PS3 To Be Backward compatible

[IntvGene]

http://www.gamesarefun.com/cgi-bin/n...2601007,61861,

Well, news item of the day:

It seems that the head of Sony, Ken Kutaragi,officially confirmed that the successor to the PlayStation 2 would be backward compatible with not only PlayStation 2 games, but also original PlayStation games.

"PS one runs on PlayStation 2 through emulation rather than actual hardware. PlayStation 3 will offer the same compatibility for PS2 software and the format will continue forever."

[Oobgarm]

Posted here, too.

http://ps2.ign.com/articles/436/436300p1.html

That will make a lots of folks happy that their investment in software won't be a waste.

[GrandAmChandler]

good. every video game system manufacturer should follow Sony's lead...

[cessnaace]

That makes total sense, although that didn't helpy the 7800 (being able to play 2600 carts). I know - different situation altogether! I hope Microsoft and Nintendo do likewise.

[DEBRO]

I wonder how the developers will feel about this.

I remember they didn't take it well when the news came out that the PS2 was going to be backwards compatible.

[bargora]

Why did the PS2's backward-compatibility upset the developers?

[chadtower]

Why were the developers (and who exactly are you referring to with the word 'developers') upset?

[Oobgarm]

What upset the "developers" regarding the PS2's backwards-compatitibity? :P

[Pantechnicon]

Props for Sony. I was just chewing on this last night, and grumbling about the fact that I'd have to keep two Sony systems around at any given time in order to have unmitigated access three generations worth of console games. Of course, being primarily a hardware collector, I'd keep them anyway, but it's the principle of the thing you see

This lack of backward compatibility with the 2600 was one of Atari's major failures with the 5200. Nintendo never seemed to learned the lesson. Sega showed a little more respect for the idea as there was some compatibility in middle-era systems (Genesis and SMS) but only with awkward hardware add-ons.

Honestly, as long as Sony game media remains issued on a standard 5.25" diameter compact disc (regardless of storage capacity) I can see no reason why there shouldn't be back-compatibility between the three systems.

[Reverend JagDiesel]

I believe Microsoft has planned the NextBox (whatever it'll be called) to be backwards compatible. It only makes sense, if for no other reason, so that the stores can mark down and sell the older system's games once the newer system is out. Hell, think of how many PS1 games have come out since the PS2 released.

[DEBRO]

Why were the developers (and who exactly are you referring to with the word 'developers') upset?

When it was announced that the PS2 was going to be backwards compatible, I remember reading that some development houses were not happy with the decision. I can't remember where I read this, sorry

They claimed it wouldn't help new companies. Their argument was why would another company come in and try to compete with, for example, the RR or GT series? They claimed if the machine wasn't backwards compatible then they had a chance to compete because they didn't have to "compete" with the older PS1 titles.

I don't see how though. With better hardware the consumer would only expect a game to be better than it's predecessor.

[Captain Wrong]

I strongly doubt Nintendo will ever make a home console backwards compatable. In fact, I'm 100% suprized the GBA was.

The only bad thing I can see about backwards compatability is if the technology has to be crippled a little to make the compatability. Example: the 7800 had terrible sound which had something to do with the backwards compatability with the 2600. There was a workaround (putting the 5200's Pokey chip in the carts) but how many used that?

[petewhitley]

The only bad thing I can see about backwards compatability is if the technology has to be crippled a little to make the compatability. Example: the 7800 had terrible sound which had something to do with the backwards compatability with the 2600. There was a workaround (putting the 5200's Pokey chip in the carts) but how many used that?

Hopefully this won't be a problem anymore, as the trend is to emulate the orginal hardware (ala PS2) rather than through built-in hardware.

[cessnaace]

Small developers can't invest the 20-30 million dollars top games cost to produce. Therefore, they could resonably be expected to make games for a previous platform, knowing there would still be a huge install base. Take the PS1, for example. I am still coming across new games for it, even though the PS2 is already established. And, I still see people going thru the PS1 games at EB. After all, if people weren't still buying them, EB wouldn't be taking up premium floor space for PS1 stock, when they have to also stock games for the PS2, Xbox, GameCube and Game Boy Advance. Not to mention Dreamcast, which they still stock (although used only). Then there's all those PC games they carry.

Since my PS1 recently died, I'm looking at a PS2 (still haven't taken the plunge - I do have 13 systems, not counting duplicates; Dreamcast is the only 128 Bit system that I have) to replace by dead PS1.

PS3 will be a no-brainer if it will also play PS1 and PS2 games. My switcher only has so many inputs! x_x

[Anonymous]

I wonder if Sony's plan is to extend the shelf life of video game systems. It makes sense, since the company typically loses money on it's consoles for the first couple of years, and it costs money for developers to have to relearn a system. I also think it would be good for the industry because stability would bring in more customers and lower the cost of systems on an overall level, as well as increase the willingness of companies like Sony to lose money by selling a better product that (hopefully) will last longer because it will prolong the life of the system.

Unfortunately, I don't think that Nintendo will stand by this philosophy. It could be that Nintendo's own desperate bid to reclaim the throne by releasing a new system every 4 or 5 years could actually be damaging to the industry as a whole, and to the consumer that is satisfied with his PS2. This might hurt Sony financially, but they will still remain on top.

Backwards compatibility helps alleviate this problem, as evidenced by the Die Hard PS1. Hopefully all video game companies will adopt this mentality.

[bargora]

This backward compatibility is cool, but I doubt that it will be 100%. In particular, I'll bet there will be neither a Playstation link cable port nor an iLink port on the PS3.

[ubersaurus]

I strongly doubt Nintendo will ever make a home console backwards compatable. In fact, I'm 100% suprized the GBA was.

The only bad thing I can see about backwards compatability is if the technology has to be crippled a little to make the compatability. Example: the 7800 had terrible sound which had something to do with the backwards compatability with the 2600. There was a workaround (putting the 5200's Pokey chip in the carts) but how many used that?

Actually the reason the POKEY wasn't in the 7800 itself was because they were too cheap to redesign the casing they had the mold for. Pretty lame reason, but there it is.

[kainemaxwell]

Anyone got any ideas on the backwards upgrades then for PS and PS2 games, besides maybe smoother graphics?

[bargora]

Anyone got any ideas on the backwards upgrades then for PS and PS2 games, besides maybe smoother graphics?

Upon inserting any PS or PS2 game, the player will be presented with the option to play either the inserted game, or Radiant Silvergun.

[ManekiNeko]

Anyone got any ideas on the backwards upgrades then for PS and PS2 games, besides maybe smoother graphics?

I've got an idea for the PS3. When you turn it on, it should say "This unit will self destruct in..." and give the exact time when it will inevitably malfunction. That way, you'll know just when you need to shell out big bucks to replace it!
(What, me cynical?)

JR