, Informative)

      by EveryNickIsTaken ( 1054794 ) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @03:02PM (#18197338)
      There's roughly 8000 titles in the PS2 catalog. So, a 12.5% BC rate. Great job, Sony.

      • Does anyone know how many titles there are for the PS2, specifically in Europe? I'm interested in the % of titles 1000 would constitute.
        There's roughly 8000 titles in the PS2 catalog.
        In which regions? How many of the 87.5% incompatible games are incompatible solely because they are the Japanese or North American versions? What is the source for your figures?

        • Re:Region lockout (Score:4, Informative)

          by EveryNickIsTaken ( 1054794 ) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @03:29PM (#18197770)
          From Wikipedia:
          By the end of September 2006, there were 8,181 PS2 titles released worldwide (4,554 in Asia, 1,319 in North America, and 2,308 in Europe).

          1000/2308=43%

          Spin this however you'd like, but that's still not impressive.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Kuukai ( 865890 )

            Spin this however you'd like,

            Ok. How many of these 989 extra European games are worth playing? I hear European gamers complaining about wanting games that are out in America all the time, but hardly ever the opposite. (This is not flamebait or anything, if these games are actually really amazing I'm 100% interested in trying them out) Heck, half the games out here are incredibly lame, so as long as their priority list isn't "1000 of the finest movie-licensed, celebrity-endorsed games of all time", I think it'll be okay. Also, as I

            • Ok. How many of these 989 extra European games are worth playing?
              That depends. How much do you like soccer?

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by mink ( 266117 )
              Capcom's "Glass Rose" was not released in the USA. There is an audience for games like it.
      • Compared to Microsoft, it's much better. I bet alot of Microsoft fanboys were defending Microsoft over BC, but are now bashing Sony for doing the same, but with better support.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Zenki ( 31868 )
          The difference is that MS didn't promise much in terms of backwards compatibility whereas Sony is taking something that works relatively well and degrading it. Kind of like a bait and switch.
          • No, the difference is that MS promised backwards compatibility, but implemented it in a half-assed way, while Sony implemented full BC, and now that they're implementing it using Microsoft's approach, but much better, they're getting flak for it, mostly from Microsoft fanboys.
      • here's roughly 8000 titles in the PS2 catalog. So, a 12.5% BC rate. Great job, Sony.

        Not quite.

        As of 31-12-2006 8.571 titles have been released worldwide. But if you split these numbers by region (see http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdatatitle_ e.html [scei.co.jp] ) 2.451 were released in Europe. Since the number of supported games only refers to european releases this leads to a percentage of +/- 41% (remember: BC does not allow you to play games of other regions on your hardware).
      • Its important to remember that a lot of those PS2 titles don't even work on newer PS2's, they where breaking backwards compatibility even before the slim PS2 came out, in order to play EVERY PS2 title, you will need a SCPH-30001. Given how many of those titles are completely forgotten this isn't too big of a deal.

  • Fine with me. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ant P. ( 974313 ) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @02:51PM (#18197176)
    I'll just stick to the console I bought last year, which plays my last-gen games just fine.

  • Even with the PS2 hardware inside... (Score:3, Informative)

    by southk ( 226086 ) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @03:00PM (#18197320)
    The backwards compatibility of the PS3 is completely lacking.
    Most PS2 games make use of the rumble feature of the dualshock controller as a part of the gaming experience. And until the PS3 has a method of using the old controller with the old games you will be missing out on that experience, when you play your PS2 games on your PS3.
    • I've never understood the "it doesn't have rumble...me so sad". I've never used the rumble. I don't like it. I *ALWAYS* turn it off. I have a PS2 and if I got a PS3, I couldn't care less about it.

    • Most PS2 games make use of the rumble feature of the dualshock controller as a part of the gaming experience. And until the PS3 has a method of using the old controller with the old games you will be missing out on that experience, when you play your PS2 games on your PS3.

      You mean like the many PS2 Controler-to-usb adaptors?

      (Score:3, Informative my Arse)

  • Kettle Pot (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xswl0931 ( 562013 ) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @03:08PM (#18197454)
    Having backwards compatability is a nice bullet point, but I don't think it's a major factor anymore. The only irony here is that when the 360 was first launched, Sony was making fun of the 360 for not providing full backwards compatability as it was based on software emulation and the PS3 had an edge with hardware emulation support, yet Sony is now following the 360's lead.
  • Its bad PR. And good PR is something the PS3 could use. So it matters on that level.

    That being said, while ironic given their stance not too long ago, its probably right, but you'll never hear them say "microsoft was right" on that one. I had an x-box, and bought a 360. Number of times I've booted up my old xbox games in it, even the ones that were compatible? about once. I've since traded all of them in towards 360 games. And in some cases that weren't compatible, such as with burnout: revenge
  • That's 50% of European releases, more like 10% of worldwide releases.

    Maybe they just shouldn't have promised backwards compatibility if they can't do it.

  • Well this is certainly a huge deal to me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sarusa ( 104047 ) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @03:42PM (#18197996)
    IMO the PS2 has the best games library ever (and yes, I go way back so I'm including NES, SNES, Genesis, etc). Until (if) the PS3 games library is so superior to the PS2 library that you'll never want to play one of those great old PS2 games, backwards compatibility is hugely important. It sucks that I have to keep an XBox 360 /and/ an XBox so I can play games like Panzer Dragoon Orta. It'll suck just as hard to have to have a PS2 and a PS3.

    Furthermore, since the PS3 game library is so sad on its own, without the added weight of 'Well I can play my PS2 games on it, so what the hell' goes out the door. It is a great selling point this early in the system's life, even if 5 years down the road nobody will care.

    [conspiracy theory on] Maybe leaking this is a desperate attempt to get first gen PS3s off the shelves so they don't embarrass Tretton any more. Suddenly they're much more desirable. [/conspiracy]

    • At least you can still play your favorite Xbox titles, as one of the suckers that fell for the microsoft 'all Xbox games will be playable on the 360... eventually' hyperbole and traded in my Xbox for the 360 keeping only the games I liked, I'm now in the uneviable position of trying to decide whether to buy another XBox console or selling off what remains of my library of XBox games.

      I'm not happy with Sony but I concede that they're being kinda up front about it - mind you they could have told us this prior

    • [conspiracy theory on] Maybe leaking this is a desperate attempt to get first gen PS3s off the shelves so they don't embarrass Tretton any more. Suddenly they're much more desirable. [/conspiracy]

      Doh! thats was my rational for dishing 850$ CND on a PS3, game and accesories yesterday.

  • backwards compatibility looks great on the side of a box, but just isn't that big a deal.
    If it's not that big of a deal, then why is Nintendo having a great success with their virtual console offerings? If it wasn't a success, they wouldn't be adding new consoles (MSX and Neo-Geo, at least in Japan).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by grumbel ( 592662 )
      ### If it's not that big of a deal, then why is Nintendo having a great success with their virtual console offerings?

      Thats not backward compability, at least not in the PS3-sense. I can't stick a NES or SNES module in the Wii and work, instead I have to rebuy the games I already own.
  • Full backwards compatibility has served it's purpose, namely it has helped make some PS2 owners decide to wait for the PS3 rather than jumping to the XBox 360.

    Now Sony don't need it anymore and for those that have waited limited compatibility is still better than the no compatibility they'd get by jumping to the 360.
  • You guys do realize that Sony will be constantly upgrading the software emulation, thus allowing for more games and perhaps even added features (better anti-aliasing and such), right? And that the hardware emulation will eventually be stripped out of new PS3s in all of the regions? The only thing that Sony's done here that was unexpected was removing part of the hardware emulation for the European models so early.

    Either way, it's a hell of a lot better than the XBox 360's backwards compatibility, and I th

    • Re:It's not always going to be 1000 games (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Thursday March 01, 2007 @05:54PM (#18199706) Homepage
      Sony will be constantly upgrading the software emulation

      it's a hell of a lot better than the XBox 360's backwards compatibility

      Actually, it's exactly identical to the Xbox 360's backwards compatibility.
      • Well... sort of. ;)

        In the case of the 360, it's pretty much got all the BC it's going to get... They have publicly said so on several occasions (downplaying the BC thing...) or at least once or twice when it's come up in interviews.

        But the Sony BC (which we haven't seen as better or worse yet... though it's bound to be a little less than having an actual PS2 inside the unit) is not "you get what you get"... as Sony will improve the emulator and release patches (I imagine... they haven't said otherwise... bu

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pluvius ( 734915 )
        Actually, it's exactly identical to the Xbox 360's backwards compatibility.

        Well, besides the fact that after over a year, the XBox 360 is only compatible with about 300 (~30% of) XBox games, while the European PS3 should be able to play over 1000 (>40% of) PS2 games at launch. But yeah, besides that minor, meaningless detail, it's exactly the same as the XBox 360's BC.

        Rob

    • You guys do realize that Sony will be constantly upgrading the software emulation, thus allowing for more games and perhaps even added features (better anti-aliasing and such), right?

      Which is why Europeans will get much better emulation, games, and features, right? They've been constantly upgrading since it first launched in Japan.

      The only thing that Sony's done here that was unexpected was removing part of the hardware emulation for the European models so early.

      Few would care if it happened after a rea

  • I never owned a Gamecube, and a big factor in my getting a Wii at launch was being able to play GC titles. I currently play more GC than Wii games on my Wii. This will hopefully change in the next 12 months, but during this time, Sony could be missing out on new gamers who may either wait until the PS3 library is bigger or buy something else like a Wii or 360 (or maybe a PS2).

Slashdot Top Deals

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Close