Slashdot Mirror
PS3's New Back-Compat Limit Outlined
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.
As long as I can still play my PS2 Barbie Horse Adventures .. then I'm sold!
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?
At least to my knowledge, I haven't heard of the EU PS3 being cheaper, but rather more expensive.
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.
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 used games which nets them nothing as far as income. If you had $60 in your pocket and could pick up 3 or 4 really solid older games used versus one new game that hasn't exactly been tested against the trials of time, what would you pick? I know what I would, and have. I remember picking up more PS1 games after I got my PS2 than when I had the old gray soldier.
BC also represents games that you might be able to get on the cheap on the used market instead of a half-hearted port or remake later on. Plus, with downloadable vintage games that could net the co's extra cash, why should they help you play older games that they might be able to charge for upwards of $10 on the sly?
In fact, other than Microsoft and Nintendo playing "me too" against the PS2's backward compatibility, I was really surprised the PS3 would have any BC at all. Especially when a well known expoit for the PS2 exists specificly through the mechanism by which PS1 games are checked against a memory card can let you run arbitrary code. 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."
More Twoson than Cupertino
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.
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 Sony balanced its video game books on the back of title licensing, not console manufacturing costs. Has this changed?
Does anyone know how many titles there are for the PS2, specifically in Europe? I'm interested in the % of titles 1000 would constitute.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
I'll just stick to the console I bought last year, which plays my last-gen games just fine.
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.
"As long as I can still play my PS2 Barbie Horse Adventures... then I'm sold!"
Oblig. Penny Arcade comic reference
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 it resulted in criterion releasing an enhanced version of the original game, which is still one of my most played titles.
Anyway, back to crackdown...
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
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.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
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]
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.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I think you need to revise that statement. I can guarantee you there isn't much of that last verb/noun pair occuring here.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
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 think many prospective buyers in Europe will realize that regardless of the anti-Sony hype.
Rob
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).
Hello to my Munchins,
... Exchange Rates.
... "Uncle Albert," ... it was nice of you to stay, but would you please go away, ... We're so sorry, ... Uncle Albert.
>The question is: Why is Europe paying more instead of everybody else?
Answer: Exchange Rate!
Sony, no balonie, gets it's profit from
Why enforce a Country Code, when I or anybody else can go to Akihabara and buy a "Japan Only" PS 2, which is better than the PS 3,
and games that are "Japan Only" and take them back to our abodes?
PS 3 is the new Bata Max!
Sorry Sony,
Toodles
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.
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.
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.
Hmmm... Pie...
Found my next-gen source:
e nt&task=view&id=4222&Itemid=2
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_cont
I was wrong on the RSX, it costs $129 to build. Only 4 more bucks over the blu-ray components.
Hmmm... Pie...