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.
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.Originally Posted by Garry Silljo
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
Last edited by jajaja; 10-07-2007 at 01:20 PM.
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
"...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."
-__-
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.
Bacon, Bacon, Bacon, IT'S BACON!!!!
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.
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.
Ok, i knew it was something with the old Atari consoles atleast, but wasnt sure which one it was
Last edited by jajaja; 10-07-2007 at 02:39 PM.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Dangerboy; 10-07-2007 at 03:08 PM.
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.
Last edited by jajaja; 10-07-2007 at 05:12 PM.
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......................
My DP Refs MaximumRD Classic Gaming and Computing Me in a Nutshell (NOT LITERALLY!) http://about.me/maximumrd
WHERE DID THEIR HAIR GO?
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.
Last edited by playgeneration; 10-08-2007 at 04:31 AM.
Very funny. What if you canīt afford it right now but want to buy a PS3 in a year? Thatīs 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.
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?
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.
Last edited by jajaja; 10-08-2007 at 06:26 PM.
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.
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.
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).
"And the book says: 'We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us.'"
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.
If I failed to leave feedback for you on a deal, please contact me.
My Digital Press Feedback
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
