http://www.playfuls.com/news_06339_How_Sony_Killed_the_PlayStation3_and_NOT_Just_in_ Europe.html

Excerpt:
"And now, the bomb: it seems that Sony’s move in Europe and other PAL areas like Australia, New Zealand or Asia will soon be followed by similar moves in NTSC areas like the US or Japan, following the same cost-saving policy. So bye-bye real backwards compatibility. Everywhere."

Though only a possibility - this would be devastating... I was holding off on buying a PS3 to wait for a price drop, but now I don't know... It only saves Sony $27/console!!! Hopefully won't happen.

Nice to fair and balanced reporting.

These PS3s will still have the Graphics Synthesizer chip onboard, and compatibility could still very well be in the 90th-percentile or higher.

Sony stated long ago that they had every intention of removing the EE/GS chip and switch to software emulation. This is not news. The only thing that really is surprising is that they removed it this early and the emulation isn't as good as we were hoping as far as compatibility rate goes. Is it even clear what issues there are with compatibility at this point? We know it's now about 90% or something like that instead of the 99.9%. I'm just curious what is lost at this point.

For those of you keeping track...

If the PS3 is like the XBOX360 it sucks, and if the PS3 is different than the XBOX360 it sucks.

continue

For those of you keeping track...

If the PS3 is like the XBOX360 it sucks, and if the PS3 is different than the XBOX360 it sucks.

continue

Huh?

I think the big question now is if there will be an update that switches everyone to software emulation and PS3s that do have the EE/GS hardware will get it disabled. Seems like they'd have to, especially if these PS2 upscaling rumors are true.

^^ Not sure why they would if it would limit certain PS2 games from being played, though that does present a problem for the upscaling rumors. Sounds messy - I just want to know what games will be incompatible. *Prays FF games will work*

Yeah, me too. They aren't going to announce the incompatibility list until the day it launches in Europe, March 23rd. Kind of sneaky but I imagine they're scrambling to fix as many as possible before the launch.

Right, the reason the list is not going to be released until the Euro launch date is to add as many titles as possible until that deadline.

Huh?

the 360 could only play a certain list of games for the 360
i think Penny arcade had a funny comic about it, how you could play my little pony but not ninja gaiden or something.

Though only a possibility - this would be devastating... I disagree. The BC is nice for some, and has been a minor bullet point, but this would be the smartest thing Sony could ditch to cut per-unit costs. I suspect many AVSers would gladly give up BC before they gave up other features (such as HDMI or Bluetooth). If people really want to play PS2 games (and especially if they want to play Guitar Hero), then they can pick up a PS2 for dirt cheap.

It only saves Sony $27/console!!!$27 per console times one million consoles... not exactly chump change.

Of course, before we jump over Sony our their business decisions, keep in mind that what we're responding to is a rumor of dubious substance.

For those of you keeping track...

If the PS3 is like the XBOX360 it sucks, and if the PS3 is different than the XBOX360 it sucks.

continue

But it sucks differently for different people. ;-)

I disagree. The BC is nice for some, and has been a minor bullet point, but this would be the smartest thing Sony could ditch to cut per-unit costs. I suspect many AVSers would gladly give up BC before they gave up other features (such as HDMI or Bluetooth). If people really want to play PS2 games (and especially if they want to play Guitar Hero), then they can pick up a PS2 for dirt cheap.

$27 per console times one million consoles... not exactly chump change.

Of course, before we jump over Sony our their business decisions, keep in mind that what we're responding to is a rumor of dubious substance.

I doubt your assumption many AVSers would give up BC easily, though your argument of losing PS3 features for BC doesn't make much sense... a next gen console SHOULD have those next gen features (BT, HDMI) but shouldn't lose functionality of its predecessor! You are definitely in the minority. Hundreds of PS2 games exist and has made the Sony gaming name something amazing - and LOTS of us treasure our PS2 games. There are no great games out for PS3 now, and though there will be later, the day I give up FF7-12, KH1/2, DDR games, GH, I could go on... will be the day hell freezes over. And I am NOT in the minority - many many people treasure their PS2 games. The BC of the PS3 was a HUGE selling point of the PS3. Didn't you notice how upset many Xbox owners were that their original games wouldn't play on the 360? Now multiply that by at least 10, as there are many more (and better) games for the PS2 that exist. The PS2 sold more units than both the Xbox 360 AND the PS3 over the holiday. Shows people still want to play all of the great games that exist for the PS2.

In terms of the $27/console, yes that is a lot of money once you add up all the console's they will be selling. Compared to the approx. $300 loss they are taking on each unit sold however, $27 starts to look fairly measly. Yes it is still a lot of money, but in my eyes (and many other people's eyes) it is not worth losing compatibility with certain PS2 games.

Sony stated long ago that they had every intention of removing the EE/GS chip and switch to software emulation. This is not news. The only thing that really is surprising is that they removed it this early and the emulation isn't as good as we were hoping as far as compatibility rate goes. Is it even clear what issues there are with compatibility at this point? We know it's now about 90% or something like that instead of the 99.9%. I'm just curious what is lost at this point.

All games I tried so far are BC.
I thought there were 100 or so which had problems, out of 13,000+.

I doubt your assumption many AVSers would give up BC easily, I suppose you could conduct a poll and prove me wrong.

though your argument of losing PS3 features for BC doesn't make much sense...Sure it does. Costs have to be cut. This early in the manufacturing cycle, barring a price raise, the only real way that happens is scaling back on components or materials. In other words, some aspect of the design would need to be scaled back. Hardware emulation is the ideal candidate for elimination.

a next gen console SHOULD have those next gen features (BT, HDMI) but shouldn't lose functionality of its predecessor!You mean like rumble? Most PS3 owners don't seem to miss it.

You are definitely in the minority.When you use words like "definitely" you should back up what you're saying.

Didn't you notice how upset many Xbox owners were that their original games wouldn't play on the 360?Yes, I did notice. The correct answer would be "not very". Certain high-profile games remain absent from the BC list (like NFL 2K5), but this has ceased to be a real issue for some time now. Xbox owners have pretty much accepted it and moved on, while keeping the old hardware around when they want a trip down Nostalgia Lane.

Yes it is still a lot of money, but in my eyes (and many other people's eyes) it is not worth losing compatibility with certain PS2 games.Well, you and "many other people" aren't poring over Sony's financial statements. The people looking at the bottom line probably have good reason to believe that $27 million per 1 million units sold is more than worth losing the BC, especially in light of a pending solution via software emulation.

^^ Not sure why they would if it would limit certain PS2 games from being played, though that does present a problem for the upscaling rumors. Sounds messy - I just want to know what games will be incompatible. *Prays FF games will work*
well, there are those rumors that all ps2 games will be upscaled to HD resolutions through software emulation, so they should look a little better. if the compatibility % is still high and ps2 games do look better, don't be surprised if they do disable the EE chip in a firmware update.

Personally I have no problem using my PS2 for non-compatibable games. Currently the only disadvantage to that is that my PS2 is louder than my PS3, but normally not annoying. If the rumor is true about FF12 looking better through the european PS3, I would prefer that over 99% BC.

I suppose you could conduct a poll and prove me wrong.

Sure it does. Costs have to be cut. This early in the manufacturing cycle, barring a price raise, the only real way that happens is scaling back on components or materials. In other words, some aspect of the design would need to be scaled back. Hardware emulation is the ideal candidate for elimination.

You mean like rumble? Most PS3 owners don't seem to miss it.

When you use words like "definitely" you should back up what you're saying.

Yes, I did notice. The correct answer would be "not very". Certain high-profile games remain absent from the BC list (like NFL 2K5), but this has ceased to be a real issue for some time now. Xbox owners have pretty much accepted it and moved on, while keeping the old hardware around when they want a trip down Nostalgia Lane.

Well, you and "many other people" aren't poring over Sony's financial statements. The people looking at the bottom line probably have good reason to believe that $27 million per 1 million units sold is more than worth losing the BC, especially in light of a pending solution via software emulation.

*Sigh* another overzealous member ready to jump to guns to disprove every sentence in my post :rolleyes: - You say hardware emulation is ideal to remove for fiscal savings, correct, but not at the price of losing game compatability. I don't have to conduct a poll - simply read many of the threads on AVS. Members WANT WANT WANT backward compatibility with their beloved PS2 games! You say people don't - your claims are no more "backed up" than mine. People aren't content playing RFOM day in and day out. This is why the PS2 game card-PS3 adapter came out. Rumble? No, I'm not speaking of rumble, I was speaking of PS3 features being cut for PS2 game compatibility (though once again, you are jumping to an incorrect conclusion that most members don't seem to miss rumble feedback - there was an OUTROAR from the FPS crowd that they were essentially losing one of their five senses in action games, not being able to tell when they were sniped/hit/etc...). Once again, conduct a poll if you're sure "most members don't seem to miss the rumble." Software isn't a "pending solution" if a significant amount of games are still incompatible with the PS3! Seems like you, an isolated individual, don't care about PS2 games or PS2 BC. Your original post claiming BC was a minor bullet point couldn't be more wrong. Read from several threads concerning BC in these forums. If this weren't a huge issue, it wouldn't have been covered so tediously in nearly every gaming/tech journal before the PS3 was released (I'm talking about CNET, IGN, GameSpot and others). Posts of how people are going to have to keep their PS2 around due to lack of compatibility, and in my eyes this is unacceptable. People don't want to have to keep their old PS2s lying in their component rack to play games the from the massive PS1/2 library.

I could care less for backwards compatibility. I bought the PS3 to play next gen games on it and watch Blu Ray movies.
If i wanted to play PS2 games i'd hook up my old PS2 to the tv.

Yes it is nice to just hook up the ps3 to the tv and play the old games, but it is not the end of the world if the backwards compatibility is gone.

i find it funny that sony charges you $20 just to backup your ps2 cards to the ps3 harddrive. once that's done, that $20 piece of hardware is worthless because you can't copy from the ps3 harddrive back to the ps2 card...

When sony allows me to copy copy-protected save files (Timesplitters, etc...) to the PS3, and gets rid of the display problems with PS1 and 2 games (black bar of nothing on bottom of screen, image too high and unable to adjust) I could care less about PS2 games on the PS3. They look awful, half of them don't load their save files.... Bah. I still use my PS2, and it's not a problem. Half of the people think "Omigod, I can't believe I have to use my PS2...it's such a bother.." Bah. I appreciate Sony's half-assed attempt at BC>

*Sigh* another overzealous member ready to jump to guns to disprove every sentence in my post :rolleyes: So.... if I think you're off-base and maybe overreacting a bit, what exactly are my options? Just so I don't step on your toes next time, of course.

- You say hardware emulation is ideal to remove for fiscal savings, correct, but not at the price of losing game compatability.You said that before. Now say why you think so.

I don't have to conduct a poll - simply read many of the threads on AVS.I don't have to go beyond THIS thread, where it seems that existing PS3 users (with the exception of you) don't see it as a big deal. In the case of right here, right now, you are actually in the minority.

Members WANT WANT WANT backward compatibility with their beloved PS2 games! You say people don't - why don't you start a poll?People WANT WANT WANT their consoles to push 1.3 zillion polygons per second, play 2 high-def movies at the same time, butter their bread, vacuum their floors, and solve SETI@Home while running quietly in a small container the size of a box of crackers. If you tried to build a console out of what every user WANT WANT WANTs, you end up with the Homer Dream Car (http://www.synergizedsolutions.com/simpsons/pictures/homer/homer_dreamcar.gif). And we all know how well that went over.

Fact is, console gamers have gotten spoiled by all the bloat that accompanies each new generation, and for whatever reason, feel it's within their right to demand that the manufacturers provide everything for free. As if said manufacturers don't have to worry about profit or the viability of the platform. There's a difference between a loss leader and just plain loss.

(though once again, you are jumping to an incorrect conclusion that most members don't seem to miss rumble feedback - Yes, I'm going to have to take that one back, at least a little. But as with the 360 BC issues, the initial outroar has burbled down to a low groan.

Software isn't a "pending solution" if a significant amount of games are still incompatible with the PS3! Seems like you, an isolated individual, don't care about PS2 games or PS2 BC.Clearly you're not paying attention to the thread if you think I'm an isolated individual. But you're right, I don't care that much about BC. I care about what the PS3 is going to bring to the table down the road. If you want to play PS2 games, then play them on your PS2, fer Pete's sake. Why subject your $500-600 purchase to the additional wear and tear when optical drives are notorious for failing on many consoles past and present?

Your original post claiming BC was a minor bullet point couldn't be more wrong.BC is a stopgap measure to keep early adopters happy while the new console builds its library. After a year, maybe two at the most, BC becomes more or less insignificant. It was true for the 360, it was true for PS1 games on the PS2, and it'll be true for PS2 games played on the PS3.

People don't want to have to keep their old PS2s lying in their component rack to play games the from the massive PS1/2 library.People have extra TVs and space to hook up a PS2, which is what they need for 100% compatibility in the first place.

People want all kinds of crazy features, but BC is not that crazy. It's not asking too much. It's asking for implementation of something that's been implemented for years into an old-tech console! Don't use examples like "People want to push 1.3 zillion polygons per second, play 2 high-def movies at the same time..." - this is a gross exaggeration of features that aren't feasible or desired by the regular gamer. Backwards compatibility is. True, but convenience would dictate full BC on a PS3. It's silly that a new console can't play old games. I can still play DOS games from the early 90s on my PC (and even Mac) on a computer I've bought and built in 2007. Is it so much to ask that current next gen GAME systems be able to play older games from systems previously manufactured by the same company? I think not. I'm not asking for anything that hasn't been done before. I know I am not in the minority in wanting BC due to the mass amount of press on the matter before the PS3 was released (which you conveniently omitted from your previous reply). Your claims of BC becoming less significant based on the fact that there aren't enough next-gen games for the PS3. It's not a lack of next-gen games that make BC so appealing, it's the games that have already been designed for previous consoles that are good games! Simple as that - not filling a void due to a lack of great PS3 games. Perhaps for some this is why BC is important, but for me and other AVSers, BC is important because there are some momentous games for the PS2 that I don't want to EVER stop playing! Titles like FF7, FFX (considered by many the best RPG ever made), GTA, KH, MGS2, etc... You don't value these amazing titles (which continue to make the PS2 the best selling console ever, including the current next-gen consoles) although many, many people do. As I previously said, this topic has warranted lots of attention from various highly-read gamer sources like CNET, IGN, GameSpot etc... These are games which defined an era, I don't think I should have to hang on to my *not-so-old* hardware to be able to continue enjoying them.

People want all kinds of crazy features, but BC is not that crazy. It's not asking too much.It's asking $27 per console times the 10 million consoles that Sony hopes to ship in 2007. That's not much to you? Well, okay then, Mr. Buffett... I guess everything's relative. The point is that Sony is not a charity and they may be making what is a very smart, albeit difficult, business decision. Again, though, since none of this has been confirmed or fully substantiated, the fact that we're discussing it to the degree we are is a bit frightful.

Don't use examples like "People want to push 1.3 zillion polygons per second, play 2 high-def movies at the same time..." - this is a gross exaggeration of features that aren't feasible or desired by the regular gamer.I guess you're not familiar with hyperbole. Shrug.

I can still play DOS games from the early 90s on my PC (and even Mac) on a computer I've bought and built in 2007.And you thought my 1.3 zillion polys per second example was lame? Computers are not consoles.

Is it so much to ask that current next gen GAME systems be able to play older games from systems previously manufactured by the same company? I think not.If it adds to the cost without adding proportionately to the value of the product, then yes, it is so much to ask.

I know I am not in the minority in wanting BC due to the mass amount of press on the matter before the PS3 was released (which you conveniently omitted from your previous reply).You conveniently ignored the end-users here in this thread who are more "ehh" than anything else. The gaming media likes to get whipped up into hysteria over issues (some subtle, some significant) because it draws visitors to their sites. If people are so PO'd, as the media frenzy would seem to indicate, they're sure not expressing it here. Again, recognize that you're in the minority, and whether you like it or not, businesses take calculated risks that might tick off a few people in the short term, but create net gains in the long term. The frenzy will die down, people will come to accept reality and have fun with their PS3s and their PS2s at the same time, and all will be well.

Your claims of BC becoming less significant based on the fact that there aren't enough next-gen games for the PS3. It's not a lack of next-gen games that make BC so appealing, it's the games that have already been designed for previous consoles that are good games!There's some truth in what we both say. It's because the games are good, but BC also gives some additional legs to the new platform. To say that it doesn't is disingenuous.

These are games which defined an era, I don't think I should have to hang on to my *not-so-old* hardware to be able to continue enjoying them.What you think, and what makes good business sense, are not necessarily the same.

Sony announced a long time ago. Sometime last year way before the system launched that they would go to software emulation for BC. This certainly isn't a Bomb, but expected. They also made it clear back then that they'd use software updates (xbox360 has been doing this as well).

Sony has stated several times that the PS3 IS in fact a computer, and more than a gaming console. This is how Sony has been justifying its cost.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,419072,00.html

If adding to the PS3's cost is too much to ask to keep BC, why did they tease us with it to begin with? That is a preposterous claim, that Sony is willing to lose $300/console (subsidizing) due to its BD drive, but a $27/console cost is too costly to keep BC. Completely preposterous. Claiming the media gets whipped-up being unrelated to consumer trend (the trend in this case being a desire of backwards compatibility) is also a bit far fetched.

As you are so convinced AVSers who want BC aren't big in numbers, here are several AVS threads pertaining to the desire and importance members here hold for backwards compatibility for PS2 games on the PS3, and for PS2 games in general. I really didn't want to post these threads, I assumed you could do it yourself, but you insist to claim BC isn't very important among AVS members. Read these threads and the MANY forum members who find backwards compatibility as extremely important.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=751100&highlight=backwards+compatibility
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=797121&highlight=backwards+compatibility
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=742089&highlight=backwards+compatibility
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=775836&highlight=backwards+compatibility
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=764964&highlight=backwards+compatibility

So is it impossible to get close to 100% BC with software emulation?

Sony has stated several times that the PS3 IS in fact a computer, and more than a gaming console. This is how Sony has been justifying its cost.I never said Sony wasn't full of hot air or prone to making outrageous claims. But keep in mind they've also made it clear that they would jettison hardware-based BC at some point. This is area I feel they're actually going about things the right way.

Claiming the media gets whipped-up being unrelated to consumer trend (the trend in this case being a desire of backwards compatibility) is also a bit far fetched.No, not far-fetched. Not even.

As you are so convinced AVSers who want BC aren't big in numbers, here are several AVS threads pertaining to the desire and importance members here hold for backwards compatibility for PS2 games on the PS3,If you'll note my very first reply, I said quite clearly "I suspect (read: had a hunch, was making an informed guess) many AVSers would give up BC before other features. You came back with the strongly-worded retort that I somehow had a firm opinion on this matter (I didn't) was definitely in the minority (turns out, I'm not). I'm willing to have my mind changed for me on the matter; however, it doesn't look like you're the person who will do so.

Read these threads and the MANY forum members who find backwards compatibility as extremely important.All that proves is that a portion of AVS members enjoy and use backward compatibility. (No big shocker.) It doesn't prove, or even suggest, that it's "extremely important" to a majority of PS3 owners. You don't bother to count or qualify the results in any way other than to say "many". Clicking on the first thread, this bit of cherry-picking jumps out at me:

"Who doesn't own a ps2 already and really why pay 500bux to play a ps2 game? I know i've never played a single PS1 game on my ps2."

These types of responses, as well as those in this thread, suggest that the emphasis you place on the importance of BC in the PS3 is far too strong. Gamers may grumble about losing some of that functionality, but then they'll then buy the PS3 on its own merits, and not how well or how poorly it plays games from the previous generation.

BC is basically worthless to me. I bought a PS3 to play PS3 games, not PS2. If I were losing $250-$300 per console sold, I would definitely cut the hardware in favor of the software( even if some titles did not function properly). In a short time the PS3 will have enough good titles out to make everybody who owns one forget about ps2.
I can see how it may frustrate some though.

one problem with that is that Sony is not taking out chip from US PS3's yet... probably not until they perfected the emulation. It is much easier to take away something that you never had, than something you always had.

If adding to the PS3's cost is too much to ask to keep BC, why did they tease us with it to begin with? That is a preposterous claim, that Sony is willing to lose $300/console (subsidizing) due to its BD drive, but a $27/console cost is too costly to keep BC.Just curious but how exactly do you know what Sony is losing on the PS3 or what it costs to keep hardware in the PS3 for backward compatibility? Are you actually taking the cost figures in that article at face value?


one problem with that is that Sony is not taking out chip from US PS3's yet... probably not until they perfected the emulation. It is much easier to take away something that you never had, than something you always had.True, and if it had been possible Sony probably would not have had hardware components in the PS3 at all for backward compatibility. Software emulation will be cheaper and in the long term was always their plan for the PS3. Personally I can see why some Europeans are not exactly happy that they are the first ones to get PS3 consoles with software emulation only but I get the sense that most of the people who are complaining the loudest over this weren't planning to buy the PS3 anyways.

I could care less for backwards compatibility. I bought the PS3 to play next gen games on it and watch Blu Ray movies.
If i wanted to play PS2 games i'd hook up my old PS2 to the tv.

Yes it is nice to just hook up the ps3 to the tv and play the old games, but it is not the end of the world if the backwards compatibility is gone.
do you know how many people sold their ps2's when they bought their ps3's? i don't have the numbers, but you can assume that there are A LOT (myself included).

Personally I can see why some Europeans are not exactly happy that they are the first ones to get PS3 consoles with software emulation only but I get the sense that most of the people who are complaining the loudest over this weren't planning to buy the PS3 anyways.

You got that right, 95% of people complaining about PS3 are owners of another brand waiting to get repaired unit back and hence spending some time in our forums

:eek:

So is it impossible to get close to 100% BC with software emulation?

Technically you could do it if you had the will and huge stacks of cash to burn, but it will require a lot of resources to create the emulation updates to get anywhere close to 75% let alone 100%. There are a lot of PS2 games. My WAG would be their going to be lucky to be anywhere near 25-30% on March 23rd. Sony has pretty much the same issues now that MS had/has with their emulation (radically different graphic and cpu design from last gen) and I'd hazard a guess that many PS2 games will be harder to work with since the PS2 hardware was much more complex to program for. Sony has know they wanted to go in this direction since October though so there is some hope that most big sellers will be on the list come 3/23.

According to Three Speech (http://threespeech.com/blog/?p=293) Sony isn't going to devote many resources to BC, sounds to me like they'll be at this for 3-6 months and then stop offering updates. The language is pretty blunt for a press release. That will be just long enough to get out of the game drought and into next holiday. Remember this is a cost cutting decision and Sony's not going to cut their hardware costs only to turn around and spend lots of money on an emulation team. So if BC is important to you, you might want to take extra good care of that launch revision PS3. Also it sounds like the visual improvements are already in the firmware update they released a month ago. So no new graphics upgrades :(

Also it sounds like the visual improvements are already in the firmware update they released a month ago. So no new graphics upgrades :( He was referring to the 1.5 update that fixed the glitch with some PS2 games not displaying correctly. These rumors of PS2 visual upgrades are something new.

He was referring to the 1.5 update that fixed the glitch with some PS2 games not displaying correctly. These rumors of PS2 visual upgrades are something new.

I interpreted this question to be asking about possible upgrades as including the new rumors.

Will the new updated hardware version improve the quality of the images of PS2 games on the PS3, as the current crop have been highly criticised?

This has already been achieved by a firmware upgrade, which will be incorporated in European launch models

I think I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about this emulation because Sony's not going to reveal the BC list until launch day. I feel like if they had a decent % working (or even most of the big titles) they wouldn't be trying to hide it in the launch day press blitz.

So someone help me understand this, if I go out and buy a PS3 this week it will be BC with around 90-95% of the PS2 games because it uses hardware emulation. But if I wait until this summer to buy and PS3 I'm going to lose this because the new emulation is software base and only 60-75% of the games will work.

So someone help me understand this, if I go out and buy a PS3 this week it will be BC with around 90-95% of the PS2 games because it uses hardware emulation. But if I wait until this summer to buy and PS3 I'm going to lose this because the new emulation is software base and only 60-75% of the games will work.

I'd say 60% would be a very high target, as I said above I think the number revealed on March 23rd will be a whole lot closer to 20% than 50%. There are a lot of PS2 games and developers really pushed the system in a lot of different ways as they learned how to get the most out of it.

If you want above 60% BC, you should buy a PS3 before the new revision comes out. Not sure when that will be here in the US, but I'd guess before the holiday season.

Lets see cut a $27 piece of hardware from one unit and you save $27 dollars, cut it from 10 million units and Sony saves $270 million, and those savings will continue thoughout the life span of the console, and a portion of those savings can/will be credited towards BC emu, and the other portion will be credited to the consumer if at a later date. Now lets have fun with logic. So there are many thousands of PS1 and PS2 games out there, but those games are certainly not owned equally, so by creating a hierarchy of highly owned games, you know GTA's, FF series, MG's, GT's, etc. By this method I think if would be very possible for Sony to make the PS3 compatible with 95% of owned games. Of course this will mean that some loyal players of Festers Quest and Bill Walsh's College Football will be disapointed. I mean so far in the history of console gaming there has been exactly one console that truly had excellent BC and that one was drum roll . . . . . dant duh ta tah THE PS2
and now that the PS3 "may" not reach that compatibility level through software emu, at least for a while, theres gonna be some sort lashing out. If backward compatibility is an issue to the point that you would base a $600+ decision on it you'd be better off keeping your PS2 and buying a 4 backup PS2's and trading in the 1080p big screen for a refurb big 4:3 CRT since HD doesn't do 480i games justice. I think I shall be happy enough playing BR's and PS3 games on my big HD and my PS2 games on an old CRT tv in my rec room, right next to my ATARI, NES, SNES and Genesis.

Like I said before, the PS2 game playing ability of the PS3 is not that great to begin with. I didn't expect it to be. I thought it might be as good as the PS2 played PS1 games, but I was wrong. It was worse. I kept my multiple PS2s for a reason.

I'd say 60% would be a very high target, as I said above I think the number revealed on March 23rd will be a whole lot closer to 20% than 50%. There are a lot of PS2 games and developers really pushed the system in a lot of different ways as they learned how to get the most out of it.

If you want above 60% BC, you should buy a PS3 before the new revision comes out. Not sure when that will be here in the US, but I'd guess before the holiday season.

20%? Amazing how quickly this number drops. Why don't we just make the next leap and say the PS3 will no longer be BC?

I don't know what the actual number will be either but I don't think it will be tragedy it's being made out to be. Also, BC becomes less and less important as time goes on. I know some one will chime in as the exception but how many still play PS1 games on their PS2? Generally speaking people move on to the next games.

Of course this will mean that some loyal players of Festers Quest and Bill Walsh's College Football will be disapointed. Heh heh, Fester's Quest.


Like I said before, the PS2 game playing ability of the PS3 is not that great to begin with.I don't know why you'd think that. Maybe not as good as the PS2 did with PS1 games but I think a 90 - 95% rate is excellent.

True, and if it had been possible Sony probably would not have had hardware components in the PS3 at all for backward compatibility. Software emulation will be cheaper and in the long term was always their plan for the PS3. Personally I can see why some Europeans are not exactly happy that they are the first ones to get PS3 consoles with software emulation only but I get the sense that most of the people who are complaining the loudest over this weren't planning to buy the PS3 anyways.

Software emulation is going to be tough to achieve.

Going from completely proprietary hardware to a mix of CELL and NVIDIA chips, good luck with software emulation.

Again, if they achieve better than a 35% BC rate, that would make them a better software company than Microsoft. How likely is that?

Apparently it still won't be entirely software emulation:

The current PS3 model that's available for purchase in Asia and North America achieves backwards compatibility through hardware, as each unit includes the "Emotion Engine + Graphics Synthesizer" combination CPU and graphics chip that powers the slim model PS2. The European version of the hardware will not have this chip, SCEI confirmed today. To achieve backwards compatibility, the European model will rely on a combination of hardware and software. Sony is including hardware of some form that will take the place of the Graphics Synthesizer graphics chip. The Emotion Engine CPU functionality will be replicated entirely through software emulation.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/767/767810p1.html

Backward compatibility?

I want new systems to play NEW GAMES. I dont want the hardware compromised for this, nor do I want developement efforts wasted on it. I get especially annoyed when Backward compatability causes Delays in system launches. Whats the point of it?

If I care about it... then I already have the old system. So whats the problem? When I had the Super NES, I didnt gripe that it couldnt play NES games... or that my Sega Saturn couldnt play genesis games.

Where did this infatuation with backward compatability come from? I have the old system to play old games.

Its funny, I actually wanted backwards compatability more on a 360 than a PS3. I never bought an XBOX, and figured if I bought the 360, I could play both generations games.
Sadly, the one XBOX game I really wanted to play was ToeJam and Earl, one of my favorites from the Genesis era. Since the emulator did not run this game, I never got around to buying a 360 and am enjoying my PS3.
I think XBOX loses more by not being backwards compatable. Everyone has a PS2, so we all know the games made for it. Not everyone knows about Microsoft's machine, and if it were 100% backwards compatable they may have moved more systems, as I personally would have felt like I was buying 2 systems for the price, not just one.
People are buying the PS3 for new games, and the convenience of removing the PS2 from their current rack. However, since the PS3 does not support rumble, I suspect many people will keep the PS2 hooked up. There are some people buying the PS3 as their first Sony gaming machine, but I imagine this to be a minority. As such, as long as the PS3 plays a sampling of the more popular games, that may be enough.
And Sony is not stupid. I imagine compatability will get close to what is was for the PS2/1, even if it is not that good initially.

Why panic about this topic until you see the BC list at launch? There was also doom and gloom about BC initially when the PS3 launched in Novemeber, which of course quickly subsided.

If they get the big games playing right it is more important than what % of games they get running on it, although there will always be someone complaining Mary Kate and Ashley's Easter egg hunt doesn't work.

Will be interesting to see if the upscaling of games is true, I have my doubts. Maybe the upscaling of games is something just the newer systems will have, I really don't know though just throwing that out there.

Slacker George, I used a PS2 on an HDTV widescreen monitor that displayed the image flawlessly. I play the same games, with the same cables on the same HDTV using the PS3 and I have an awful black bar on the bottom of the screen like the image is shifted up 3 inches. Not to mention, not being able to transfer certain game saves to the PS3. The image shifting is present regardless of what resolution I choose and for every PS1, PS2 game played. Never had this problem before. For me, that's not 90%. So for those 2 major reasons the BC is a no-go. Gimme a screen adjust and let me transfer my Timesplitters save files and I'll use it. Do you have any idea what it's like starting over in Timesplitters games? I refuse!

Slacker George, I used a PS2 on an HDTV widescreen monitor that displayed the image flawlessly. I play the same games, with the same cables on the same HDTV using the PS3 and I have an awful black bar on the bottom of the screen like the image is shifted up 3 inches. Not to mention, not being able to transfer certain game saves to the PS3. The image shifting is present regardless of what resolution I choose and for every PS1, PS2 game played. Never had this problem before. For me, that's not 90%. So for those 2 major reasons the BC is a no-go. Gimme a screen adjust and let me transfer my Timesplitters save files and I'll use it. Do you have any idea what it's like starting over in Timesplitters games? I refuse!That would indeed suck. I don't know how common the bottom border problem is but yours is the first I've heard of. The Timesplitters thing isn't really a PS3 problem, just a dumb decision by the game's developers. I've had well over 100 PS1/PS2 games and never had a save I couldn't copy.

I doubt your assumption many AVSers would give up BC easily, though your argument of losing PS3 features for BC doesn't make much sense... a next gen console SHOULD have those next gen features (BT, HDMI) but shouldn't lose functionality of its predecessor! You are definitely in the minority. Hundreds of PS2 games exist and has made the Sony gaming name something amazing - and LOTS of us treasure our PS2 games. There are no great games out for PS3 now, and though there will be later, the day I give up FF7-12, KH1/2, DDR games, GH, I could go on... will be the day hell freezes over. And I am NOT in the minority - many many people treasure their PS2 games. The BC of the PS3 was a HUGE selling point of the PS3. Didn't you notice how upset many Xbox owners were that their original games wouldn't play on the 360? Now multiply that by at least 10, as there are many more (and better) games for the PS2 that exist. The PS2 sold more units than both the Xbox 360 AND the PS3 over the holiday. Shows people still want to play all of the great games that exist for the PS2.

In terms of the $27/console, yes that is a lot of money once you add up all the console's they will be selling. Compared to the approx. $300 loss they are taking on each unit sold however, $27 starts to look fairly measly. Yes it is still a lot of money, but in my eyes (and many other people's eyes) it is not worth losing compatibility with certain PS2 games.

Would you mail a check for $27 to sony for this chip?

If the choice was, "Full backward compatibility through hardware" vs. "Very limited backward compatibility with a number of glitches through software", then yes, I would personally pay $27 to have the former over the latter. Not that this is an option offered to the end user, but it was a theoretical question.

This is a smart move by Sony. Actually, it would have been smart NOT to have included it in the first place.

There are two groups of PS3 buyers. The first group already owns a PS2. The second group does not.

If you are in the first group, while it would be nice to sell your old PS2, keeping it around for PS2 games for a while is no big deal.

If you are in the second group you obviously don't care much about PS2 games or else you would have bought one already. Therefore, most people in this category won't care at all.

So, there is actually a very small group of people that are aggrieved by this.

There are lots of things to take issue with about the PS3. This isn't one of them.

So, there is actually a very small group of people that are aggrieved by this.

There are lots of things to take issue with about the PS3. This isn't one of them.

I've got plenty of relatives and coworkers who purchased PS2's for their kids. Every one of them said that its ability to play their children's older PS1 games was a selling point. Then again, Sony has already turned their back on this demographic with the price tag of the PS3.

I still play my ps1 games. If they release God of War II and its not able to be played no the ps3 thats complete ********.

Yes, LawGuy, there are MANY people who want to play their older games. The problem with your model is that the PlayStation name has always prided itself on having superb backwards compatibility. Taking it away is a huge blow to their gamer base.

Richard Paul - Here ya go.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/16/sony-losing-mad-loot-on-each-ps3/