40gb PS3 official... no backwards compatibility

[zemmix]

Well I had been thinking about maybe getting one around Christmas but this just kind of kills it for me. Also only two USB ports and no memory card slots. I think I'd rather have a 20giger with its EE chip.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/10/05/40gb-ps3-official-for-europe-no-backwards-compatibility-at-a/

[Oobgarm]

It would seem they have a bloody stump where their hypothetical foot once was.

[GrandAmChandler]

So basically it's just a Blu-Ray player that plays PS3 games.

[ZiLL]

Well I had been thinking about maybe getting one around Christmas but this just kind of kills it for me. Also only two USB ports and no memory card slots. I think I'd rather have a 20giger with its EE chip.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/10/05/40gb-ps3-official-for-europe-no-backwards-compatibility-at-a/

This is the exact reason I bought my 60gb when they started talking about all this software BC stuff with the 80GB. It was only a matter of time before they dropped BC support entirely.

The PS2 library is one of the best in gaming history, and to not have that as a selling point when purchasing a new PS3 is just ridiculous.

[icbrkr]

Also only two USB ports...

Because you know, those USB ports are danged expensive! That's what was driving up the cost!

[8-bitNesMan]

It seems like they just want to fail...

[mailman187666]

I'd say this is one of the few times, if not the only time, I can say that I'm glad I bought mine when it first came out. They are trying to take all these wierd paths but it just isn't working very well for them.

[MegaDrive20XX]

So a george foremen grill that can't cook chicken, but burgers instead? Blasphemy!

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

While I absolutely do not agree with this move, there are several things to take into consideration.

A.) The Euro/Middle East/African/Australian regions have always had aggressively "different" marketing strategies than the US and Japan. Coupled with that Sony spent quite a bit of time and money on "market feedback" earlier this year (in which I participated in more than a few surveys) and while backwards compatibility is simply a MUST HAVE feature in some regions, it likely came back as low on the importance scale for consumers in those regions.

B.) This is potentially a way for them to continue to maintain the still high sales of PS2 units in those regions (as the hardware on the PS2's is likely at a cost where Sony actually profits per unit sold), the same way that I SUSPECT they are maintaining high sales for PS2 units in the US by crippling any potential attempts (by the actual developers or otherwise) for allowing the Guitar Hero games to be used/played on the PS3 (that franchise has easily maintained thousands and thousands of PS2's purchased over the past few years, and EVEN with the release of Guitar Hero III and it's PS3 compatible Guitar - GH 1 and 2 will still be completely incompatible with the PS3 hardware...now when the PS3 Sixaxis controller works with Guitar Hero I and II, that all but sounds like Sony TELLING the developers to go ahead and make a wireless controller, but don't allow it to work with your previous releases).

C.) Since PS2/PS1 BC in those regions is software based, there's no reason that they can't include it in a firmware upgrade for that region OR (more likely) sell it on the PSN Store for a premium price.

Again, stupid move by Sony, but I think they have their reasons, and possible routes out of that move if they need to.

[DigitalSpace]

:shameful:

[norkusa]

So does this mean that they are eliminating backwards compatibility from ALL new consoles they make now, or just this 40GB version?

[MegaDrive20XX]

So does this mean that they are eliminating backwards compatibility from ALL new consoles they make now, or just this 40GB version?

Just the 40GB I think.

[Nebagram]

So a george foremen grill that can't cook chicken, but burgers instead? Blasphemy!

Anbody remember this (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=11209) at all? :)

[Richter Belmount]

B.) This is potentially a way for them to continue to maintain the still high sales of PS2 units in those regions (as the hardware on the PS2's is likely at a cost where Sony actually profits per unit sold), the same way that I SUSPECT they are maintaining high sales for PS2 units .

This is the best move they have made for the public that means the ps2 will continue to live for a while longer =D

[s1lence]

Hey, My Name is Sony PS3. I like to overhype things before they happen and then fail when they do occur. Not only that but I hate the past, its all about the FUTURE!!!! I also like to believe that I'm the greatest there was, is and ever will be. Oh and by the way, my best feature isn't my primary desgin. What I really can't understand is why I have no friends.

So how long before this one is discontinued?

[S-Wind]

Hey, My Name is Sony PS3. I like to overhype things before they happen and then fail when they do occur. Not only that but I hate the past, its all about the FUTURE!!!! I also like to believe that I'm the greatest there was, is and ever will be. Oh and by the way, my best feature isn't my primary desgin. What I really can't understand is why I have no friends.


Heh, I said the same thing about the ps2.

20X more powerful than the Dreamcast my ass!

[DigitalSpace]

Hey, My Name is Sony PS3...

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/images/smilies/Llol.gif

[-^Cro§Bow^-]

My understanding is that while the European PS3s do contain software BC, the 40 gig won't be able to at all. And it is really simple. Just because the software emulation works on the 80gb model, the 80gb model has only been stripped of the emotion engine. Not the GPU. So even for the software compatibility to work the PS2's GPU must still exist in the hardware. The 40gb model will remove this GPU as well leaving it only a PS3 system. Without the EE and the PS2 GPU, it (PS3) apparently isn't powerful enough to emulate both functions of the PS2. So by removing the PS2 GPU, they can further cut costs.

One side of me sees why they are doing this and it makes sense. Basically they figure with sooo many PS2s out there, anyone that wants to play PS2 games should be able to just get a PS2 on the cheap to play them. And again, I can understand that point of view. But the other side remembers all the promise of BC with the PS3...and then you sorta feel like they should still offer it in some way right?

[jajaja]

First i must say i'm suprised by all the negative comments here of this. A cheaper SKU with fewer functions, why the complaints? The 60GB (or 80GB to come) will still have all the functions that were avalible, so its not like you dont have a choice on what to buy. If backwards compability is important to you, just get the 60GB or 80GB model (or 20GB if you still can find it). Sure, it might suck, but still, i dont see the huge deal about it. The price difference between the 40GB and 60GB is only like $100. I dont know if that is ALOT of money in USA, but here its not really that much. Its still some money tho, but its not like you would be ruined if you use $100 here.

Speaking on general basis, i remember when 360 Core came, alot of people said it was so good with options, that you werent forced to buy stuff you didnt want and that you could choose etc. I wonder if any of those who said that is complaining about the 40GB PS3 SKU :) What if you dont want backward compability, memory card reader, 4 USB ports and maybe the most important thing of them all, the chrome strip hehe. Seriously tho, isnt it good with a new cheaper SKU then, so people can choose?



C.) Since PS2/PS1 BC in those regions is software based, there's no reason that they can't include it in a firmware upgrade for that region OR (more likely) sell it on the PSN Store for a premium price.

There is a reason, sale point. If BC was included in the 40GB model, the only difference between the 40GB and 60GB/80GB model would be 20GB/60GB of HDD space, 2 USB ports, memory card reader and a chrome strip. I dont know if this is the reason, but it would make sense. Buying it through the PSN would also be a great idea :)


Because you know, those USB ports are danged expensive! That's what was driving up the cost!

Even if they only save like, lets say $2 on each console by removing 2 USB ports they will save millions of dollars in the long run.

Speaking of USB ports on a console, what do you actually need 4 USB ports for? The PS2 has 2 USB ports. The only time that they've been used what i can remember is when my sister bought Singstar and played it a bit and for like 30 min to 1 hour testing another game where you could use the mic (dont remember the title, some futuristic adventure game or something i think). Except for that i cant remember that i've used the USB ports for anything. I know you can connect stuff to the PS3 like a external HDD etc. but how many of the complainers use 3 or 4 USB ports at the same time, and at all time? Isnt there anything that cant be unplugged if a USB port is needed?

[Poofta!]

the ps3 is beggining to look like s1lence's avatar.

heres my opinions.
retarded move. i think the 80gb is stupid too, software BC is nowhere near as good as hardware BC (see xbox on 360 and GC on wii). if it is a region thing they couldve just locked it out in that region's firmware.

the reason no one criticized (this much) the 360 core is cause the console wasnt gimped like these ps3s are. it was just lacking extra external features, the box itself was the same! if you wanted a wireless remote or HD you can buy it. i cant buy this ps3 an EE now can i?

in my view, the 60gb is still the best sku out there, too bad its running out. theres a small store near my house willing to sell me a 60gb new for 500 cash no tax, i might take them up on that now.

sony not only dropped the ball, its keep tripping on it and breaking its nose on the concrete floor for about 6 months now.

[diskoboy]

So am I the only one that thinks Sony is trying to crash the video game market, again?

Seriously.... Sega pulled this shit during the Genesis era. Look what happened to them - there were so many versions of the Genny on the market, it pissed retailers and customers off something bad. I remember when Kaybee toys announced they would never sell a Sega console, ever again. I knew right about then that Sega was about to die an even more painful death than Atari did, in 1984.

[neuropolitique]

B.) This is potentially a way for them to continue to maintain the still high sales of PS2 units in those regions (as the hardware on the PS2's is likely at a cost where Sony actually profits per unit sold), the same way that I SUSPECT they are maintaining high sales for PS2 units in the US by crippling any potential attempts (by the actual developers or otherwise) for allowing the Guitar Hero games to be used/played on the PS3 (that franchise has easily maintained thousands and thousands of PS2's purchased over the past few years, and EVEN with the release of Guitar Hero III and it's PS3 compatible Guitar - GH 1 and 2 will still be completely incompatible with the PS3 hardware...now when the PS3 Sixaxis controller works with Guitar Hero I and II, that all but sounds like Sony TELLING the developers to go ahead and make a wireless controller, but don't allow it to work with your previous releases).

Are you saying that Sony wants to sell more PS2s than PS3s? That does not compute.

[jajaja]

Software BC is nowhere near as good as hardware BC (see xbox on 360 and GC on wii).

Wii uses hardware BC tho. Since Wii is very simular to Gamecube, it just disables some hardware when a GC game is inserted so it acts just like a real Gamecube :) (maybe some small differences tho, but still very close) Its the same thing that C128 did. It disabled some hardware and suddently it was just like a C64.


the reason no one criticized (this much) the 360 core is cause the console wasnt gimped like these ps3s are. it was just lacking extra external features, the box itself was the same! if you wanted a wireless remote or HD you can buy it. i cant buy this ps3 an EE now can i?

Fair enough, but i wouldnt call the 360 Core less gimped than the 40GB model. The 40GB model still has all the main important components. If you dont care about BC and memorycard reader, the 40GB, 60GB and 80GB SKUs can do the exact same things. With 360 Core you must buy a harddrive to get to use all of 360's functions (or can you use a memorycard for Live too? Anyway, you must still buy something to be able to use all the functions). The same goes for the 360 Core also when it comes to BC, you cant buy a chip to get almost perfect Xbox BC. With PS3, atleast you have a choice (for the time being atleast), just get a 20GB or 60GB model. With Xbox 360 you dont.

[jajaja]

The 40GB model got PSX BC by the way. I guess its better than nothing.


GameDaily BIZ also contacted SCEE spokesman Nick Sharples who told us, "We have made clear on many occasions that our priority is on developing innovative new features and services for PS3 and not on backwards compatibility. The 40GB model no longer contains any elements of the PS2 chip set which powered backwards compatibility in previous models, and is therefore only compatible with PS one titles."

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=17683

[roushimsx]

The 40gb model will remove this GPU as well leaving it only a PS3 system. Without the EE and the PS2 GPU, it (PS3) apparently isn't powerful enough to emulate both functions of the PS2. So by removing the PS2 GPU, they can further cut costs.

I strongly doubt it has anything to do with perceived power of the console and has a hell of a lot more to do with projected cost of trying to expand the scale of their emulator much further.

Which sucks, because that means we won't be getting snazzy resolution enhancement action, just upscaling. Hopefully we'll at least get some better smoothing options, but again, that's unlikely unless they actually go back and extend the emulator.


Speaking of USB ports on a console, what do you actually need 4 USB ports for? The PS2 has 2 USB ports. The only time that they've been used what i can remember is when my sister bought Singstar and played it a bit and for like 30 min to 1 hour testing another game where you could use the mic (dont remember the title, some futuristic adventure game or something i think).

Lifeline!

Also, 4 USB ports is a bit overkill. 2 sounds snazzy....I'm thinking they went with 4 just because every other system seemed since the N64 (with the exception of, surprise surprise, the PS2) had 4 input ports, it was time for the PS3 to have 'em too. Shame you didn't really need all of them since everything moved to bluetooth. IMO, cutting out a little of the extra fat is totally a good call.

Now when are they going to allow more than one bluetooth headset to be registered at a time? :( Ramping up the number of bluetooth devices per console would totally rock, too.

[le geek]

You know what though? I'll take keeping the wi-fi "built in" over b/c any day. It irks me that with the 360 you need to get wi-fi ala cart as it adds $60-100 to the price tag (my game room is nowhere near my router). And really, who doesn't have a PS2 at this point?

I still am planning on the 360 as my next console, purely based on the better software line up and XBLA, but I think Sony is starting to make the right moves.

Cheers,
Ben

P.S. Now just add the new Dual Shock the the package already!

[heybtbm]

The state of Sony gaming in 2007...

http://sithoughts.mu.nu/archives/trainwreck.jpg

[S-Wind]

So many people are saying "Who doesn't have a ps2 by now?"

I think the better question is who will have a fully working ps2 5 years from now.

[diskoboy]

So many people are saying "Who doesn't have a ps2 by now?"

I don't have a PS2. And there's no way in hell I'd ever buy one.

[swlovinist]

PS3 40 gig might be one I can actually afford! I have a PS2 with component, I dont care about backwards compatibility. If the price is reasonable, I might be in.

[monkeysuit]

Why would I want to play PS2 games on my PS3? Sony is doing this for our own good, guys.

O_O

[jajaja]

Lifeline!

Ye, thats the game, thanks :)

[Richter Belmount]

My only beef with this is , is sony making ps3 a bigger disorganized mess than it already is?

[BHvrd]

The state of Sony gaming in 2007...

http://sithoughts.mu.nu/archives/trainwreck.jpg

I found out who is controlling all these train wrecks:

http://www.benheck.com/images/rrod.jpg

[Garry Silljo]

Why would I want to play PS2 games on my PS3?

I don't know why you would want to, but I know why I would. Some of us don't own the earlier Playstations and would like to play some of those games without buying more than one system. By erasing backwards compatability, they have erased any possibility of a sale to my household.

[jajaja]

I don't know why you would want to, but I know why I would. Some of us don't own the earlier Playstations and would like to play some of those games without buying more than one system. By erasing backwards compatability, they have erased any possibility of a sale to my household.

BC is not erased. Its erased from 1 SKU yes, but it will always be avalible on atleast one PS3 SKU. It wouldnt be any reason to remove it completely considering all the time and money they've already used on it. That they stop updating it (software emulation that is) for supporting more games is a possibility tho, but not removing it completely from every SKU.

How did you do it back in the days by the way? When SNES came, NES games wasnt playable on it (of, fair a 3rd part adapter adapter excist, fair enough, but dunno how well it works tho). When N64 games case, SNES games wasnt playable on it. When GC came, N64 games wasnt playable on it.

[108Stars]

Well, they announced they would sell the remaining 60 GByte units and only produce the new 40 GByte-model for Europe from now on; according to SCEE it has NO backwards compatibility at all. So Sony surely won´t update their software-emulation either.
It´s a bad move imho, old consoles, especially ones running with CD- and DVD-drives don´t live as long as cartridge-systems, so backwards-compatibility is important imho. My PS1 is almost dead, my PS2 had the first diec reading error recently, and I expected to play my old games on PS3 and after that on PS4.

[roushimsx]

Well it looks like the removal of the GPU isn't an issue at all with the emulation. The GPU was never there to begin with in the euro models, so the lack of any PS2 backwards compatibility isn't related to emulation difficulties at all. If anything, it's probably based on Sony's desire to move more PS2 units in the euro regions.

...so yea, removal of PS2 playback entirely to focus on the "rich and diverse" PS3 library is about the stupidest thing I've heard since "You know, things break" in regard to the 360 red ring of death.

(cue trainwreck photo)

[Garry Silljo]

How did you do it back in the days by the way? When SNES came, NES games wasnt playable on it (of, fair a 3rd part adapter adapter excist, fair enough, but dunno how well it works tho). When N64 games case, SNES games wasnt playable on it. When GC came, N64 games wasnt playable on it.

If it was never backwards compatable I wouldn't care. When it starts that way and drops it, I care. Since it's only one SKU I guess I'm fine and I just won't buy that one and it's fine. I worry though that eventually it could phase into the other ones. Here's an idea for MS and Sony that they probably won't agree with. Make one system, and leave it that way (As long as it doesnt break in a week from bad design MS). People shouldn't be ripped off because they couldn't get in on day one. Nor should they miss out for being early adopters.

[Dangerboy]

I figured I'd toss in a retail perspective, as it also allows me a break from sweating to death from moving furniture down 3 flights of stairs.

The removal of the backwards compatibility was the most brilliant move in the history of the PS3.

It's not removing a function; it's a $400 threat. And what's sad, is it's working.

Case in point: I have not sold a PS3 in months. We've had the same set of decks for at least 5 months. Suddenly out of nowhere, we sell 2 of them in two days, both 60 gigs. Both for the same reason:

"I heard the 40 gigs and 80 gigs didn't have the backwards compatibility, so I want to get this before it's gone."

Sony's figuring it's cheaper to just remove shit from a system and force people to grab the old stock, rather than try and advertise stuff they don't have (MGS4 anytime soon, Killzone any time soon...anything...anytime soon...)

What's also interesting is seeing both sides of the coin. While we have all these late adopters buying it for fear of no backward's compatibility, we have all the early adopters commenting on how it's just thier Blue Ray player until a real game comes out.

Hell, my one friend who bought the machine just for Gundam (he's a fanboy), even HE said he'd just sell off the machine if MGS4 comes to 360.

On my side, I *need* said compatibilty for my web-site. I use a PS2 slim for PS1 screen capture due to the component out. Seeing how there's nothing to play on the PS3, why would I spend $500 to do something I do for free already? Compare this to the Wii, which is 100% backwards compatible with GC, and then allows access to 6 other machines via legal emulation. For $150 chepaer than the 40 gig.

Sony's in a no win situation no matter what.

The 3rd Generation Curse has swallowed it's newest victim whole, and chewing greedily.

Beware Microsoft....you're 3rd generation is next...

[playgeneration]

At a time when there are few reasons to buy a PS3, why remove a reason for buying one - backwards compatability, its just stupid. Sony themselves have said they will be removing the vital ps2 graphics chip from all models, and don't assume that total software emulation will ever happen, the ps2 is a complex design.
If no models have backwards compatability in the future as they say, then that will rule out a lot of people selling their PS2 consoles to fund a PS3 purchase.

[jajaja]

If it was never backwards compatable I wouldn't care. When it starts that way and drops it, I care. Since it's only one SKU I guess I'm fine and I just won't buy that one and it's fine. I worry though that eventually it could phase into the other ones. Here's an idea for MS and Sony that they probably won't agree with. Make one system, and leave it that way (As long as it doesnt break in a week from bad design MS). People shouldn't be ripped off because they couldn't get in on day one. Nor should they miss out for being early adopters.

If i'm not mistaken, the early Atari consoles had BC. Atari 2600 games could be played on Atari 5200 or something (correct me if i'm wrong). Sega also made an official adapter that let you play Master System games on a Mega Drive/Genesis. After that it seemed to stop before PS2 came on the marked.

Also, Sega CD, Saturn and Dreamcast were all disc based, but non got BC. I wasnt around on internet back in those days, atleast not much, so i dont know how the discussions was then. But from what i talked to my friends, what i read in magazines etc. i cant remember any complaining about not being able to play old games on the "next console".

I wonder why the suddent need for BC is so huge. I guess it will be forgotten soon tho, like it was with 360. I dont hear any complaining about that anymore. Dont get me wrong, BC is a great feature, but i dont see it as that big of a deal or a factor to get a console or not.

I do agree with you on the one SKU part. I wish they made 1 SKU and thats it. Pushing like 6-7 different SKUs like MS and Sony has done this generation sux. Actually i dont care about it tho, but it would still be nice to have just 1 SKU.

The GBA is the worse one tho, upgrading the screen on each SKU. GBA isnt expencive so it doesnt matter that much, but i remember when i bought the first GBA model, i got home and i couldnt see shit on the screen hehe. Judging by the screenshots back on the games i thought the games would look like that, bright and clear, but no, you have to sit under a light source to be able to see whats going on the screen. I love GBA tho, so many cool games, but i really wish they made a first model GBA with the same backlight as GBA Micro has. I dont like the shape of GBA SP and Micro. The first GBA model is the best one to hold :)

[suppafly]

Sony just cant stop shooting itself in the foot over and over....

This seriously helps the wii and 360 look more attractive for anyone with games from the older generation that could sell the older console (to get money for the next console) while keeping the games and being able to play them in the next gen console

[Dangerboy]

"...I wonder why the suddent need for BC is so huge....

Retail side again.

The PS2 was the machine that truly brought it up front and drilled it into the mainstream's skull. It's not viewed as "being able to play games you have", it's being able to have access to another library via a single machine. It also allows Sony to lie through their teeth with those "over 10,000 PlayStation brand games", buy making it all one brand rather than 3 separate machines.

Granted, that was the original Sony sales pitch.

One of the first three questions anyone asks when thinking about a system purchase is the backwards compatibility. Which relates to the sudden need to buy PS3 60 gigs.

I use an actual customer quote to sum it all up:

"I just got my PS3 and loving it. God of War 1 + 2 are incredible."

-__-

[Garry Silljo]

People probably didn't care about BC in the begining because as the industry was starting they had no clue how often they would be asked to buy new hardware. Now that people are more aware of the life of the investment, they are really interested in the new systems maintaining the investment of their old games instead of killing it.

Also, I'm pretty sure the 5200 wasn't BC. The 7800 was with the 2600 but the 5200 was left out. I know of no way to play 5200 carts without a 5200 system.

[jajaja]

"...I wonder why the suddent need for BC is so huge....

Retail side again.

But why would Sony remove it if its so important to the retailers (as in selling more)? More PS2 games sold = more money to Sony.



People probably didn't care about BC in the begining because as the industry was starting they had no clue how often they would be asked to buy new hardware. Now that people are more aware of the life of the investment, they are really interested in the new systems maintaining the investment of their old games instead of killing it.

Ye, that might be. It can also be that we have been so spoiled/used to it with PS2 that we take it for granted that it will be on PS3 also. PS2 is also a huge success so luckily PS2 consoles will still be sold for some years to come :)

I also want to add that i was suprised myself when i heard that PS2 games wasnt BC on the 40GB SKU, especially since its done through software and i cant imagine that its more expencive to include it (production costs atleast). The only logical thing i can think of is that the 60GB and 80GB more exencive SKUs should have an extra selling point.

EDIT: I just read that the GS chip is still in the 60GB/80GB SKUs that uses software emulation, but its completely removed in the 40GB SKU. Then it makes much more sense why they dropped it. If a chip is removed its less expencive to produce.


Also, I'm pretty sure the 5200 wasn't BC. The 7800 was with the 2600 but the 5200 was left out. I know of no way to play 5200 carts without a 5200 system.

Ok, i knew it was something with the old Atari consoles atleast, but wasnt sure which one it was :)

[kazuo]

So Sony ISN'T doing software BC for PS2 titles on the 40GB PS3? I read that they were.

If that's the case, 40GB PS3 is the suck, indeed.

[jajaja]

So Sony ISN'T doing software BC for PS2 titles on the 40GB PS3? I read that they were.

Nope, apparently only PSX BC will be intact. I just read that its because they removed the GS (Graphics Synthesizer) chip from the 40GB model. Positive for those who want a PS3 for PS3 games and at a cheaper price. Negative for those who want a PS3 for both PS2 and PS3 games, but they must pay more for another SKU.

[Dangerboy]

But why would Sony remove it if its so important to the retailers (as in selling more)? More PS2 games sold = more money to Sony.

By "retail side" I don't mean relating to the retailers, I mean this is the view from my side of the counter.

To answer, Because people would be buying it on PS2 they already own. The PS2, regardless of what it sells now, has run it's course as far as truly profitable in terms of 'wow factor'. Especially when you consider the rest of the line-up coming out.

Sony is and always will be a hardware / media format focused company (see Beta Max, Mini Discs, UMD, Blue Ray...). It's not how many games they sell, its how many systems they can claim to ship. Always has been, always will be.

If a person not up to speed buys a 40 gig, their stuck buying only PS3 games. And if they want to play the PS2/1 games. they'ed have to go buy a PS2. Which means system sales go back up, which means another Sony pie chart gets to be shown.

Like I said, the $400 model is *helping* sales of the 60 gigs. It's not helping the common gamer.

**EDIT - It also makes sense to keep PS1 games emulation in there; otherwise the 40 gig also shuns PS Store Downloads of PS1 games and PSP transfers.

[jajaja]

But why would Sony remove it if its so important to the retailers (as in selling more)? More PS2 games sold = more money to Sony.

By "retail side" I don't mean relating to the retailers, I mean this is the view from my side of the counter.

To answer, Because people would be buying it on PS2 they already own. The PS2, regardless of what it sells now, has run it's course as far as truly profitable in terms of 'wow factor'. Especially when you consider the rest of the line-up coming out.

Sony is and always will be a hardware / media format focused company (see Beta Max, Mini Discs, UMD, Blue Ray...). It's not how many games they sell, its how many systems they can claim to ship. Always has been, always will be.

If a person not up to speed buys a 40 gig, their stuck buying only PS3 games. And if they want to play the PS2/1 games. they'ed have to go buy a PS2. Which means system sales go back up, which means another Sony pie chart gets to be shown.

Like I said, the $400 model is *helping* sales of the 60 gigs. It's not helping the common gamer.

**EDIT - It also makes sense to keep PS1 games emulation in there; otherwise the 40 gig also shuns PS Store Downloads of PS1 games and PSP transfers.

Ye, that is true. They might cut out the PS2 support to make people buy PS2 instead and keeping it alive longer. But i dont think this is the main reason. I think the main reason is to save money on production costs by removing the GS chip. In the long run they will save millions of dollars on this.

I hardly doubt they are doing this just to be able to show off statistics tho. In the end its all about the money. Stats can be nice to show off, but if they're not making much money on it i dont see why they would be so keen to show off stats. I'm not marketing expert, but showing off stats, can that help them in any way?

True again, removing PS2 BC is not helping the gamer, but it would be wrong of the gamer to demand it. As said, its a really nice feature, but it cant be demanded. Sony had a choice, to keep the price as it is now and sell the current SKUs and wait for maybe 1-2 years before dropping the price, hoping that people would still buy the console. Or they could make a new SKU thats cheaper, and by being able to do this they would have to strip as much as they can to keep the production costs as low as possible. For many people this is a much better alternative than to pay $100 extra for BC, 20GB more HDD, 4 USB ports and so on. This is a case where you simply cant please everyone, unfortunately.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Not surprised. I really don't know what they were thinking this time around. Really, the whole Blu Ray thing, OK I'll give them that, they want to push their format but damn, I don't care about backward compatabilty myself, am perfectly happy playing PS1 games either on original system or any of the great PSX PC emulators. What I do what is a major price drop on PS3, some must have titles that are exclusive to the platform, I know that is unlikely especially these days but they need them because just 1 or 2 exclusives will not be enough to entice me to get PS3, oh and it would be nice if SONY stops it with the superior trash talk and pathetic marketing and start giving gamers what they want and start listening to their fanbase, Microsoft seems to be doing that more than Sony and damn that's just sad......................

[boatofcar]

Count me in with the crowd who doesn't see the big deal. If you want BC, just buy the bigger model. You get the BC, more HD space, more USB ports, etc. It's only $100 difference, and if you can't afford that just keep your PS2 and play those games on it.

[playgeneration]

Count me in with the crowd who doesn't see the big deal. If you want BC, just buy the bigger model. You get the BC, more HD space, more USB ports, etc. It's only $100 difference, and if you can't afford that just keep your PS2 and play those games on it.

Yes but the models with backwards compatability are being discontinued, only the stock that has been made already is avaliable to buy. Once those are sold all people will be able to buy is the 40gig model with no PS2 compatability.

Even if ps2 compatability doesn't matter to you, it sure matters to a lot of people who dont want two consoles under the telly, and who could have sold their ps2 to fund the purchase of a ps3 - wiping out the price cut difference anyway. Sony promised backwards compatability, made a big selling point of it, and are going back on their word, cutting features as an act of desperation is not a good thing - thats obvious.

What Sony seem to have forgotten is if ps3 doesn't play ps2 games, whats stopping ps2 owners buying a 360 instead - since that doesn't play ps2 games either, but has a lot more of its own games too.

[108Stars]

Count me in with the crowd who doesn't see the big deal. If you want BC, just buy the bigger model. You get the BC, more HD space, more USB ports, etc. It's only $100 difference, and if you can't afford that just keep your PS2 and play those games on it.

Very funny. What if you can´t afford it right now but want to buy a PS3 in a year? That´s the case with me, but I want backwards compatibility. But when I have the money, there will probably be no units with BC available anymore.

[KingCobra]

Have you guys seen the ps3 line-up as late? If it wasen't for the BC compatibilty I wouldn't have bought my ps3 period. It is a nice feature that is needed at this point, I wouldn't own a ps3 at the prices there asking without it. Now it would be differn't if it had a ass load ps3 AAA games.

You make this kind of move after the masses have abtained the console and your making a newer slim model down the road, I just can't see it as good move at this time?

[jajaja]

One thing that i've been thinking about the last 2 days or so, is that how sure is it that Europe will get another SKU where the GS chip is still instact. There might come a 80GB SKU, but will they put in the SKU chip again? I guess it depends on how well the 40GB SKU is selling.

I know i said earlier that BC isnt that big of a deal, but i got to admit that after thinking about it i would really like to have the feature. Its the same with the memorycard reader, eventho i would probly never use it i would still like to have it. Anyone knows how i feel?

The uncertainty of not getting another SKU with the GS chip intact sux, so i've been concidering to get a 60GB now. I guess its totally impossible to tell what Sony is going to do in the future and as said, it will most likely depends on how well the 40GB SKU is selling. I dont know how long the 60GB SKU will be avalible where i live. Damnit hehe :\

In afterthoughts i agree with what Garry Silljo said, if there was never BC i guess people wouldnt care because we wouldnt be used to it (eventho Atari 7800 and Mega Drive/Genesis (with the use of an adapter) had it). Maybe we have gotten so used to BC that we "must" have it? :)

I dont blame Sony tho. I totally understand why the removed the GS chip, to be able to cut the production costs as much as possible. People were screaming after a pricedrop and now its here. Its not always possible to eat and have the cake all at the same time. PS3 isnt exactly selling that well so they had to drop the price. And i think everyone knows that they cant just slice the price with hundreds of dollars so short after launch without doing anything to reduce the production costs.

Or.. i could blame Sony for making my choice harder now hehe :\ I was hoping to wait for yet another pricedrop (i live in Europe, its more expencive here) before getting one. But now that there might be a small chance that i wont be able to get one with a GS chip i might have to buy a PS3 earlier than expected.

[Barbarianoutkast85]

I'm confused is this for a European launch or what? So the 40 GIG PS3 doesnt play PS2 games. But the 80 DOES play PS2 games? And what is Sony thinking, cuting out BC and less controller ports.

[Barbarianoutkast85]

When I first read no BC I was really pissed at first. I mean it sucks they are going to stop having it with the launch of the 40 gig model. Then I was thinking more, and up until last week I hadnt played a Playstation game on my PS2 for months. So it's not a huge deal, but it is nice that I dont have to dig out my original Playstation from god who knows where to play Crash Bandicoot and Oddworld.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Are you saying that Sony wants to sell more PS2s than PS3s? That does not compute.

What's not to compute?

Sony knows that at the present time, they don't have a killer app to move the PS3. And, in Sony's personal history book - this has been the case for the first year and a half of their past two console cycles. The PS1 didn't begin to over-take the market till FF7 hit, and the PS2 didn't until the double-whammy of MGS2 and GTA3. So, needless to say, regardless of any floundering they're doing now, they know how to make up for lost ground. (Or, they're counting on the fact that history will repeat itself.)

Now, we should all know that console developers like Sony don't profit off of their hardware in it's early days. It takes several years of market saturation and insertion, software licensed and sold, and hardware revisions to maximize profitability for said console. (And with the ball-kicking that Microsoft is taking on the 360's hardware failure rate / warranty extension, as wonderful and popular as the machine is ... I'm sure they're thanking their lucky stars that it's Bill Gates who's bottomless pockets they're having to dip into for support.)

My point being that the PS2 in it's 100,000,000 unit moved state, and it's current uber slim hardware revision definitely is putting more cash in Sony's pockets than the loss-leader PS3, which, it's no secret that Sony is losing money on in terms of the Blu-Ray hardware alone just to get them into the marketplace. (Though, taking a loss per console is a proven market strategy at this point.)

Again, point is, there are still plenty of people out there buying PS2 software in the US and elsewhere (Guitar Hero is still a sales juggernaut, and prior to it's 360 version the PS2 was the only place to go for GH action.) and much like the PS1's hardware & software production / sales maintaining into the first 3-4 years of the PS2, we're probably not going to see PS2 go away anytime soon.

The short short is that PS2 makes more money for Sony than PS3, and while they'd love to sell an assload of PS3's right now, they're biding their time and doing what they can to maintain interest in the global top selling console of the past 10 years or so to line their pockets (and recoup some inevitable losses along the way).

[koster]

I guess now is the time to pick up a backwards-compatible PS3, before Ebay speculators snatch up all of them for their 'über-rare' auction listings. :-/

[Wolfrider31]

I don't understand it, Sony just seems to not want my money. Granted it's Canadian money, but we're above par now so it should be all good. And then they go and pull BC out from under me. And lo send me into the waiting arms of Bill Gates.

Seriously, some may argue that losing it isn't a big deal but look at it this way. I still play my PS2. Alot. But, I cannot afford a PS3 (even at the 399 price point.) However, I can afford a PS3 with the assistance of trade in credit when I get rid of my GCN, PS2, and SP. However, now that I have to keep my PS2, the price (in effect) has just gone UP for me. And since I was on the fence anyway, the loss of functionality is a little too much for me.

It looks like XBL will be my gaming home. I'll miss Fumito Ueda though. :(

[Zing]

And then they go and pull BC out from under me. And lo send me into the waiting arms of Bill Gates.

I cannot afford a PS3 (even at the 399 price point.)
I don't get it. The 360 is currently $399 as well. Are you planning to buy the first Xbox?

[Iron Draggon]

well it sounds to me like they know their ship is sinking now, so they're just trying to make sure that it sinks like a rock, so they can write it all off as a catastrophic loss... there's more money to be made in failing miserably than there is in succeeding marginally, so they wanna make sure they fuck it up

now as for the backwards compatibility thing, in their case it's suicidal... with the ability to play the entire PS1 & PS2 libraries in addition to the PS3 library, the only reason not to buy a PS3 was the high price... but now there's not much of a reason to buy a PS3 at all, unless you just want a really cheap BluRay player that also happens to play a few games, if you ever care to...

the saddest thing about it is that $600 was a really great deal on a cheap BluRay player that also happened to play a few games... but Sony banked way too much on brand loyalty after a decade of rampant success despite the poor quality of the PS1 and the even poorer quality of the PS2... their greedy arrogance convinced them that they could do no wrong in the eyes of their well established fanbase, but with their competition from Microsoft and Nintendo heating up instead of cooling down, they couldn't cool off all the heat... I'm sure that their PS hardware stories will be the subject of much discussion and dissection for many years to come, just as Sega's hardware stories are now... you can only ride the big wave of blind faith for so long...

but as for the alleged 3rd generation curse, that certainly doesn't apply to Nintendo, and I highly doubt that it will apply to Microsoft either... Nintendo's biggest blunders to date have all managed to keep them very comfortably afloat, and I strongly suspect that Microsoft has researched Nintendo's own tactics thoroughly enough that they will always manage to stay afloat too... not to mention they've never really been that stupid in anything they've ever done... they'll go bankrupt from losing antitrust cases before they lose it all due to the same sort of mistakes that Sega made, that Sony is making now...

so next generation we'll prolly see a return to the old school console battle tactics of two major players going head to head against each other, with the possibility of a third minor player trying to survive on the few scraps being left behind by the two big dogs, and Sony may be the third player, if they can manage to survive this generation without pulling a Sega and switching to software only for the sake of survival and a chance to retaliate later...

of course Sony will still survive, just as Nintendo did last generation, but this time they're the third wheel just spinning around in all the dust, instead of Nintendo, and if they aren't careful they'll be the third wheel next time too...

oh and then there's the ever present threat of some previously little known or otherwise very unexpected contender showing up to change all the rules again... if Toshiba ends up winning the current format war, thanks in part to all of Sony's current blunders, they could be a future contender... so could any Japanese company hungry to make more of a name for itself in the global market, such as Fujitsu... they seem to be trying to compete very heavily with Toshiba now, so either one of those two could end up competing with each other in a console war of the future, along with all the old survivors...

and personally, I would love to see Toshiba enter the console market... their hardware has always been very reliable, and their technology has always been very innovative, so I think that they could be a very formidable force in the industry... and they are still smart enough to not let all their desires to make more of a name for themselves in the global get in the way of their survival too... they pulled out of the desktop market after getting their asses kicked in that arena, although it wasn't due to inferior hardware, and now they're kicking ass in the laptop market... not to mention they're still holding their own in the HD format war, and they could very well emerge victorious... so if anyone could become a new console contender, my money is on them...

[RetroYoungen]

I read through all three pages, and have YET to see a reference to it, so I guess I'll make it...

This PS3 is startin' to look like a Nuon to me.

I just wanted to make sure a few points were pressed: first that the library is seriously lacking. Maybe I'm just picky or something, but I've yet to see ANYthing that makes me think this is a $560 console ($500 for the hardware and the game that gets me excited), and with that in mind (not the insufficient funds, mind you) I can't justify the purchase, and neither can a lot of customers that come my way. Sure, it's pretty powerful and slick as hardware goes... but if it has nothing really worth doing with it, why bother?

Second, the backware compatibility. Not a HUGE deal by me, but made bigger - as Garry brought up - by the fact that it was originally offered, and is now being pulled back by this latest, more affordable incarnation. I own a PS1, I own a PS2; if I want to play games on either, I have a PS2. I don't need a $400 OR $500 machine to do that for me. Though it would be nice to not have to have both a PS2 and PS3 plugged in at the same time, it's just... meh. Who will really put up a huge stink about this as for a few (literally, just a few) more bucks you can buy a perfectly-shrink-wrapped PS2?

When they start putting out software that I really feel like I can't pass up the chance to plug in, I'll start thinking about it. But as I've yet to hear about the big, big guns coming out in the near future, I'll keep playing what I've got and not worry about Sony's machine. I'll keep my PSP charged instead.

[SkiDragon]

Th PS3 is a pretty impressive piece of hardware. It's a cheap Blu-Ray player, and I've heard talk of how powerful the Cell processor is, and how people are thinking of using it in place of FPGA's in many applications. But it does not good when there is no good, exclusive software for the system. Lacking backwards compatibility just makes that worse.

I have no hatred for Sony, but I honestly hope for the demise of their console. I only have so much money, and I can't afford to invest in three consoles. If their console fails I could hope that some previous PS3-only games (the few) would make their way onto 360. Competition between games is good, but between consoles? Not so much.

[Sothy]

You may have noticed I dislike the ps3.

But honestly who cares about that shit. Its about the price of the system and what games it has.

"WTF THEY TOOK THE PCI SLOT OUT AND I CANT USE BLAH BLAH WHATEVER!"

I dont see what that has to do with anything. And backwards compatibility is good but.. cmon you can buy a ps3 but you dont have a ps2..really?

[Leo_A]

I'd like BC since its not worthwhile hooking my PS2 up to a HDTV. Too many games aren't 480p and look better on a SDTV, unlike with the GC and Xbox where 95% of my collection is 480p.

I'd like the PS3 to be able to play PS2 titles so I could possibly play some on a HDTV when I purchase a PS3 since I feel like it wouldn't be worthwhile to negatively hurt a large amount of my PS2 collection by hooking up my PS2 to a HDTV.

Plus, with the upscaling, maybe 480i games would look nice to me on a hdtv.

That's my rationale for being concerned that this feature will be gone when I purchase a PS3 in the future when the price is more reasonable and has some games I'd like to play that I can't on my 360.

[Wolfrider31]

I don't get it. The 360 is currently $399 as well. Are you planning to buy the first Xbox?

Perhaps "too expensive" was an incorrect way to phrase it. I should have said 399 is too much considering what the PS3 currently has to offer, but with trade ins I would have been able to knock it down to something more reasonable. The 360 on the other hand has a larger library, better online content (and BC) for the same price.

[SkiDragon]

The Xbox 360 is now $350 for what I consider to be the "standard" model.

[Wolfrider31]

In the US yes, unfortunately dispite parity with the US dollar, Canadians are still being charged another 50 bucks more. &^%$

[sabre2922]

The decision that Sony has made on the whole BC thing is I think a desperate move to try to shill more PS3s before they get sooo far behind the Wii and even the Xbox360 they might have to throw in the towel on this generation.

I know that sounds extreme but damn I STILL see so many PS3s collecting dust on the store shelves its really a pitiful sight.

The PS3 will have to wait a couple years IF EVER.

[jajaja]

I know that sounds extreme but damn I STILL see so many PS3s collecting dust on the store shelves its really a pitiful sight.

This could be a indicator of slow sales, but even if you see consoles in the stores it doesnt mean they dont sell. It can be new consoles, not the same ones you saw 3 weeks ago for example. When i've been to the stores the last couple of weeks i've seen many Wii and 360 consoles, but it doesnt mean they're not selling :)

[Garry Silljo]

This could be a indicator of slow sales, but even if you see consoles in the stores it doesnt mean they dont sell. It can be new consoles, not the same ones you saw 3 weeks ago for example. When i've been to the stores the last couple of weeks i've seen many Wii and 360 consoles, but it doesnt mean they're not selling :)

Yes, but he said they were "collecting dust." If they were new then an employee would have to aplly dust to them for them to look right, and that's not a great sales strategy for a store to have.

[jajaja]

Yes, but he said they were "collecting dust." If they were new then an employee would have to aplly dust to them for them to look right, and that's not a great sales strategy for a store to have.

The phrase "collecting dust" is often used to things that arent used and that arent moving. It doesnt mean that their litterary covered with dust :P Same with like "360/PS3/Wii is an expencive paper weight". I dont think anyone litterary uses it as a paper weight when they say this. But if he litterary ment that they are covered in dust, then it would be a indicator that they arent selling well yes.