User login
Site Search
Online users
- Matt Barton
- Mark Vergeer
European cheaper 40Gb PS3 model lacks PS2 backwards compatibility?What the heck?And why is PS1 backwards compatibility retained?
Sony has decided that the European cheaper version of the PS3 will not feature backwards compatibility with ps2 games. I just don't get that. It's a software solution built into the other machines so what prevents Sony from putting that option in the firmware of the new Playstation 3's? The statement about latest purchasers of the ps3 not caring as much for ps2 compatibility of course can be viewed as Sony adapting wonderfully to the wishes of the consumers but it contradicts what Sony stated only a mere couple of months ago - about being able to provide a true gaming-platform stretching back from the ps1 era, about supporting customers who built up a nice library of games that they will be able to keep enjoying on the new machine. This all happened in 2006, when Sony's Phil Harrison stated that backwards-compatibility was a key-feature that the company should offer. Being able to play older games is vital to create a 'format'. Ah well a couple of more unsold ps3 units and a lack of games sure can change their perspective on things.....
Sony Toaster
So Sony wants us to believe that all ps2 owners have already made the move to ps3 and that the new breed of ps3 owners that will buy the cheaper machine has no need for ps2 backwards compatibility. But could it be that due to the lack of good games on the ps3, a lot of the ps2 owners held onto their consoles - enjoying that huge catalog of games that is out there for it - and just waited for the ps3 to drop to a reasonable price, especially since they already spent so much cash on their ps2 libraries? What does strike me as totally not logical to this whole non-ps2-backwards compatibility is the fact that the cheapo machine will be able to play ps1 disks! What the heck? Now of course their market analysis may have shown that all those new to be ps3 owners going for the 40Gb device do seem to have a significantly larger amount of ps1 games laying around then the early adopters or the customers that are willing to fork out way more for a card-reader, two more usb ports, a bigger drive and ps2 playback. Loss of ps2 compatibility is a loss for the customer any way you put it. Claiming that backward compatibility - that has already been developed - is not necessary because of all those millions of ps2 units still out there could prove a good point for Sony's claims but as the ps2 consoles optical drives weren't renowned for their longevity, quite a lot of them suffer read-errors making them useless.
I wonder if it will be clearly printed on the box. If it is not it can be pretty misleading to customers as the new Sony consoles always have been backwards compatible with their earlier consoles. Perhaps it is another case of a console makers arrogance trying to ship inferior products to the European territories. Their logic in dropping ps2 support on the cheaper drive is just plain weird in my opinion, especially whilst at the same time retaining ps1 support. Or perhaps Sony is just mad at some game company claiming to support the ps2 for a long time to come and Sony being afraid it will make the ps3 struggle just a little more. Ah well, will not be buying a ps3 anytime soon.....this way..... I bet that if the ps2 compatibility was featured on the 40Gb devices I would actually consider getting one, and perhaps other European customers would too.....
Head shoulders knees and toes, knees and toes.
Head shoulders knees and toes, knees and toes..........
Comments
Wow, Mark. Seems like you're pretty fired up about this!
While I'm no fan of console gaming in general (though the distinction seems to be getting thinner everyday), I am also a (rash, perhaps) defender of a new platform being NON-backwards compatible. At the very least, backwards compatibility ought to require some type of add-on or dongle rather than come pre-installed and ready. However, I think it's often better just to burn one's bridges. People that really want to play PS2 or PS1 games will own those consoles.
I think that worrying too much about BC has negative consequences. For one thing, if the new platform is similar enough to the old to make it easy, I'm wondering--why bother with the new platform? Isn't it just the old one with a few more bells and whistles? I have much more respect for something like the Wii or the DS, which really does seem like an attempt to break away from the old model. There's a big difference between the DS and the GBA, for instance. The PS3 just seems like an updated PS2. They might as well have called it the PS2.1. ;-)
I know a lot of Amiga owners were devastated at first that they were leaving their C-64s behind (BC was possible but took some effort). Later on, though, we had plenty enough of our own games. Most of the best C64 games got remade or cloned eventually, and they were quite often the better for it.
Besides, I now would never sell one platform to buy another. You're much better off keeping the old one and just waiting until you can afford the new one. I always regretted getting rid of "old systems" and wish I hadn't.
Well, the Wii and DS ARE good examples of breaking away from the old model, but they're bad examples in a discussion of backwards compatibility, as they both run their prior system's games to near perfection. The Wii even has Gamecube controller ports built in.
The reason why it's an issue with the PS3 is that Sony has been all over the map with the backwards compatibility thing. While it may not be a big deal ultimately - and I agree that it isn't when it comes right down to it - Sony themselves made the first revision systems backwards compatible through hardware, creating near perfect compatibility with the PS2 and PS1. Then, Sony decided to save costs and offer a software emulation solution a la Microsoft and their 360 (which Sony of course used to criticize). Now, in a move I don't quite understand, Sony has decided to remove the ability to be backwards compatible even through software with the PS2 on this new "budget" model, yet you can still play PS1 games. So in this case, it's hard NOT to see Mark's point. Sony should have one plan in this case and stick to it. It's like Sony is doing everything possible this generation to mess up and make people not want their system, with lack of software and underwhelming previously hyped releases (Warhawk being multiplayer only, Lair having poor control, etc.).
Ironically, as the PS3 continues to have growing pains, the PSP has sprung to life again, with the newly styled slim model selling like half price squid balls in Japan (and yes, that's a good thing).
======================================
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
======================================
Well, the Wii and DS ARE good examples of breaking away from the old model, but they're bad examples in a discussion of backwards compatibility, as they both run their prior system's games to near perfection. The Wii even has Gamecube controller ports built in.
That's a good point. I guess a more fitting example would be the NES and the SNES. Can you play GameCube games on the Wii with the Wii's standard hardware?
Sony should have one plan in this case and stick to it. It's like Sony is doing everything possible this generation to mess up and make people not want their system, with lack of software and underwhelming previously hyped releases
It is a bad situation, because it looks as though (and I guess it's true) that Sony is purposefully withholding this ability, even though it wouldn't cost them anything. It looks as though they're holding out to force people to buy the PS3 software, and the buyer surely can't see any ADVANTAGE to not having the option.
What Sony should've done is not offer the compatibility at all. Sure, it'd make for a rough launch, but I don't see how it could've been any rougher than it was anyway. Eventually all that matters is the quality of the lineup, either in terms of raw quantity or a few "killer app" type exclusives.
I again point at the SNES. Would anybody have bought that system if it weren't for awesome games like Super Mario World, Super Metroid, and so on? Did anybody care that they couldn't play the NES Metroid or Super Mario on their SNES? Heck no, because the "super" versions kicked their butt. Nintendo has always been very smart about offering "killer" games right away. At the very least, you know you'll have 3-5 gams for their systems that are extremely playable and highly polished. It took them long enough to get it, but the 360 finally does have its Halo 3. What does Sony have?
What seems to have sold the PS2 is the raw number of titles. You got a powerful machine and a huge library for a decent price. People upgraded from the PS1 to the PS2 for the graphics. I don't see anything for the PS3 that'd make me want to rush out and buy one. I'm still not overly impressed with "next gen" graphics--they're nowhere NEARLY as impressive as moving from NES to SNES was, or from the C-64 to the Amiga.
That's a good point. I guess a more fitting example would be the NES and the SNES. Can you play GameCube games on the Wii with the Wii's standard hardware?
Yes, the Gamecube discs slide right in the slot and automatically play as if on the stock system and the Wii's memory management includes Gamecube memory cards. You do need a Gamecube controller though if I recall correctly, which is not a big deal.
I again point at the SNES. Would anybody have bought that system if it weren't for awesome games like Super Mario World, Super Metroid, and so on? Did anybody care that they couldn't play the NES Metroid or Super Mario on their SNES? Heck no, because the "super" versions kicked their butt. Nintendo has always been very smart about offering "killer" games right away. At the very least, you know you'll have 3-5 gams for their systems that are extremely playable and highly polished. It took them long enough to get it, but the 360 finally does have its Halo 3. What does Sony have?
To be fair, while Halo 3 is the killer app to end all killer apps as those things go, the 360 library already had in place Xbox Live Arcade, Bioshock, Gears of War, etc., etc. It did not lack for games prior to Halo 3, Halo 3 just sort of sealed the deal as it were. And no, at this time, the PS3's library (and even Xbox Live-like gaming) is lukewarm at best, with the occasional game like Motorstorm to race an eyebrow.
What seems to have sold the PS2 is the raw number of titles. You got a powerful machine and a huge library for a decent price. People upgraded from the PS1 to the PS2 for the graphics. I don't see anything for the PS3 that'd make me want to rush out and buy one. I'm still not overly impressed with "next gen" graphics--they're nowhere NEARLY as impressive as moving from NES to SNES was, or from the C-64 to the Amiga.
Again, that's debatable. The move from 8- to 16-bits was huge, as was the transition from pixels to polygons, but otherwise when was there that big of a shift in visuals for you to really notice on a casual basis? Even the shift from cartridges/disks to optical media didn't make that much of a difference. The big shift with this generation really has been to "permanent" hi-def and widescreen and surround sound, which does - when taken together - make a huge difference. The only one not on board with all that is the Wii, and it does suffer just a bit for it (I don't like having to manually switch aspect ratios from 16:9 to 4:3, for instance, to play old NES games on the Wii or cater to non-widescreen software).
By the way, I DO wish you'd make the jump to something like the 360, as it would be damn cool to play the Halo 3 campaign cooperatively with you and two other people, not to mention all the other online cooperative and competitive games... It takes a lot of the hassle from the PC away.
======================================
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
======================================
By the way, I DO wish you'd make the jump to something like the 360, as it would be damn cool to play the Halo 3 campaign cooperatively with you and two other people, not to mention all the other online cooperative and competitive games... It takes a lot of the hassle from the PC away.
At one point I thought those of us that had the same consoles were going to do something cooperatively or straight multiplayer...I'd be fun to get 4-6 of us to square off with Gears of War, Halo 3, etc...
Ironically, as the PS3 continues to have growing pains, the PSP has sprung to life again, with the newly styled slim model selling like half price squid balls in Japan (and yes, that's a good thing).
Now, I have to know, what in the world are "half price squid balls"? Are you referring to a squid's anatomical body part? I assume so, since it is in the plural. Although who's to know if a squid even has balls, let alone 2 or more of them.
My take on this is that if Sony said originally that the PS3 would have backward compatibility, then they should follow through and provide it. If they don't, then they better make an announcement as far as "why" they aren't. Alot of people have had experience with how MS handled it with respect to the 360, and I believe it's been a huge success. People are looking for the same with the PS3. I'm one of those that keep all the "old" consoles and games and actually play them during times when the new console is in repair (I played COD2 on the old Xbox a couple months ago - interesting experience). This just goes to show that they all have issues and they're not all relegated to MS.
Cheers
I have to say that I would not have gotten my 60Gb PS3 if it had not included PS2 backwards compatibility. As we all know there really is no great PS3 exclusive that thrills gamers souls at the moment (Ratchet and Clank does look awesome though). I have a small stack of PS2 games that I still want to play through. God of War II, Okami, and Shadow of the Colossus are all still on my shelf to play as part of the final farewell to the PS2.
While I could TRY to leave my PS2, Gamecube, Wii, and PS3 all sitting around the living room, I know that my girlfriend would be in less than a delighted mood about all that 'junk' cluttering up the area where she also likes to relax and have friends visit and chat. To that end the small size of the Wii, and the slick black (sexy status symbol - ha-ha) of the PS3 help smooth the waters. I love having all my controllers wireless and rechargeable, I have had Wavebird and Logitech wireless dual shock controls but it is more than time that wireless controllers became stock, getting rid of that cord clutter is good by me.
But as much as the stress and mess reducing factors matter to me, I have to say the way the PS3 plays nicely with my 1080p display and HDMI connections from the console, the HD TiVO, and the THX Surround sound pre-amp/video switch. This is the most painless, least cluttered, cleanest cabled video set up I have ever had, oh and did I mention the AWSOME quality? Nice side effect to say the least. As the final bonus for all the early adoption is that the PS3 up scales the PS2 games so they look even better on the new system.
I value backwards compatibility, and I want it in hardware if at all possible. Having the PSP also meant that I wanted the WiFi and memory card readers. The only way to get what I wanted was to spend the money on the 60gb PS3. Every other model Sony has offered up either here stateside, or on the other side of the pond is purposefully screwed up. This fiasco along with Sony’s bold faced lies about rumble and the Six-Axes controller all add up to the point where a consumer must beware of Sony.
And is that not just the perfect wrap up quote for all of the 'next generation' hype?
-Cecil
One other thing I forgot to mention. I love the version of Yellow Dog Linux that runs on the PS3. Simple to get running, comes with a full application and tool set, and easily compiles just about any linux sources you want to toss at it.
-Cecil
would like to meet up and play one live together too.
Editor / Pixelator - Armchair Arcade, Inc.