PS3's Back-Compat Loss Explained, Analyzed 266
The news came down last week that future low-end PS3s won't have any backwards compatibility features, and that surprised a lot of onlookers. In response, Sony UK's Ray Maguire has attempted to clarify their logic. Essentially, in Sony's view, the money spent on back-compat features is better spent on developing new games or reducing the price of the console. "When PS3 first launched, Sony felt that backwards compatibility was an important feature as there were relatively few games for the new system, Maguire explained. 'So it was a big decision," he said of facility's removal, 'and we know it is a very emotive subject as lots of people think that backwards compatibility is high on the agenda and yet few really use it.'" For more on this, Joystiq has a few words on the implications of Sony's decision, while Kotaku says the 40GB unit will be arriving in the US on Nov. 2nd. For those of you who already own PS3s: would you have purchased a unit if it didn't have BC? If you don't have one yet, does the removal of BC make you less likely to buy one?
Beh. (Score:5, Insightful)
In light of a combination of the games that are available now for the PS3 and how long it will be until other stuff is available, I'm very glad I got one with extensive back compatibility...with it's current state of exclusives, no way would I have bought one without the ability to play PS2 games on it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sony, you are making a huge mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
I was in the same boat. My PS2 is on its last legs, so I picked up a 60GB model when they dropped the price. The writing was on the wall at that point - backwards compatibility was going away, first to software emulation and then completely. That would've left me stuck with a fairly extensive PS2 library and no system on which to play.
I'm not as convinced as they are that there's no market for backwards compatibility, with as many PS2s as they have sold.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ditto here, basically, although for me it's not that my PS2 was on its last legs (it's a launch system, actually, and is still going strong), but rather just that I saw no poi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bought the 60 GB PS3 because it had backwards compatibility. I will play through and revisit old games that I haven't played in awhile, and the ability to now play these upscaled to HD is a bonus.
Backwards compatibility is also one reason why I purchased a PS2.
After all, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night is *still* a fun game - I've played through it several times, eventually I will refresh my memory and play it again.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I own a PS2, but I want to get another console. I really only have room for two (currently a PS2 and XBox.) If the PS3 isn't backwards compatible with all of my PS2 games, then I won't be getting a PS3. I'll likely get a Wii.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony must be ran by idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
I just purchased Castlevania: SOTN on Xbox Live because of how much I enjoyed it the first time through 10 years ago. I still have an original copy somewhere, but the PS2 lives in basement (DDR has become a fixture in our gym. I beat on the heavy bag or lift while my better half spins or plays DDR. Great addition to any gym to switch things up
Add-on? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I always considered the excellent backwards compatibility to be one of the PS3's strongest points (I have the 60 GB model). I bought mine, in fact, specifically because my PS2 died, and I knew that since I wanted a PS3 anyway, it made more sense to get a PS3 than another PS2, and a PS3 later. Without the backwards compatibility, I wouldn't own a PS3 right now, and I probably wouldn't be planning on buying one, at the very least, until FF13 comes out.
Sony, you are making a huge mistake.
They're not dr
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Beh. (Score:4, Informative)
For the record, so does the 80GB PS3, soon to be the only backwards-compatible PS3 available at retail.
Has anybody else noticed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously now:
PSP gamers want the open platform to be able to extend it. They want a ported version of Opera or some DECENT browser (which would be easy enough to program, and the memory wouldn't be an issue if you used the memory stick as swap space). And they want decent games.
What does Sony do? Constantly push "updates" that break compatibility and try to fuck over the homebrewers who are making the killer apps, and try to push "sales" of PSX titles that require buying a fucking $600 access-box (PS3) to even get to.
Look at the PS3. Compare the shitty "Sony Online Store" to the ease-of-use in Wii or Xbox Live. Compare the crappy "games" (if you can call them that) offered by Sony to the games available on the other two consoles. Look at the half-assed "motion sensing" they threw in at the last minute to try to compete with the Wii.
Anybody else remember "people will be taking second jobs just to buy our console-aru!"?
Sony is the new Daily Radar - they have their heads so far up their asses they can probably smell their own tonsils.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, the whole PSP fiasco pisses me off quite a lot. I know they are worried about piracy or whatever, but seriously...if they allowed the device to be as open as it was with firmware version 1.0, they would likely have a much stronger hold on the portable market. I'm not saying they necessarily would have outsold the DS, but they would certainly have a much larger piece of the pie.
The PSP could have been a SICK little piece of equipment. I can put e-books on there using a couple p
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
On the Sony Online Store I complete disagree with you. Maybe it is because I am a late comer to XBox Live (I bought one with Ha
Re: (Score:2)
If you regula
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Has anybody else noticed... (Score:5, Informative)
On the PS3:
1. Turn on console
2. Get a message that a system update is required. Doesn't take you anywhere.
3. Try to remember where system update is. It's under 'system' in the menu.
4. Choose whether you want to udpate from disk or server.
5. Wait for it to download. And the updates are either HUGE, or their servers are slow, because it takes a while.
6. Press the PS button to confirm a console restart.
7. Read through the EULA, hit okay.
8. Update FINALLY starts going.
9. Restart system again.
10. If you're lucky, you can carry on. If not, you have to plug your controller with a USB cable.
On the 360:
1. Boot up
2. Get a message that an update is available. Asks you if you want to update or not.
3. If you choose yes, you see a download progress bar, followed by an install progress bar.
4. System reboots, you're set.
Takes about, ooh, 10 seconds on the 360, and 5-10 minutes on the PS3. You also neglect to mention that the 360 also has quality, original IP in their store that follows certain UI standards (ALL arcade games have 'exit to arcade option' to quit, all PS3 downloadable games have their own exit option that often isn't very clear on what it will do). The 360 interface for downloadable content (the Live subscription which you have to pay for is only for playing multiplayer games, FYI) was designed from the get-go for a console. It also has options for latest updates so you don't have to go looking for them, and doesn't expect you to use your analogue stick as a mouse to find content.
Sony Online Store = CRAP (Score:2)
The reason NONE of them just take "real money" (even $ony makes you put predetermined amounts into your "wallet") is that it costs them money every time they want to access Mastercard/VISA's system. Blame the Credit Cartels for that one. I can see in a heartbeat why they'd rather have you access that system once to buy $25/50/75/whatever worth of "points", and only have to pay Mastercard/VISA their extortion once, rather than have a $2 Mastercard/VISA access charge ever
Re: (Score:2)
To date it hasn't been opened to the general public (specific vendors like Penny Arcade do however sell items for credits), but expect it within th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nintendo what? Perhaps you're unaware that the Wii uses: SD cards, wireless, USB peripherals, Bluetooth etc.
They'll have that option until the
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I've only found one game that didn't run on the 80GB PS3 at all. Singstar -- their flagship title, which is very odd. I don't own it (a friend brought it over), so it's not really a big deal to me.
I agree though, the 60GB model is the sweet spot for price and features... if you can find one.
If PS3 had decent games, maybe... (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft and Nintendo, for all their faults, have at least recognized one basic fact: games first, everything else (e.g. Blu-Ray) second. Not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
I've held off getting a PS3 specifically because there's a lack of quality games. However, I don't own a PS2, and stuff like God of War has always intrigued me. If they removed backward compatibility, the only reason I'd buy the system would be gone.
The only reason I got the 60G version was because I wanted the hardware emulation (more choices are good - can run it either in hardware or software emulation). I never owned a PS2 either, and figured with them going to software emulation it was only a matter of time before they decided to get rid of that also. Sometimes, it sucks being right.
The games that get the most use on my PS3 are PS2 games. If I didn't have those to help pass the time while waiting for some PS3 games worth playing, I'd be a lot
More on this... (Score:3, Insightful)
are they emulating? (Score:2)
Re:are they emulating? (Score:4, Informative)
I will not comment on these facts, as I will be called a troll again
If it's cheaper... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and thats exactly why they did it (Score:2)
Lots of people are bashing Sony here, but considering the price of a PS2, how many people *actually need* a machine that plays PS2 games and don't have have one? Whereas the price tag of a PS3 *really is* a deal breaker. And they are even still selling backwards compatibility for those who want to pay for it. I can't see how this is bad, I mean if it allows them to actually sell real numbers of PS3s for a change.
Of course I'm secretly rooting for something to save the PS3 because I'm hoping in a few yea
Re: (Score:2)
As a PS2 owner who had interest in the PS3, I can say that I would NOT want to own both. First thing to go would be the PS2 because I can use the PS3 for it. It sucks enough having to switch my PS2 and Wii around every time I want to play a diff. game.
I was working on getting a Xbox 360 so I could buy Rock Band, but then the rumors of it coming
Re: (Score:2)
Re:and thats exactly why they did it (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think downloadable RockBand/GHIII content on the Wii will ever be comparable to the experience you'd have on the PS3, or X360.
And this is coming from a guy who's ONLY new-gen console is a Wii.
Re: (Score:2)
Flash media is expensive, USB drives aren't. 250GB for £44 [dabs.com]. For comparison, Microsoft are charging £70 for a 20GB disk (the price difference between Premium and Core 360's).
Equipment piling up? (Score:2)
Less important as time goes on (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly Sony's biggest single problem with the PS3 is its cost. No matter what you get for the money, it's more money than many people are willing to pay and that keeps PS3s out of homes. Anything they can do to reduce costs is going to help them at this point, and removing some of the components that they are removing is doing just that. Yes they already have software emulation of the Emotion Engine, but supposedly there were still some other hardware components that were used solely for PS2 emulation. (I don't have any hard links, so if that is incorrect I apologize. I had read it previously.)
You are aware PS2 games are still being made? (Score:5, Insightful)
The X-box is dead, end of story, but the PS2 STILL have games being developed for it, first class titles too. One of the things the "old" ps3 could do, is take these new PS2 games and upscale them a bit, it can't do magic but with its more modern hardware it could give it a slightly better visual quality, not unimportant if you have a HD-TV.
How can a game that has yet to be lreased already be assigned to history?
In an odd way, Sony has created Microsofts problem with the PC. Sure sure, MS could WISH Vista was the new OS and everyone would just buy Vista only games and publish Vista only games, but the reality is that the market has far more XP games, even 2000 games, yes 98 games STILL being sold, among them, games published by MS itself.
So your argument falls flat, the PS2 isn't retired yet, and for Sony to remove compatibility with the PS2 from the PS3 means that this christmas, some of the hot game titles out there, will have people wondering if they should get a PS2 or a PS3. The economy ain't all that, can you guess what a lot will decide?
But surely everyone who wants a PS2 already has one? Then explain why the PS2 sales keep ranking near the top? No, this is very similar to MS and Vista when people really want to run their XP software.
As for the costs, they already got a working design, if they just focussed on that and made that cheaper they could have saved themselves far more in bad publicity. Sometimes you need to accept that a few bucks saved don't matter when its costs you a fortune in lost sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Backwards compatability is more important then you think. As time moves forward the ability to play old games when one gets the nostalgic feeling 10 years down the line, really matters. The truth is the whole Console and arcade emulation community is built on saving and playing old games. I think sony is writing off backwards compatability pre-maturely because OLD GAMES will get discovered by NEW
Re:Less important as time goes on (Score:5, Insightful)
You sure about that? As time goes by the price of previous-generation games plummets. I had a small PS2 library (only AAA titles) when I picked up my PS3 and have since tripled it by buying up stuff I want to play through to get the story before their next-gen successors (like Ratchet and Clank), stuff I missed first time around (like Ico), party games (like Buzz), and stuff that was cheap enough that it was worth picking up if only for 10 minutes of enjoyment (like Forbidden Siren and, sadly, "Get on Da Mic" :)).
I could keep my old PS2 around for them, but why should I when I've got my old favourites being enhanced with upscaled hdmi+optical audio goodness (Okami, Final Fantasy, Shadow of the Colossus, MGS, God of War etc) all without fucking around behind the telly or having to find another electrical outlet and dealing with the resulting mess of cables.
Here we are almost two years after the launch of the 360, and I'm playing Halo 1 with the intention being to play through Halo 2 next, so for me at least, I would say BC is more important than you suggest. When I can walk into a shop and pick up a handful of Xbox/PS2 games for a couple of quid, I'll buy everything I find.
If by "its cost" you mean "the Xbox 360", you're exactly correct :D
(somewhat serious) joking aside, I would say Sony's biggest problems with the PS3 are their arrogance, their blatant disregard for their customers'... sorry, "consumers'" desires, flagrant dishonesty, outrageously unethical business practices, a lack of care for the integrity and legacy of the Playstation brand, and their (to borrow a term I really can't stand) "flip-flopping".
This is a company who:
told us backwards compatibility was a core value (it wasn't)
told us motion sensing was a gimmick (then added it)
told us the PS3 could churn out graphics on a par with the Motorstorm CGI at E3 (it can't).
told us the PS3's the only "true hi-def" console because all the games are 1080p (they aren't).
told us rumble couldn't be done (it can)
told us storage was make-or-break (then put in a smaller hard disk)
told us $499 was too cheap (it wasn't)
told us Microsoft was copying everything they do (but are happy to rip off achievements)
told us we'd want to work more hours to buy one (we don't)
told us we shouldn't worry about getting rooted (we should)
told us the PS3 was a computer (then took out two of the USB ports and the card readers)
told us PS3's were sold out across the board (they weren't)
told us we'd buy 5 million units even if it had zero games (we wouldn't)
told us Microsoft wasn't a technology company (wtf!?!)
I'm a big fan of the Playstation brand, don't get me wrong. I just can't stand the way Sony behave as a company.
It does make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Sony continues to sell PS-ONE systems (for pretty cheap too) so it's unlikely they're going to stop selling PS-2 systems any time soon.
Incorporating a PS-2 inside of the PS-3 does increase the cost by about $100 (even with software emulation)
The major barrier to PS-3 acceptance (aside from games) is the cost.
Most PS-3 purchasers are already going to have PS-2s.
Sure, I'd like an all-in-one box (actually I already have one) to save more space in my entertainment center. But I already have a gamecube/wii and an XBox/XBox360 pair on my stand so a PS3 with one of the new tiny PS2's isn't that big a deal for space.
Logically, its a sound business trade-off to get the price down to increase sales. Prestige-wise it certainly hurts, but maybe that's all fluff anyway (The XBox360 certainly doesn't emulate all XBox titles and the Gamecube never emulated the Nintendo-64)
(I know the Wii plays all gamecube games, but I keep the gamecube around because it's easier to use the corded gamecube controllers during a party rather than pulling the Wii out of its base)
Re: (Score:2)
doubtful, the PS2s cost $130 these days, they're looking at a $30 price drop soon and IIRC last year Sony was estimated to be making upwards of $45 on every PS2 sold (it's probably more than that at this point). Retailers are making a profit on that to.. Not to mention that if you're just using the main chips from a PS2 you don't have to pay for the included controllers, power supply, video cabl
The Cost Difference (Score:2)
So you're probably nearly exactly correct. I wonder how much per revised unit it will have cost to redesign and change the manufacturing, across the first few million units sold. Possibly a breakeven, if the redesign/retool cost more than $30-60M.
I think they're just dropping PS2 co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A few problems that keep this from entering the "no big deal" category:
1. Sony has pounded on backwards compatibility in terms of marketing and general rhetoric.
2. Every time Sony has a "price drop" they're closing out and/or removing features. Even the
Re: (Score:2)
But then, I was always going to be a hard sell in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear: I don't dislike Blu-ray (it's just too expensive). Further, increasing the capacity of one of the cheapest parts of the system doesn't impress me much, especially when the uses to which I would put that part of the system don't require a lot of space anyway. Whatever the reasons, the 360 bought today is superior to that bought at launch, and at a lower price
Re:It does make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
After several hundred PS2 and PS1 titles had incompatibilities with the PS3, and after the recent PS2 upgrades caused PS2 games not to work on the new PS2s, Sony spokesperson Reiko Sakamoto said: "It's hard to say the PlayStation 3 will be 100 percent backwards compatible, but as we said earlier this year, we aim to make it so as much as possible," Sakamoto said, according to IDG.
So basically Sony is a company that will straight out lie to you to get you to buy their products. They will say "You will get X", then later on say "X is not important. We will not be delivering X".
From a consumer's standpoint, it is not enough to say that this helps Sony recoup their losses. People have to be accountable for the things that they say they will do, professionally, ethically, whatever.
M$ always said "we will have some back compat for the best sellers/important titles", and they do what they can/want to do. They have like 200/700 titles, but they never promised 100%, or touted it as a core benefit of their platform.
Nintendo never claimed they would deliver any N64 back compat in the GC, although they're demonstrating that they can bring some N64 titles to the Wii. They claimed they'd have games from a bunch of platforms, but they never promised all of them.
Sony claimed 100%. They said it was important and a major focus. When they couldn't give 100% (they still delivered an amazing 97%), they said they would work on it to make it right. Then they turn around and dump the whole thing and expect consumers to keep scooping this shit up and scarfing it down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also on the idea of having to pull out the Wii out of it's base to play GameCube games. Haven't you heard of WaveBird controllers? Problem solved.
I've been waiting for the cost of the PS3 to drop and now damn it I'm faced with the decision of do I buy a us
Well where this starts to become a big deal (Score:2)
Just get a PS2 (Score:2, Insightful)
However, the only people that would really want bc is people with sizable PS2 libraries - which are likely to either still have their PS2 or be willing to go buy a new one.
People bitched li
Re:Just get a PS2 (Score:5, Insightful)
You're obviously not price sensitive to the PS3.
People bitched like all hell when the PS3 cost $500/$600 USD - so Sony goes and tries to make it cheaper to produce so that they can pass some of the savings to the customer - and what do people still do? They still bitch just as much if not more than before.
People were upset because they felt that they were not getting the appropriate value or 'utility' for a set of features at a certain price point. Sony didn't listen. They thought that it was about the price. It's not. I spend six hundred dollars on a lot of things. Just not a video game console. Once you take out the features, you're introducing a new comparison. Now you're comparing a new set of features at a new price point. This is a different set of data to work with, for which Sony introduced a whole new set of unpredictable data. The sane thing to do was to either up the features at the same price point (another controller, another game a killer game) as an option or keep the features the same at a reduced price point. That way people can actually see their value or utility increase with a reference point that stays the same.
The problem that makes the PS3 expensive isn't the BC. It's the blueray player. It's unreasonable that Sony would require it's customers to pay for its own R&D and marketing costs and then take out other features just so it won't lose money on its money pit that is the blueray device on the PS3.
It needs to take a lesson from the 360. The 360 introduced more features at the same price point while at the same time adding features at a reduced price point for its older models.
Now one can argue until the cows come home whether there was actually added value in the HDMI and the 120 gb hard drive for the elite. The answer remains fixed to how the change was perceived. The 360 change was perceived as either "meh" or "positive". Whereas the PS3 change has been perceived as a ripoff. This is par for the course for Sony in this generation's video game console wars.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, I'll even take a wild guess and say that the majority of PS3 owners forget that the PS3 ever even had backward compatibility with the PS2...
I really like my PS3. But i think at this juncture it's still going to be 80%+ of it's usage is going to be with PS2 games. I got every major Ps3 title that doesn't suck (AC4, Resistance, Heavenly sword, NG sigma, DW:Gundam) but those are done pretty quick. I still have a back library of about 30 PS2 titles that are considered great that I haven't even dented. Pro
Backward compatibility more important than ever (Score:2)
But the Wii is leading in sales, while the XBox 360 is leading in exclusive games. So this looks very much like a desperation move. Meanwhile, Microsoft is continuing to add XBox I titles to the 360 compatibility list, and of course the Wii has backwards compatibility with the GameCube. So this will leave Sony with the worst compatibility of the generation.
Due to t
give me BC or give me (PS3) death! (Score:2, Interesting)
I want to play GoW1&2, MGS2, Shadow of the Colossus, etc... upscaled!!
And what happens if Blu-ray doesn't win the format war?? it's possible that Sony could be in for a major train wreck up ahead.
I've been waiting for cheaper, but not at the sacrifice of important features.
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase the Simpsons... (Score:5, Interesting)
Makes sense to me.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You get a skewed view of the world when you read nothing but gaming forums online. This crowd (for some reason) thinks BC is really important. But the "unwashed masses" don't buy a new console to play old games. They just don't. They don't care. Hell, many of them probably don't even realize there IS BC on there PS2 or PS3.
Microsoft realized this when they went for pure software emulation of the Xbox, and then essentially gave up
Well, I WAS considering buying one. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Enthusiasm drain (Score:2)
Strictly & rationally speaking, no.
Emotionally & conveniently speaking, yes.
Yeah, I have a PS2, so there's something to run stuff on.
But removing BC raises questions, and drains enthusiasm, that never would have been at issue if they left it.
I've spent money on PS2 games.
Deliberately removing BC - from where it DID exist - tells me the manufacturer doesn't care about customers
Lack of PS3 titles are the only thing I regret (Score:2)
Quite simply I'm disappointed in the quality line-up of unique PS3 games, or read another way 'exclusive' PS3 games. I bought Motorstorm, and I have one of the early PS3/60GB (picked up for $375 used)
I LOVED Blazing Angels, and while I understand that it's a cross-platform game, I find it wonderful. I've played Resistance, but to be honest... while I enjoyed the game, I was le
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, come on. I've played PLENTY of good PS3 exclusive titles.
Lair, for example. (I was one of the lucky ones with non-broken controls.) And Resistance. That was fun too. And Armored Core 4. It-- wait, AC4 wasn't exclusive. Hmmmm.
Okay, I can't think of any other exclusives I've played. Or heard of and looked forward to playing. But STILL! Two games!
And when MGS4 comes out, it'll be three! THREE whole games!
-:sigma.SB
(Maybe I'm too distracted by playing on Admiral Potato's Wii...)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the people playing FPS's for the story want to play through the main points, guys.
Not so important to me (Score:2)
Resistance, the Marvel beat-em-up R
It wasn't just software emulation.. why it matters (Score:2)
The original ps3s had 2 chips that made it work like a ps2.
The ones that had worse emulation (europe and the us 80 gig) had only one of those 2 chips the other was emulated in software.
They've eliminated that chip.
I'm waiting to get a high def TV before I switch.
It seems incredibly short sighted for Sony to eliminate the backward compatibility that differentiated your system from the xbox. Now why shouldn't you buy and xbox, (besides reliability) the xbox has
Re:It wasn't just software emulation.. why it matt (Score:2)
It seems incredibly short sighted for Sony to eliminate the backward compatibility that differentiated your system from the xbox. Now why shouldn't you buy and xbox, (besides reliability) the xbox has better games and is slightly cheaper and you can't play your ps2 games on ps3 or xbox360.
They aren't eliminating it completely. only in their cheapest 40GB model.
It *would* make sense... (Score:2)
It's a big deal. (Score:2)
People say "just get a PS2 if you want to play old games", but this misses the point. In 10 years when the PS5 is out, how will we play PS3 games? Will I need to have m
I bought a PS3 last week (Score:2)
- Cheap blu-ray player (and 5 "free" movies with it - 3 I'd actually want to own, the other 2 I can give away as stocking stuffers or something)
- Plays PS3, PS2 and PS1 games. Nothing terribly exciting that is exclusive to the PS3 yet, but that'll change over time, I'm sure.
- My PS2 hardware's trade-in value is not getting
The undeniable inevitability of incompatibility (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$30 HW Cost Difference (Score:4, Interesting)
Bad choice (Score:2)
I suppose a possibility is that this is an attempt by Sony to try and get gamers to buy more systems now, while they "support BC", and then amazingly reverse the decision later. I don't think that's the case though, I think it's Sony t
I'd hate to be Sony right now (Score:2)
They must be in a pretty tough spot if reducing the number of games that can be played on their video game console looks like a good way to sell mo
Re: (Score:2)
It makes business sense... (Score:2)
People complaining about the cost are very likely the same ones complaining about the loss of BC. These people are probably perpetual pro-Microsoft Sony bashers that you see plaguing
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why it's such a retarded move. The PS3's biggest competitor is [i]already[/i] the PS2 - why would they want to give the PS2 yet another competitive advantage?
If the PS3 hadn't sported full PS2 backwards compatibility, I wouldn't have bought one.
Even less likely to buy a PS3... (Score:4, Informative)
1. I have a ton of PS2 (and PS1 for that matter) games that I both continue to play, have not finished, and am waiting for the price to drop down far enough on, so I can snap them up. The only saving grace of the PS3 as I saw it was consolidating 3 boxes down into one, and that's pretty much nonexistant now.
2. There are now so many different versions of the PS3, I don't feel comfortable trying to figure out what exactly I'm freaking getting if I go get a refurbed/used PS3. The guy behind the counter at GameStop might tell me this is one of the ones that would play PS2 games, but do I know that for sure? Do I want to chance the day or more of frustration returning it would incur for me if the one I got turned out to be a version that wasn't what I was promised?
I don't have any of the three next-gen consoles. The first one I get is most likely going to be a Wii (100% backwards compatible, interesting controller and gameplay, way cheaper). However there are some games coming out that are making me think about one of the more powerful consoles (since I don't feel like upgrading my PC anymore) and Sony is making it harder and harder for me to make that purchase a PS3 instead of an Xbox 360, even with the rampant hardware failures on 360s.
Sony is panicking. (Score:3)
I cannot believe they're doing this. Think of all the people who, having seen 100% backwards compatibility advertised since before the PS2 launched, are going to get a PS3 assuming it will let them play PS2 games. Maybe they own the games already; maybe they just plan to get the best ones. And then... Whoops. Not on THIS model. Just on other models.
It's crazy, and it's stupid. The fanboys were all dismissing this, attacking it as "FUD" from "xbots", and so on... And now many of them are trying to pretend it's reasonable now that it's actually happening, but no.
Re:How does this save money? (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't mean they can't change their minds, but years of unofficial emulators has show how much work it is to emulate a chip with good speed, especially when the architecture is different. IIRC, you need 10x the CPU power to emulate a different architecture at full speed.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a cop-out, either the CELL is not as good as they thought or they are very lazy - either way their sales are going to be reduced.
--jeffk++
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, the current 80GB system emulates PS2 games just fine in software (for the most part). The problem is it's a completely different architecture, and the emulation needs constant updating. This has nothing to do with the CELL. MS is doing the same thing with the Xbox 360.
Sony just decided it wasn't worth it, especially considering they're chopping $100 off the price.
St
Re: (Score:2)
But raw power doesn't mean that the old games would run on the new chip. Or that there are enough programmers to port to the new chip, or that porting all those old games is worth doing, instead of just including the old chips and some glue.
Do you know how to program? Or are you saying "very lazy" without knowing what you're talking about? Making you both clueless and lazy...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, I do indeed help people who work on peace to use technology, as I have for many years, starting in the 1980s (amidst my extensive programming career predating that by a decade). So there's yet another reason to reject the implication in your question, on top of your demonstrated quality at reasoning even within
Re: (Score:2)
Re-read my message, you failed at basic reading comprehension.
Good luck in your peace making attempts.
Too bad there aren't enough friendly people wanting peace.
--jeffk++
Re: (Score:2)
This is a cop-out, either the CELL is not as good as they thought or they are very lazy - either way their sales are going to be reduced./i.
A standard PC has 1000x the power of a SNES. most Software SNES are good but not 100%. Software EMU will always be a bit worse then hardware so they could code up a software emu but given some of the architecture differences, they'd only get the s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a pretty nice media player, but it's got some funny limitations on what it'll stream... I spent this wee
Re:but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure Sony claimed they could pull it off at some point, since they tend to wildly overstate the capabilities of their devices while early in development. But in reality, the Cell's massively parallel architecture isn't well suited for emulation (a very serial problem) and HLEing the entire Graphics Synthesizer to offload it to the RSX chip isn't likely.
But from a less technical perspective, Sony's engineers have had a long time to try and offload the PS2 functions from those chips and avoid this PR headache. If they had any intention of finishing such emulation, they would've done so by now.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still possible but just a lot harder. A SW EMU is very possible and with such detailed documentation as is available to Sony it's easier then the hobbiest EMU. But the BC rate would be lower.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're not having to emulate 9,000 games. Sony OWNS the PS2 in every sense of the word. They have all the developer documentation. Hell, they even have all of the source code used in the PS2. Emulation is difficult when you DON'T have access to the source code, and every new game means finding a new piece of the system that must be emulated.
Sony has all the pieces.
But, but, but, what about Microsoft?
Well, Microsoft is inept. Go on, prove that wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
EMU is never 100%. 10 years and 1000x the computing power and SNES games are still not 100%. You may have the official documentation on everything but PS2 developers out
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I have no desire to ever own a PS3 without back compat support.. They're killing themselves with this.. Backwards compatibility is one of the primary reasons I purchased a PS2 in the first place. And I have made extensive use of it as well.. Perhaps I'm one of the relative few that does, though..
I do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)