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?
Further, 360 hardware has actually improved since launch (nowhere to go but up?) while the PS3 keeps receiving downgrades.
In Sony's defense, they basically got it right the first time, whereas MS has just been putting out fires since the beginning (literally and figuratively).
In fact, if anything the PS3 was criticized for being over-engineered, leading to its high price. Its cooling system is pretty insane. So now they're removing some features to get the price down; they're still ahead of where MS was when they launched the 360 on both features and stability. (You may not like Blu-Ray, but it is a feature, and the base PS3 still has more hard drive space than all but the top of the line 360.)
That's the thing. Consumers don't want BC. Or at least, they don't care.
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 on it 6 months later (updates have stopped). BC is a red-herring.
Exactly, the high-end models will still have upscaling BC with ps2.
It's not like Microsoft strategy, offering a hdd-less model, severely crippling the compatibility of 360 games with current 360 games(ie FFXI) and online capabilities.
When I bought the ps2 I knew full well ps1 compatibility wasn't guaranteed for some games so I counted it out althogether. If they can guarantee a 98% BC for ps2 games in the Ps3 that's an advantage right there for me, so I'd get that model, but you still have a choice, if you don't care about BC or if you want to spend less.
I'm sure if there's enough pressure, they will make a firware update with a 100% software emulator, but only if Ps3 sales take off and enough people complain about it.
You assume backward compatibility is important. Of the 9 PS3 owners I know, plus myself, not one of us give a shit about it. Is there anyone out their that ditched their PS2, and getting a PS3 to play their old titles? There aren't many I'll wager, the official PS3 forums poll's shows no one really cares.
As usual, all the people moaning are not owners. If you can't afford a PS3, give it a rest. Stick to the old tech and enjoy good titles on the cheap.