Slashdot Mirror
PS3's Back-Compat Loss Explained, Analyzed
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?
More lies to move consoles when it counted. Not really unique to Sony. Now that they're established, they can start dropping support left and right.
While at the current moment I have slight regrets of having bought a PS3 so early, I certainly don't regret the better visual quality that playing a PS2 game on a PS3 provides...God of War and Shadow of the Colossus look stunning being up-scaled, and run just as smoothly as they did on the PS2 (unlike many xbox games on the 360...then again, the 360 uses software emulation)
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.
Living With a Nerd
I can't access the sites linked to in TFAs due to the work firewall. I'm curious though, why is it more expensive for them to include backcompat vs. omitting it entirely? I know the initial US PS3s had the PS2 hardware under the hood, but I thought the Euro models were completely software emulated?
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.
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.
Is there actually hardware in the unit to run PS/PS2 games? I would think that the cell would have enough power to simulate the old hardware.
Are they using the ps3 hardware to emulate a ps1 or ps2? If so, yeah, it would be alot of work to ensure compatability... It would probably be cheaper just to include modernized ps1 and ps2 hardware within the ps3, using overlapping components (controllers, video out, etc). Detect the type from the disc and activate the appropriate hardware. AFA the game would be concerned, it would be on the appropriate hardware and there would be no mapping layer to maintain.
Seeing as an authentic PS2 can be had for ~$100, if the new model is more than $100 less, I'm more likely to get the new model. Otherwise, I'm less likely.
Backwards compatibility is important, but mainly in the first six months to a year after a console launches. You have to get people to buy in and them not having to keep around another console to play older games is one of the ways to do that. However, the longer the console is around the less important it becomes. People typically play less older games as time goes on. Obviously there are going to be a handful of, "classic" games that people love and will continue to play for years, but the vast PS2 library is largely relegated to history as more new games are released.
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.)
I was upset at first as well. But after calming down and thinking about it:
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)
I don't see why its such a big deal. There are only 2 reasons I could see why backward compatibility would be a must. The first is that its convenient to use the same console for both PS2 and 3 games. The second is that with PS2-bc on a PS3 people owning those models could get the PS3 and then just go buy PS2 games.
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 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. I mean, how many people will/did buy a PS3 just for the PS2 games? If people only wanted a console that played PS2 games, they'd buy a damned PS2 - yet instead they buy a PS3...
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...
It wasn't done completely at the software level; the PS3 could emulate the CPU (somewhat), but still needed the PS2's graphics chip. Now that the graphics chip is being removed, backwards compatibility is no longer possible. The PS3 simply doesn't have enough power to emulate the entire PS2 anywhere near real time.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Everyone else is able to make their systems backwards-compatible, but Sony claims it's too expensive? Sorry Macguire, I'm not buying it. And by "it" I mean both your claim, and your console.
BC is really important to me. Sony earned alot of respect from me by sticking to their BC guns... now I feel betrayed.
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.
certified elipsis abuser
Let me get this straight. Their console is doing worse than both of their competitors, and they're going to catch up by removing features that consumers want?
Makes sense to me.
The whole Sony game plan was to boast about how much more powerful the Playstation 2 and 3 were over the Xbox and Xbox 360, and while removing backwards compatibility doesn't take away CPU or GPU power, it does deal a psychological blow to the Playstation FanBoys, who are the only ones buying the PS3 right now. I think the backwards compatibility was aimed more at the casual gamer who had a few games they would like to keep playing than it was at the hardcore market. So the loss of the casual market is what will hurt the most in the long run. BC matters little to the hardcore who still have their PS1 and PS2 and don't need BC on the PS3.
As the marketing and sales worlds wondered how Sony could be that out of it that they "got rid" of backwards compatability while Sony's market competitors continued to pummel Sony mercilessly into the ground not just in the PS3 gaming console sphere (vs Wii and xBox360, which have BC) but in HDTV-compatible movie sales (the HD-DVD plays and records old DVD movies).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It looks like they're trying to market this as the gimped down poor-man's PS3. That would be appropriate if we were talking about the $99 model, but we're talking about the $399 model. From my point of view as a consumer $400 is still a lot of money and certainly too much for me to accept major features being axed and I don't care how much it costs Sony to make. So what is it going to be once it gets down to that $99 price point? An Atari 2600 with HDMI?
I thought with the new PS3 they changed the emulation from hardware to a software emulation. Wouldn't this development then already be sunk cost? It seems to me that it wouldn't be anything but adding a small bit of software whose development is already paid for in order to allow backwards compatibility. My guess is that they want to show a lower price for the PS3 but they're just trying to intentionally cripple it so everyone buys the more expensive one anyway.
BTW I'm not totally anti-PS3 here. In fact I bought one about a month after they came out (the 60Gb one).
The value of compatibility hinges on the savings. If we're talking about $100, yeah, I can keep my old PS2 around for when I am Jonesing for some Wipeout action. If we're talking $10, then I'd prefer the convenience of one machine in my living room.
I would not purchase a PS3 without backwards compatibility. The few games I do play that are BC look good (not great) and its nice not to have to have my PSone and my PS2 taking up shelf space. I also 3 the blu-ray player. If I were to break it down: 40% as a blu-ray player 35% as a PS3 24% as a PS2/PSone 1% as a music player Oh well...
If you don't have one yet, does the removal of BC make you less likely to buy one?
... so should I care about them?
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
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Yes, it's an opinion and I'm entitled to mine.
... I play God of War 1 & 2 more than I play any of the ps3 demos or motorstorm.
...
... the price and lack of quality games is what discouraged me. Backwards compatibility is important because I'm typically a late adopter so I generally WON'T buy games full price. Quite honestly, buying a ps3 now (or next month) with the lack of the emotion engnie, and with the smaller HD ... well it had better be a significant price drop...
... use it to buy some gum
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 left un-impressed. Yes, decent games are on the horizon, I'm looking forward to GTA:IV, the visuals look amazing (although admittedly I'm still on an SDTV)
Anyway,
my 2 cents
harryk
think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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 years developers will actually fully exploit the cell. You know, when Sony finally ships decent developer tools and developers wrap their heads around the madness that is SPU programming.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
I think they took one look at the massive issue MS has emulating Xbox games and just decided not to go though all that with the ps3. It probabaly has the power to do it, but your looking at trying to emulate 9,000 games in software emulation...that's a massive undertaking.
It does have the hoursepower to do complete PS2 emulation in real time, especially if you use the Cell and RSX chips to help. The plan originally was to be 100% software-based backwards compatable. Then it was a combination of software and some real PS2 chips. Now they're just dropping it all.
I dont really see the problem.
Those people who are so keen on playing PS2 games probably already own a PS2 in most cases.
The lower price makes me consider buying a PS3 now, and once I got a new system, I probably dont want to play the old games anyway. And if I do, I just plug in the old PS2.
Resistance, the Marvel beat-em-up RPG, Tiger Woods, Skate, GRAW2 have all taken up my gaming time.
Ultimately, the lack of backwards compatability would not have kept me from buying one. Most TVs these days make it very easy to hook up a device through the front panel. Hooking up a dormant PS2 occasionally wouldn't be any problem.
I have a ps2, its old now (7+ years?) and tiring.
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 better games and is slightly cheaper and you can't play your ps2 games on ps3 or xbox360.
Who is running things over there at SONY anyway? They can't be that stupid can they?
Here's the problem with that viewpoint.
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.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
Are others as concerned as I am about equipment piling up? I seem to end up with towering piles of hardware unless I restrain myself. Does this concern you when considering buying a PS/2 and new PS/3 as well? Or is this only something I experience and should tell my therapist about?
technical writing / development
if there were 3rd-party PS2 emulators that actually worked. As it is, I don't see why the hell there can't be a VMWare type setup for the PS3 to run PS2 games if the PS3 is as powerful as Sony is touting.
First generatio of PS3 (60GB) is the sweet spot for the PS3 and the primary reason I essentially overpaid for ths version. It has hardward emulation of PS2, with upscaling, along with WiFi built in.
It's like getting a split window corvette.
The problem here is it's a slippery slope. People pay a lot of money for their software libraries and even in this throw away society many people still want to play their old games some time down the road. Say what you want about Sony but they have always been the leaders in BC on consoles. It's always been part of their plan, until now.
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 my PS2/3/4/5 all hooked up to enjoy my old games? That's a bit much don't ya think?
The old cartridge based systems mostly didn't have BC because the physical shape of the carts were always different. Today, a CD/DVD/Bluray disc are the same size, and are all readable by the next gen consoles. The only reason not to have BC is laziness. Even software emulation would only be a one time project. Develop a kick ass emulator and then port it to each new system that comes out. Surely Sony has the technical ability to do this.
But in the end it's a poor long term decision on their part. Some may find it no big deal now, but as the generations wear on, it will become pretty annoying for those wanting to revisit our old game library.
I have a Wii and a 360 already. I figured I'd be buying a PS3 eventually, but I chose to do it last week. I picked up the 60GB one in the US, which has hardware bc. Here's why I bought it:
- 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 any better, and I was offered $100 credit towards a PS3 + 50% more for each game I traded in. With all the stuff I traded in, my PS3 went from a price of $499 to about $300, with tax.
- The removal of hardware BC in the 80gb version and the removal of BC period in the lower end model. There are 60gb ones available now, but I don't know that they will be around all that much longer.
Honestly, I don't know what they were thinking with the removal of the bc entirely on the cheap one. Yes, people like me will go and buy a PS3 now while we can still get the hardware bc, but the people who'll buy a "budget" version are not the kind of people who'll want to spend $60+ on a game for it - they'll want to be able to go into a Gamestop and buy a half dozen used games for cheap (I just spent $100 on PS1 and PS2 games - I got 30 games (and some of those were arcade collections, so it's really more like 50-60 games) - MUCH better than spending $60 on Resistance, IMO).
For the record, I don't game THAT much. I recently decided to dump Windows entirely - gaming was the only reason I had a Windows machine. Sold my gaming rig, bought an the low-end iMac with the results (already have a MacBook for traveling and school and love it to pieces) and decided to just play games on the consoles. The only games that I would play ONLY on a computer rather than a console are out for Mac anyway and if I really just have to I can do bootcamp. The Wii is for parties, the 360 is great for multi-player games (and any title that comes out for multiple platforms will be a 360 title for me - the marketplace for added content and Live! play is just great), and the PS3 will be for PS3 exclusives, PS2 & PS1 games, and movies.
Anyway, that long-winded bit is my way of answering the question from the summary: Why'd I buy a PS3.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
The ability to play PlayStation 2 games without requiring me to have a totally other system hooked up as well was a big selling point of the PS3. Having a "Blu-Ray" player that can't play all the HD-DVDs I want is *NOT* a selling point for me. Having the un-wanted Blu-Ray player made the cost go way up. To battle this cost, Sony tripped up, shot itself in its foot over and over, and then decided the best thing to do was drop backwards compatibility - despite statements in the past stressing the price of the PS3 was fine, and that backwards compatibility was a GOOD thing.
A teardown revealed that the EE cost $27 each from Toshiba, and integrating it probably cost another $5 (including specify other mutual parts that will serve double, rather than single, duty, including security HW for PS2 games).
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 compatibility so that PS2 game sales don't compete with PS3s. Sony is slightly immune to "planned obsolescence" criticism, because they still sell PS2 consoles fairly cheap, and even PS1 consoles. And PS3s will still run PS2 games, just in SW. This PS3 rollout seems to be running quite sensibly, especially for the recently erratic Sony strategists.
--
make install -not war
I strongly feel that we're not going to have a winner in the next-generation format wars for at least another year to two years, with HD-DVD's recent landing of some exclusivity deals and Sony's built-in install base for BluRay players among the few, the maybe-proud PS3 owners. I've pretty much relegated myself to knowing that I'll have to own both player formats, and as much as I wanted to start out with an HD-DVD player, this news of impending PS2 compatibility removal is what drove the addition of a PS3 to the A/V rack yesterday.
I have never been a Sony fanboy - not much a fanboy for anything, really - but after walking out of Best Buy with two BluRay movies and not a single game I have to admit I know what Sony was talking about when they said they were selling a home entertainment system and not a games console. The sheer potential in this hardware is pretty amazing, the recent firmware additions of things like remote play (PSP streaming) and upscaling playback really make DVD's look good even though PS2 games sometimes look... well, horrible might be the best way to describe it.
If Sony had all these features at launch, and hadn't been so damnably smug about how superior the system really was, I think things could have been a hell of a lot different. They might have retained some exclusives, and given gamers more reason than I have to want to put games on the machine. (Wireless Rock Band, woo!)
However, if backwards compatibility isn't a big thing for you, and you can afford to lose the SD/MMC/CF slots, and two USB ports, then the new 40G PS3 might be a good thing worth looking into. The hard drive is user upgradeable, and you can get 100 gig SATA drives for under $60 these days so the drive capacity itself isn't any kind of big deal. Of course, it'd be a lot more useful if they unlocked the video chip to be used by Linux installations...
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
As I posted elsewhere in this discussion, a teardown revealed that the HW cost difference between the embedded HW PS2 and its SW emulation is about $30.
--
make install -not war
My take on this is they rushed the crippled 40 GB model to not miss the next winter holiday season and they didn't have time to complete a full software emulator (they are late with the "Home" thing too). According to that executive, they seem to exclude completely a full software emulator, but i hope they reconsider the decision, like the rumble. (=
...does not actually support or explain the decision.
Yes, this IS a tradeoff. For ANY new console, it will launch with few, if any, games. Building in backwards compatibility can help sales because users don't have to throw their old games away. So spending money developing backwards compatibility software can be a good investment. And, yes, it can add cost that can potentially take away from other investments, or add to the console price.
But none of those facts make any justification for dropping backwards compatibility, and stating their reasoning this way belies their motives. Because the money is ALREADY SPENT when they did the launch. There's NO incremental cost to continuing to ship software they developed already. They already made their decision on how much to invest in backwards compatibility.
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.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
that Sony doesn't seem to give a rat's ass - or much less even have something remotely resembling a clue - as to what the gaming public actually wants instead of the crap they seem to want to feed them?
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.
I don't think Sony is being very smart here. There are still millions of PS2's sold, and new PS2 games being released - by not supporting backwards compatibility, Sony gives the gamer little reason to stick with the PS3 over some other gaming system for a new console choice.
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 trying to save money.
If the really do have this as a plan, I don't know why they don't simply leave the software BC as-is, one of the arguments being that supporting future PS2 games would be too much work. Fine, don't support the new games - but support the library of games many of us already have.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is people who are space limited. I was with you on never getting why people cared about backwards compatibility or things like DVD playback. I mean you have other devices for that, right? But then I live in the American southwest, where my 1800sq ft condo is considered normal, maybe even a bit on the small side. Now consider that many people live in very small apartments, things like 500 sq ft lofts and such. You can see how maybe it becomes a problem to own more than a few devices. Space is at a premium, if you are going to keep clutter down you want things like that kept to a minimum. Thus backwards compatibility IS a big selling point.
Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone, but there are enough people in situations like that (fairly common in Japan apparantley, and there's always dorm kids to think about) that it is a consideration.
Odd that Sony's making this claim since the good backwards compatibility is on of the primary reason's I bought a PS 3. Having owned an Xbox this last console generation I've missed out on a bunch of great PS 2 games. I've played through God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, Odin's Sphere, GT 4, Katamri Damacy 1&2, FF12 and more since getting my PS 3.
As far as PS 3 gaming goes I've played Resistance. So I've played 1 ps 3 game, and 20 or so ps 2 games on my PS 3 since I've gotten it. If the ps 3 didn't have the backwards compatibility I wouldn't have purchased it when I did. I would have held off much longer (if ever).
That said, I've probably spent more time using the PS 3 as a Blu-ray/DVD player than as a gaming machine, especially recently (I blame this on some RL friends getting me back into WoW). I did the same thing with my Xbox despite owning a ton of games it spent a majority of it's time being used to play movies with Xbox Media Center.
Sony discontinued manufacturing the PS-One systems back in the spring of 2006. (See http://www.gamespot.com/news/6146549.html)
You can buy used ones on EBay and by independent sellers, but I don't think Sony is selling them anymore, and I don't think major retailers stock them.
Xbox1 is basically a PC and there's already a VPC in Microsoft's hands. GPU is from a different vendor, but I guess they somehow route D3D calls to a new GPU (Cbxb tried this as well).
But PS2: it's a system which is really hard to emulate, not really similar to either this generation or PC's. Yes, there is a emulator in development (PCSX2) but it uses every trick in the book to get a reasonable performance on a 2-3 GHz dual core CPU. And for emulation you better have a processor with a good branching unit, which 360 and PS3 apparently don't have.
Sony must be having a hard time reducing the cost of the console, which their potential customers have pretty much demanded they do. A lot of the PS3 exclusive games are getting a lukewarm reception, many of the multi-platform titles get released late on the PS3, and Blu-Ray is not popular enough for the average consumer to purchase it as a Blu-Ray player.
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 more consoles.
Repeat after me:
Good Games Sell Consoles
Good Games Sell Consoles
Good Games Sell Consoles
Only idiots would forget about BC. I mean seriously Sony had the best selling console with the ps1 and ps2. It would be an ignorant statement to say that those people would suddenly forget about their old games. I think there was some insane number of PS1 and PS2's sold over 100,000,000 (sorry no link here) so yeah BC is important and anyone who says it's not is ignoring the facts. Yeah price is an issue too but it seems like Sony is shooting themselves in the foot with this move.
But as people keep saying I have a PS2 and I still play games on it(Persona 3 right now). I also bought a new PS2 as recently as 6 months ago(right before I bought my PS3). I have a PS3 and am waiting for some of the killer apps to come out to make my final judgement, but I prefer the PS3 over the XBox 360 and it has everything to do with the fact that I can leave my PS3 on for an extneded period of time and come back expecting it to run... I can't say the same for my XBox... For the record I own every gaming system of this generation, handhelds included.
I'm not sure what the big deal is. The PS2 is still readily available and doesn't cost much. And if it brings down the price of the PS3, I'd say it's okay.
I have both the ps3 and ps2 and use the ps2 for ps2 games (although my ps3 has hardware emulation). And the ps2 is hooked up with component cables (and progressive scan if available in game like God of War II) and I'd say it looks awesome as is. I see no reason to play my ps2 games on my ps3 especially since I'd have to get a controller and memory card adapter to get full use out of it.
The only group of people this would really hurt are those that don't have a ps2 and want to play a few games on it. And even then as time passes, the number of people in this category should greatly decrease.
It wasn't done completely at the software level; the PS3 could emulate the CPU (somewhat), but still needed the PS2's graphics chip. Now that the graphics chip is being removed, backwards compatibility is no longer possible. The PS3 simply doesn't have enough power to emulate the entire PS2 anywhere near real time.
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. So many developers went off spec to make their games and each one would not run well. So like the 360 they'd have to take a modular MAME approach to EMU. Which takes time and money. MS effective stopped expanding the BC since their library of games makes it a moot point.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I'm waiting to get a high def TV before I switch.
I agree. I bought a Wii knowing full well that I was not going to buy an HDTV 40 inch set until somewhere around 2009, by which point there might be a next gen console that was even better.
This is why PS3 is not selling well - they want you to choose Blu-Ray (when I don't even have an HDTV and would probably choose HD-DVD instead since it plays DVD movies) and they sell to a market that is not even 50 percent of the US market in 2008 projections.
Three years too early.
And not enough killer games.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If the PS3 were leading the current console generation, with dozens of top exclusive games, then I'd agree--forget about backwards compatibility.
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 the lack of success of the PS3, many games are still being released for the PS2. So a lot of people probably will buy a PS2...instead of buying a PS3. After all, for the price of a PS3, you can own a PS2 and a Wii.
>i?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 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.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
They still have plenty of PS3s with backwards compatibility (BC) in stock. They've also announced a price cut for those models with BC. If people really cared about BC, then they'll get one right now. Once the stocks have cleared, PS3 games will have gotten plentiful enough to persuade people to buy a PS3 for PS3 games only.
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 every blog/forum with their first-out-of-the-gates comments. The (flaky) rational from these robots usually goes like this: "I care about BC, but I don't want to pay the extra price for the older PS3s (even though they've received a price cut) because there's no games (even though there are some)"
If these people were waiting for a $300 PS3 with backwards compatibility - I'm guessing Sony doesn't really care for them, because they're looking to purchase over a year from now, and by then, many PS3 blockbusters will come out to make their "no games" argument invalid. Sony is catering to those wishing to purchase now and in the immediate future.
As well, as it's been mentioned countless times, if you really care about PS2 games (after all the PS3s with BC are sold out), you can get a PS2 - comes complete with a rumble controller, portability, DVD player, and redundancy.
Lost in all of this is that PS1 games are supported, the unit keeps WiFi, you can get a card reader for a few bucks, you can get a USB hub for a few bucks, and you can upgrade your hard drive easily.... the new model will be priced about the same as the XBox Elite but with more features and better build quality.
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.
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 outnumber Sony developers and those hordes of third parties have utilized many undocumented tricks on the PS2 to squeeze more out of it with else effort. That's why the hardware EMU was only 90+% while the software + hardware EMU was 80%. EMU isn't a simple issue. Slight variations on how a value returns can hang a game. For instance suppose your used to true 32bit values for a certain function but in the PS3 it first does the equation in 64bit then rounds/truncates into 32bit. Now the function isn't 100% the same. So a ps2 game expecting certain values will glitch up. Even though sony has full documentation it's not trivial to find all the undocumented tricks other developers use. The 360's BC suffers from this more severely because the chipsets are completely different. so they have to tweak their EMU to bridge the gap between implementations. But this requires basically making EMU on a per title basis.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
"Why don't they just use real money"??
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 every time someone made a purchase.
As for the rest:
- The Wii interface for purchasing is quite simple. Yes, they have just old console rehashes, but you get the download fast and get right to playing. And I'm not upset at all about being able to get a few good N64 titles (original Paper Mario as an example, and F-Zero X) for a decent price given that I never owned an N64.
- Xbox Live is smart enough to be able to run your download in the background; they have a LOT of vintage arcade titles, a good number of PC ports (I love getting people together for 4 player co-op DOOM), and plenty of independent items as well. The only gripe I have is that I can't rename the teams and members in Worms.
Meanwhile, Sony's crap store requires four confirm dialogs just to download one fucking thing, and the only thing I've seen in the time I've owned my (launch edition) PS3 that's been worth getting was Lemmings.
In all, as long as they can deliver on good games, I think Sony has made good bets with the PS3 as well as the PSN.
Yeah. *coughahemOutAWholeYearNotAGoddamnGameWorthBuyingYetahemcough* Good luck with that.
From what I can tell, all current Blu-ray players can play DVDs.
From About.com
Sony - rumble impossible on controllers,won't offer multiple hardware configuations, backwards compatibility important
what actually happens - the opposite
who cares
...because:
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.
Now I'd kindof expected there to be a PSThree style re-invention of the console after a few years, but this is taking the piss.
The entire idea of a console is you buy one, it is one of millions and they all work in exactly the same way - you have a PS2, you read the review, you buy the game and that's what you get - the reason you didn't buy a PC.
It's not just the fact there are different versions, it's that every one of them seems to be a con. Allow me to explain..
Both the 360 and PS3 have 'cheap' versions. They totted up the bits they needed to make the console, they decided it was going to be too expensive for some and that they had to make these 'cheaper' versions available. Fine by me, I may buy a solid gold 360, but if nobody else does, then I'll get no games.
So, I'm OK with the cheap version - except... Somewhere along the line the decision seemed to get made to make the cheap one as erm unattractive as possible. You can't afford a HD on your 360? Well the sensible option would be to stick an SD slot on the 360. Buy as much storage as you want/can afford and if you later buy the HD, then at least you can ebay the SD or stick it in your camera bag... but no somebody in marketing decided 'magic' 360 memory cards were required. I bought a premium and haven't even got a clue what they look like.
You get a wired controller - you want wireless - you buy a whole new controller. FFS couldn't they just have standardized the controller and had alternate battery covers - one that provides a wire and power, one with batteries and wireless module?
Then the elite comes out, with a 120Gig HD and HDMI - but if you want HD-DVD you have to buy another drive... aaggh. I don't really want HD-DVD, 120Gig sounds better than my 20 Gig and well HDMI would be nice, but I'm fine with component but but... basically I bought top of the range and now I feel grumbly as I now have second best.... and I'm not going to trade in for the Elite as then the Elite2 with HD-DVD will appear and.... well basically it's become like speccing a PC.
Sony's as bad if not worse. Now I never really wanted Blu-Ray, but if it was a no-cost feature it'd have got into my house. Except it was a cost.. First gen expensive and no games, so I can wait. But then drives started bouncing all over the place in size, backwards compatibility is now sliding, USB ports are vanishing (I never wanted that many initially, but now I may get fewer I'm affronted). Do I cough up the extra for an imported first gen one, or so I wait for the local one to come down in price, or maybe import an Asian one for the large Hard Drive or or.. but then if I get one now it'll have the old pads and I'll have to pay to 'upgrade them' (well rebuy them all) as well I want 'the best'....but then there's the cheap bundle with two 'old' pads and software emulation...but the drives will get bigger and if I wait..*head explodes*
I think my point is that the entire idea of a console is that you look at the title on the box, decide if you want to pay the price and you've got that console for that generation. If you don't want to pay the price, you wait 6 months, evaluate the new price on the same console and think again.
PS1 generation I was a student. I lusted, saved and finally bought mid-cycle-life.
PS2/Xbox I'd got my first job, finally had cash and had already bought an 8ft NeoGeo 6-shot cabinet.
I've now got a mortgage, career and am trying to be sensible. I haven't the time or energy to fucking deal with marketing department strategies or speculative bids on the long term l33tness of the console version I happen to end up with.
Until they make their minds up what they're selling I'm just sitting this one out.
Part of this is a QA issue.
The *BEST* compatibility you can get for your PS2 games, accessories, and mods involves buying a used HD/tray loading PS2 because some games/accessories don't work on the poptop PSTwo (it also scratches your discs). Compatibility is hurt further in the PS3s with hardware emulation, and then drops again in PS3s with software/hardware emulation (the EE can't be emulated, apparently). The only thing you really lose is the wireless PS3 controller, but wireless PS2 controllers can be had for $20.
In theory, a properly-tuned software emulator could outperform (higher frame rates, larger screen size, etc.) a hardware PS2. But since Sony is not apparently putting any effort into developing this, I don't think this is a significant issue in the short or long term. Independent efforts seem to be doing better.
So, for the end user, this is probably a GOOD thing since it saves the end user $100 that he can use towards a tray loading PS2, which is what he really wants for backwards compatibility anyway.
well, i had budgeted a PS3 purchase for next summer; loss of back-compat -> more cash to spend elsewhere
So, please go buy new ones. Lots of new ones! Especially the $60 variety.
See? We just paid for our price cut.
-bullseye
I love it when people complain about the price of the PS3, yet have no problems shelling out 400 bucks for an iphone.
rant - I just bought the 360 as it came out first and as far as I was aware was only going to come in two flavours ever (and I had best one, so I was happy, yes I am petty).
Hadn't realized Sony supported swapping of PS3 HD. On the assumption this doesn't lose your warranty (HD apart) and there's not a problem shifting stuff across, I humbly aplogize for slighting your system of choice. Happy?
HD as standard - again makes me happy. Why the fuck MS won't allow games to cache off an HD (if available) is beyond me as well (and I'll refrain into getting to BR/360 DVD data transfer rates - mainly as the speed isn't my concern, rather the god-awful racket my 60 makes spinning up).
Not going to give you stable. My 360 has been bullet-proof since day one and I've still not forgiven Sony for denying the f'in obvious inability of my 1st gen PS1 to shade a polygon properly (yes I hold a grudge) and operate without standing it on it's side. There have been problems with 360s, but MS finally seems to have done the decent thing.
Online - well I don't mind paying the extra for Live. Was never a hidden cost, isn't that much and does just 'work'. I have a PC, I'm aware of the benefits/downsides of free-for-all and on a console I'll pay for an easy life.
If you want to get into features, surely 360 nudges it? Media Centre Client under my TV is rather clever and why they don't push this feature more is beyond me. Now I can understand if you roll your own OS, hate TV, refuses to network your house this may not be a benefit for you, but for most people - a nice thing. If they just rolled over and gave me same functionality as XBMC on the old XB, then I'd buya 360 for every TV in my house tomorrow.
Maybe I was a bit strong on the 'as bad or worse bit' - as I mentioned MS only ramped up the versions after I'd already drunk the Kool-Aid. Apart from the HDMI stuff, optional HD and peripherals there's not really been a major alteration to what you get in your 360 box since day one - they'll all play the same games in the same way. My point was if you're looking to replace your PS2 with a PS3 and play your old games, today you're faced with a 'yes', 'maybe' or 'no' with every PS3 box you might pick up in retail. Doesn't bother me too much, but is a bit of a departure from the standard console model you must admit (unless you can point me to any previous console that exhibits similar behaviour within it's entire lifetime of revisions).
Holy fuck Sony, got enough configurations for the PS3 yet? I guess what they say is true: throw enough shit at the wall and sooner or later something's bound to stick.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
They have models with backwards compatibility and one without. If it's important to you then get a model that supports it. If it's not then save the money and get one without. It's simple really. However if you are a fan boy/hater who was never going to get one any way use this as your rally cry. Personally I'm still fine with my Wii, PS2 and Xbox. When/if I do get a PS3 I'll probably be fine without it. However if I change my mind I won't go crazy pretending that I don't have the option.
WHY HAST THOU FORSAKEN ME, SONY?!
Seriously, though. While I think this is being blown pretty far out of proportion, it definitely is worth shaking your head at and saying, "Sony. You're a bunch of fatheads." I believe that the PS3 lineup is too confusing for your average consumer now.
Prior to having no less than 3 different hardware revisions in the US/EU markets, Sony could boast about not having (too) confusing of a hardware lineup when compared to Microsoft. However, with the oldschool 60 gigs, the new 80 gigs, and the forthcoming 40gigs, you have to figure out if you're getting hardware emulation, software emulation, or no emulation...I'm betting this isn't something that's being clearly labeled on the box as a "feature", either.
When little Jimmy Snotnose gets his way this X-mas, and his parents decide to cheap out and get him the 40gig PS3, he'll probably have one or two PS3 games, then a whole plethora of PS2 games...now...we have had the marketing of "Play your PS2 games on the PS3!" crammed down our throats since the console's inception. How are they going to do a complete 180 and say, "You can still do that! Just pay $100 more!" without confusing the hell out of their target holdout market? It just isn't going to be pretty.
On top of that, I was personally looking forward to picking up a cheapo PS3...not anymore. It's bad enough that the hardware emulation is going away.
OH! One last thing...what happens when the rumble controllers come out for the PS3? No one has really gone down that foxhole yet...imagine having to replace at least two controllers at $49.99 a pop.
Updates have stopped? Since when? I checked last week and was pleased to find a number of games listed that weren't there last time I looked, including one of my personal favorites, Panzer Dragoon. They now seem to have most of the major XBox I titles, and are adding some of the less prominent titles (Myst 3 is one of the new additions). I've been making a point of picking up XBox I titles that I missed the first time around as they are added to the compatibility list, simply because I appreciate playing with 480p quality and with the wireless controller.
There's no other word for it. Sony's vision of the PS3 is flickering around. Every month, they declare a new vision, and then, if they aren't ahead of the 360 at the end of the month, they try something totally different.
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.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
When I bought my PS3 I had three interests: Blu-Ray, PS2 games, and PS1 games. I also liked the idea of a nicer DVD player for my large DVD collection. All of those things looked terribly on my projection screen with the hardware I currently had to watch or play it (PS2, and a Samsung upscaling DVD player), and the PS3 looked like a great all-in-one solution to this problem (which it is, it's wonderful).
Eventually I found several PS3 games that I really like, and some more are coming, but mainly I bought this system for backwards compatibility out of an HDMI port for my theatre system. That, and of course, HD Blu-Ray movies. So it's disheartening to see Sony dropping support for a huge library of games just to save a few bucks. On one hand, I understand what they are trying to do, but on the other hand, I can't imagine having purchased a PS3 without this facility.
I have to be honest though, at this point, nearly all of my "new game" playtime is on my Nintendo Wii and DS...
I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
Backward compatibility is allready developped and and integrated in the PS3, it is software so it doesn't cost anything now. Sony will spend more money to remove it and check if everything is ok after the removal than to keep it.
The removal of BC is not a technical choice, it is a (stupid) marketing decision.
Without BC, I won't buy a PS3. I waited one year for the price drop, wanted a BC PS3 to keep playing my big PS2 collection (don't want to keep the old PS2, can't stand to hook/unhook PS2/PS3/DVDplayer continuously, want an all in one system).
If a reasonnably priced PS3 can't play my old PS1/2 games, I will buy a cheaper XBOX360, there is no reason to stay with Sony now.
They should just provide upgrade slots so that we can add-on backwards compatibility if we want it by dropping in a card that'll provide the extra hardware. That way you can buy the consoles cheaper but can still have full backwards compatibility if you want it. Hell, I want a univiersal backwards compatibility card for mine that'll let me play any console game every made on a single console. I'd pay extra for it.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Go ahead, please! Rip out those unused parts that nobody uses anyway.
...
:-D
And by the way - since I would want this as a silent Linux box - you can rip out the Blueray as well and scrap that useless nVidia card. If you then unbundle the sixAxis also, then
That would be nice little machine, no?
send + more == money?
That's a crazy number. It probably costs $30 or less.
When Sony announced the 60 gig would be the last with hardware Backwards compatability I bought.
I have quite a few PS2 and even some PSOne games that I play. With the ability to upscale and now Alias the screen, PS2 games look even better than ever. Currently I've only really played PS2 games on my PS3. The price of new PS3 deters my purchasing desire. Generally now I buy used. Of course this jips the publishers of sales, though it saves me about $5-10.
If there were no BC to the PS3 I seriously doubt I would have bought one. Because the 360 has BC to xbox games i'll eventually buy one of those as well. Though there is less of a hurry because it seems BC isn't going anywhere, MS's correct decision.
I bought my PS3 because my PS2, with its large collection of software, went out the week before. I have 3 PS3 games, use it mainly for BluRay and PS2 games, and some PS1 games that, amazingly, play on the PS3 but not on the PS2 (such as Chrono Trigger).
I mean, companies are still releasing PS2 games. The number of PS3 titles, while growing, is still comparatively small.
The PS3 has, what, an 8 core processor? So take out the hardware backwards compatability, and do the whole thing in software. PCs have been doing this for years, yet for some reason Sony has dragged their feet on this. Has anyone actually tried playing one of the original PSX Final Fantasy games through Bleem or PSXEmu or one of the other Playstation Emulators with 3D support? Its absolutely beautiful. Sure, not everything works like this, but the number of games that do work is high enough that Sony should really consider a software backwards compatibility. You could easily introduce this in a firmware update. In fact, I would be willing to bet that Sony will notice how big of a mistake No backwards Compatability is, and release a firmware update in the near future, or discontinue the model.
Now if you were selling like a $300 system with no backwards compatability, and still sold PS2s on the shelf, then you may actually have a product you can sell. With the UK PS3 with no backwards compatability still costing over $600 USD, I would be really surprised if they move a single console.
I currently have a first-gen PS2 (the big clunky one without built-in Ethernet), and am holding off to buy the PS3 until MGS4 comes out - partly because of the price, and partly because I'm not really that interested in any of the existing PS3 games. The lack of vibration in the SIXAXIS controller is actually a much bigger deal for me than the lack of PS2 emulation in the PS3 I will eventually buy; if my PS2 kicks the bucket, I'll just buy a new one (or a used one in good condition if they stop selling the PS2 before I lose interest in it)