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?
Yes, there is. There are actually 2 chips in there. The EU PS3 that only does software PS2 emulation actually still has a second chip in there still. The new PS3 removes that chip as well, and they apparently have no plans to try to emulate it.
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.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
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.
What's wrong with PSN? Here, let me give you an example when it comes to system updates for the PS3 vs the 360.
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.