PS3: Stepping Backwards - Blu-ray Forum

Cyorg · 10-12-2007, 01:29 PM

Stepping Backwards

There is something inherently depressing about the fact that, two years on from the first hardware launch of a new generation of consoles, we're still talking about backwards compatibility - a topic that has somehow managed to continue being a hot potato, and for all the wrong reasons.

This week, it's Sony's turn to wind up the backwards compatibility toy and send it rolling across the room, beating a tiny drum and tripping up anyone unfortunate enough to walk through its path.

After disappointing consumers by reneging on their promise of totally reliable backwards compatibility on the PS3, the firm had seemingly pulled a minor victory from the jaws of self-constructed defeat by providing software BC in its European models which was actually, really, rather good.

Now, however, the company has decided that after spending months convincing us all that software backwards compatibility was genuinely good enough to satisfy the vast majority of consumers, what we've really wanted all along is no backwards compatibility at all.

The announcement of an entry-level 40GB PS3 model should have been a resoundingly positive one - especially as it came, in Europe at least, alongside a significant price cut for the high-end 60GB version. The bundle now being offered at GBP 350 - a 60GB console, one controller and two games - is rather good value, not an accusation that's often been leveled at the PS3.

The 40GB model, we were less convinced of from the outset. We don't know exactly how well the Xbox 360 Core has fared since its introduction, but we do know that at launch, many of the consumers who bought Core systems only did so because they couldn't get their hands on the more complete bundle. In the United States, the previous low-end PS3 model (which had 20GB of capacity) sold so badly that it simply disappeared quietly shortly after launch.

In light of this, it's hard to see why Sony thinks yet another low-end SKU will help the PS3 in the marketplace this Christmas. However, on the face of it, more choice can't be a bad thing - and coming alongside the announcement of a genuine price drop for the full-fat version of the console, this should have been a glowingly positive announcement all over.

This does not, however, account for Sony's uncanny recent ability to deliver an entire storm system's worth of clouds for every silver lining they dish out. Two pieces of information have left a seriously bad taste in the mouths of media and consumers alike in the wake of this announcement.

Firstly, there is the utterly peculiar announcement that the 60GB model is being discontinued in Europe - with no new stock to be brought in once existing stock is depleted. It's not as bad as it sounds; Sony claims that the existing stock will last through until Christmas. However, that fact in itself leaves us wondering why on Earth the company decided to share this information.

If the 60GB model is to be discontinued with no replacement, this is one of the most bizarre and, frankly, dumb decisions we can imagine. Unless Sony actively wishes to discourage core gamers from investing in its product, we simply can't envisage any reason to take the high-end option off the market - and therefore we have to assume that the 60GB model will be discontinued so that it can be replaced, perhaps with an 80GB (becoming standard in other territories) or even 120GB model.

In which case, why tell people months in advance that the model is being discontinued? Why not wait until after Christmas, announce the new model, and enjoy a January sales spike when the new version hits the shops? The simple, and sadly rather cynical, answer is that Sony want people to be fooled into thinking that this is their last chance to pick up a "proper" PS3, to help drive sales ahead of Christmas.

We don't have a problem with companies talking up their products. However, anyone who's been following Sony's trials and tribulations in the last year could have told them that playing tricks and word games on their consumers is pretty much the last thing that a company with a reputation for breaking its promises needs right now.

Secondly, and even more bizarrely, there is the unwarranted crippling of the 40GB model. This is where the backwards compatibility debate is re-ignited. Not content with simply knocking 20GB off the hard drive space, taking out two USB ports and removing the memory card slots, all of which are reasonable functionality reductions in a low-end model, Sony has also chosen to entirely remove backwards compatibility with PS2 games.

Any claim that this has been done for cost purposes is clearly false, because the European PS3 already emulated its predecessors in software. Some legacy chips remained on-board (but not the central processor, the Emotion Engine), but their cost is unlikely to have been much more than a dollar or two per unit - if even that.

No, the backwards compatibility has been removed not to save costs, but rather to create a distinction between the high-end and low-end models of the PS3. The absolutely staggering implication of this is that Sony now considers backwards compatibility to be a luxury feature - something consumers should be willing to pay additional money for, or which only high-end consumers will want.

Long-term readers will recall that we lambasted Microsoft over its farcical implementation of backwards compatibility in the Xbox 360, a problem whose eventual effect on the 360's hardware sales is impossible to gauge - but whose hugely negative effect on long-tail sales of Xbox software can be seen in any media retailer in the western world.

On the PlayStation 3, backwards compatibility is even more important - and not just because we all chuckled at Sony's assertion that it's not needed because the company will have a whole sixty-three titles for the PS3 by this Christmas. It's more important because the PS2 was a vastly popular system for which an enormous library of software exists - a library which continues to be expanded, and satisfies the gaming needs of a huge number of people.

The PS2's ecosystem continues to be hugely important to the software industry as a whole, and the PS2's library is still the biggest and best resource of gaming experiences for consumers. For Sony to treat compatibility with that library - and the support of that ecosystem - as a luxury feature in its new console is ludicrous, especially given the firm's own regularly cited line about PlayStation being a platform, not just a brand.

The sad thing is that up until now, Sony practically had this aspect of the market in hand. Whatever about the quality or quantity of its software titles, or its pricing strategy, one thing that was regularly praised about the PS3 was its backwards compatibility - even on the European software-compatibility models. For users with HDTVs, the ability to upscale and smooth old games in higher resolutions is a huge boon - one owners of the new 40GB models will miss out on entirely.

More than anything else, this move simply confuses the market. Last week, asked about backwards compatibility, we could simply say that the PS3 does it very well. This week, the answer is "it does it sometimes, it depends what model you get". We're all for choice - but in this instance, Sony seems to have added a choice into its range that no consumer actually wants.

Update: An earlier version of this feature erroneously claimed that PS1 compatibility had also been dropped from the 40GB model. This is not the case, as it is only PS2 compatibility which is being removed.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=29509

Blu Blur · 10-12-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyorg

Stepping Backwards

After disappointing consumers by reneging on their promise of totally reliable backwards compatibility on the PS3, the firm had seemingly pulled a minor victory from the jaws of self-constructed defeat by providing software BC in its European models which was actually, really, rather good.

Now, however, the company has decided that after spending months convincing us all that software backwards compatibility was genuinely good enough to satisfy the vast majority of consumers, what we've really wanted all along is no backwards compatibility at all.

The announcement of an entry-level 40GB PS3 model should have been a resoundingly positive one - especially as it came, in Europe at least, alongside a significant price cut for the high-end 60GB version. The bundle now being offered at GBP 350 - a 60GB console, one controller and two games - is rather good value, not an accusation that's often been leveled at the PS3.

The 40GB model, we were less convinced of from the outset. We don't know exactly how well the Xbox 360 Core has fared since its introduction, but we do know that at launch, many of the consumers who bought Core systems only did so because they couldn't get their hands on the more complete bundle. In the United States, the previous low-end PS3 model (which had 20GB of capacity) sold so badly that it simply disappeared quietly shortly after launch.

In light of this, it's hard to see why Sony thinks yet another low-end SKU will help the PS3 in the marketplace this Christmas. However, on the face of it, more choice can't be a bad thing - and coming alongside the announcement of a genuine price drop for the full-fat version of the console, this should have been a glowingly positive announcement all over.

This does not, however, account for Sony's uncanny recent ability to deliver an entire storm system's worth of clouds for every silver lining they dish out. Two pieces of information have left a seriously bad taste in the mouths of media and consumers alike in the wake of this announcement.

Firstly, there is the utterly peculiar announcement that the 60GB model is being discontinued in Europe - with no new stock to be brought in once existing stock is depleted. It's not as bad as it sounds; Sony claims that the existing stock will last through until Christmas. However, that fact in itself leaves us wondering why on Earth the company decided to share this information.

If the 60GB model is to be discontinued with no replacement, this is one of the most bizarre and, frankly, dumb decisions we can imagine. Unless Sony actively wishes to discourage core gamers from investing in its product, we simply can't envisage any reason to take the high-end option off the market - and therefore we have to assume that the 60GB model will be discontinued so that it can be replaced, perhaps with an 80GB (becoming standard in other territories) or even 120GB model.

In which case, why tell people months in advance that the model is being discontinued? Why not wait until after Christmas, announce the new model, and enjoy a January sales spike when the new version hits the shops? The simple, and sadly rather cynical, answer is that Sony want people to be fooled into thinking that this is their last chance to pick up a "proper" PS3, to help drive sales ahead of Christmas.

Thats alot of typing

! The reason to tell them now is for that very reason, people should be made aware that once the 60Gb's run out there will be no more, this way they avoid the confusion of people not purchasing one because they are waiting for a 60Gb restock at their local store. I doubt a 120 Gb model will ever come out (atleast not for another year or better) Europe will have the 80 replace the 60 just like it will here in the US leaving just 2 SKU's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyorg

Stepping Backwards
Secondly, and even more bizarrely, there is the unwarranted crippling of the 40GB model. This is where the backwards compatibility debate is re-ignited. Not content with simply knocking 20GB off the hard drive space, taking out two USB ports and removing the memory card slots, all of which are reasonable functionality reductions in a low-end model, Sony has also chosen to entirely remove backwards compatibility with PS2 games.

Any claim that this has been done for cost purposes is clearly false, because the European PS3 already emulated its predecessors in software. Some legacy chips remained on-board (but not the central processor, the Emotion Engine), but their cost is unlikely to have been much more than a dollar or two per unit - if even that.

No, the backwards compatibility has been removed not to save costs, but rather to create a distinction between the high-end and low-end models of the PS3. The absolutely staggering implication of this is that Sony now considers backwards compatibility to be a luxury feature - something consumers should be willing to pay additional money for, or which only high-end consumers will want.

Long-term readers will recall that we lambasted Microsoft over its farcical implementation of backwards compatibility in the Xbox 360, a problem whose eventual effect on the 360's hardware sales is impossible to gauge - but whose hugely negative effect on long-tail sales of Xbox software can be seen in any media retailer in the western world.

On the PlayStation 3, backwards compatibility is even more important - and not just because we all chuckled at Sony's assertion that it's not needed because the company will have a whole sixty-three titles for the PS3 by this Christmas. It's more important because the PS2 was a vastly popular system for which an enormous library of software exists - a library which continues to be expanded, and satisfies the gaming needs of a huge number of people.

The BC was cut for cost and cost alone, producing legacy hardware while manufacturing the current and making it compatible on the actual boards in the PS3 is no doubt very costly for Sony(as the 80Gb only has limited legacy parts (in the US) in it and the other half is software). They have no intention of creating a barrier between base and premimum owners as both offer a Blu-ray drive and an upgradeable HDD, along with all the other next gen features (online,chat,PS store,Home etc.) if a line were to be drawn between the two prices they would have cut functions much bigger then BC. Much like how MS did with the core 360, which had no BC but also lacked the ability to download anything or interest from the Live service.

I do not doubt the importance of BC with the PS brand but I also believe it's a function only the hard core gamer cares about. Ask your self how many PS2 GTA fans actually used the PS1 BC on PS2? Now before you say "then how will they play the old GTA's with out BC on PS3" keep in mind these same people often trade in their games after beating them. Not to mention since most of the gaming world has a PS2, the PS3 does not make it stop working as soon as you buy it. Yes the minimalist will not want both set up but then again he/she will also probably pay more for the bigger HDD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyorg

Stepping Backwards
The PS2's ecosystem continues to be hugely important to the software industry as a whole, and the PS2's library is still the biggest and best resource of gaming experiences for consumers. For Sony to treat compatibility with that library - and the support of that ecosystem - as a luxury feature in its new console is ludicrous, especially given the firm's own regularly cited line about PlayStation being a platform, not just a brand.

The sad thing is that up until now, Sony practically had this aspect of the market in hand. Whatever about the quality or quantity of its software titles, or its pricing strategy, one thing that was regularly praised about the PS3 was its backwards compatibility - even on the European software-compatibility models. For users with HDTVs, the ability to upscale and smooth old games in higher resolutions is a huge boon - one owners of the new 40GB models will miss out on entirely.

More than anything else, this move simply confuses the market. Last week, asked about backwards compatibility, we could simply say that the PS3 does it very well. This week, the answer is "it does it sometimes, it depends what model you get". We're all for choice - but in this instance, Sony seems to have added a choice into its range that no consumer actually wants.

You can't accurately guage what the "consumer wants" from boards like these because they are filled with the extreme fans, people who complain just to stir the pot, or rabid Wii/360 fanboys who are looking for any reason to bash Sony. The reality is people are clamoring for a price cut and honestly less then a full year after launch and for whats in the PS3 I don't see any other way to cut the price then what they have done. I have no idea how much of a loss Sony sells the PS3 at but a year is not going to lessen that by much. The answer is also not to sell it at a bigger loss as that will never get past the share holders.

Honestly the 40Gb PS3 is a great buy and with the Dual Shock coming back I don't know how many buyers will care about BC this holiday season or the months that follow, and those that do have already committed them selves to the more expensive PS3 (at least I will bet on it) Sony also stated that the 40Gb is not totally incabable of BC with PS2 games, but rather they just don't have the time & resources right now to develop software to allow it, it could be done at a later point rather then delay the price drop just to make sure it's there.

plee · 10-12-2007, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyorg

Stepping Backwards

Now, however, the company has decided that after spending months convincing us all that software backwards compatibility was genuinely good enough to satisfy the vast majority of consumers, what we've really wanted all along is no backwards compatibility at all.[/B]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=29509

What is interesting is the 360's backward compatibility is never questioned yet the PS3 is always a key point. Let's be real, it's easier to fire up the old PS2/Xbox, etc...

And how many times have we heard the PS3 is too expensive, well now it doesn't have this or that. I think they have found out what they can leave out and people will still buy at $399

dgator783 · 10-12-2007, 03:58 PM

compatablity loses its appeal after awhile esp when PS2 games begin to be phased out....I beat in a year or so, most of your Ps2 games will have collected lots of dust....just dont throw away your ps2....its just that easy...selling more PS3s is a great thing no matter what...as long as it still plays blu rays....

What'sHD · 10-12-2007, 04:04 PM

The article has a hole in it.

He says lower cost is not going to help PS3 sell more since the 20 GB did not sell well. Then, he goes on to say that Sony considers BC a luxury feature which customers should be willing to pay extra for.

1stly, the BC is not extra cost. The 'lack of BC' SAVES cost, for those who wish to save it. If no one wishes to save cost (as he asserts) then people will buy the 80GB and sony has lost no sales.

But if people want a cheaper console, they can forgo BC and Sony picks up those new customers, which they could not have w/o the 40GB SKU.

The writer, Imo, is filling column inches/word limits.

BigB88 · 10-12-2007, 04:05 PM

Anyone who had large libraries of PS1/PS2 games, most likely already have a PS3 with BC. The 40GB model is aimed at buyers who have little to no PS1/PS2 games and who also would like an inexpensive Blu-ray player, simple as that. If buyers are so keen for backward compatibility because they have a large investment in PS1/PS2 or they want to play PS1/PS2 games constantly plus periodcally watch some movies, then they will get the 80GB model. Remember Sony is attempting to flood the market and in so doing sell as many PS3's as they possibly can, that means they want to sell BOTH models. What is the use of having the 80GB model, if the 40GB is going to offer almost everything that the 80GB does with exception to the HDD (which can be upgraded anyway)?

ikbradley · 10-12-2007, 04:06 PM

Sony is great at making the machines but their marketing has been off for awhile. While the lowered price is good, they should have just stuck it out with the 20 gig, removed the emotion chip/used software, and lowered the price to $399 to compete with the XBox premium. It should have also increased the 80 gig to 160 gigs (since the price of hard drives are relatively the same cost when purchased in the millions), to have an advantage over the Elite.

At this point it is optics. A true enthusiast will know the technical superiority of the PS3. Try telling that to someone who sees two things on the 360 brand: bigger harddrive and backwards compatibility. I know it sounds stupid, but Mom and Pop only know so much and numbers like 120 versus 40 and 80 don't sell the PS3. Neither does Blu-ray, because an ignorant salesperson will say that the upscaled SD movie is good enough and that it doesn't require more expensive HD media.

Japan and Europe sell the PS3 because of a better educated consumer. The North American market likes little marketing blurbs and are anti-Japan, so even Microsoft manages to get preferred branding. This coupled with Microsofts attachment to NBC and Ziff Media has really produced a great propoganda campaign against the PS3.

Bring back the 20 gig. It was beautiful. At a lowered cost it would have been the 360 killer.

JennyBunny · 10-12-2007, 04:11 PM

This guy really likes the work "however".

Joe Cain · 10-12-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikbradley

At a lowered cost it would have been the 360 killer.

Hmm. What PS3 needs to for greater gaming console success is more and better games---without them it won't matter how cheap you sell a PS3.

I wasn't aware the 360 needed killing. Aren't 1/3 of them already suicidal anyway?

Blu Blur · 10-12-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plee

What is interesting is the 360's backward compatibility is never questioned yet the PS3 is always a key point. Let's be real, it's easier to fire up the old PS2/Xbox, etc...

And how many times have we heard the PS3 is too expensive, well now it doesn't have this or that. I think they have found out what they can leave out and people will still buy at $399

Exactly my point. The 360 BC is over and done with they got large number of titles but many greats were left out (Panzer Dragoon and Otogi to name a few) the point is that there is a model for those that want the function and one for those that just want a PS3. Personally the BC function was important to me at launch (FFXII) but now even with the upscaling I hardly ever use it. if you already have a PS2 why worry about it as most still use it for their PS1 and 2 games even though they have a PS3.

airwedge1 · 10-12-2007, 04:28 PM

I think the article has false information. I don't think the europe BC will changed at all with the new model. PS2 BC is just done through software, just not using an embedded emotion chip. I believe it just makes the game compatibility like 70 - 80 percent instead of 90+

Copywriter · 10-12-2007, 04:50 PM

PS3 more expensive? I just walked into BB and the 360 Elite was like $450ish. And it doesn't even come with a next-gen drive--add $200 more please. My PS3 didn't cost me $650 and it's not a collection of "pieces" either.

Evidently most 360 owners are 5-year-olds who haven't learned how to compare apples to apples yet.

Blu Blur · 10-12-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikbradley

..... A true enthusiast will know the technical superiority of the PS3. Try telling that to someone who sees two things on the 360 brand: bigger harddrive and backwards compatibility. I know it sounds stupid, but Mom and Pop only know so much and numbers like 120 versus 40 and 80 don't sell the PS3. Neither does Blu-ray, because an ignorant salesperson will say that the upscaled SD movie is good enough and that it doesn't require more expensive HD media.

I agree with you about those who care will know the difference with the PS3, but the 120Gb HDD is not moving 360's as only one (the most expensive SKU) actually come packed with it and their is no big branding on the box that showcases the 120Gb, it's just mentioned in an itemized list on the box. Whats selling 360 is MS's marketing with Gears and Halo (though neither have shown signifcant hardware attachment rates). I disagree though about the sales man part, he will likely compair the online service of Live as a fair trade off for not having a HD movie player boxed in as there is no winner yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikbradley

Japan and Europe sell the PS3 because of a better educated consumer. The North American market likes little marketing blurbs and are anti-Japan.

Sorry but your completely wrong here. Last time I checked 360 outsold PS3 in Europe as well and Wii out sells PS3 in Japan. Since the 360 is junk and the Wii is old tech with a new twist I fail to see how you can call them more educated. Also the Wii outsells the 360 here as well, as for Americans being anti-japan thats BS as America supports the Japanese economy more then any other country by buying it's products. When it comes to electronics I buy what I want but there is nothing wrong with supporting the country you live in, it's called self preservation and every country does it. That being said though America is far from anti-Japan if anything we don't support our own country enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikbradley

Microsoft manages to get preferred branding. This coupled with Microsofts attachment to NBC and Ziff Media has really produced a great propoganda campaign against the PS3.

Bring back the 20 gig. It was beautiful. At a lowered cost it would have been the 360 killer.

The 20GB is not the answer as it looked different and lacked the chrome parts of the 60, and was missing the WiFi which is what killed it. The 40 looks and has all the same functions of the 60 and 80 just with out BC which is becoming less and less important. It was a good choice for Sony, you can't please everyone but with multiple SKU's and an actual price cut I guess you can

ikbradley · 10-12-2007, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blu Blur

Sorry but your completely wrong here. Last time I checked 360 outsold PS3 in Europe as well and Wii out sells PS3 in Japan. Since the 360 is junk and the Wii is old tech with a new twist I fail to see how you can call them more educated. Also the Wii outsells the 360 here as well, as for Americans being anti-japan thats BS as America supports the Japanese economy more then any other country by buying it's products. When it comes to electronics I buy what I want but there is nothing wrong with supporting the country you live in, it's called self preservation and every country does it. That being said though America is far from anti-Japan if anything we don't support our own country enough.

Look, I didn't want to step on your toes, as I know that you are a proud American (which is great - people should be proud of their country), but Sony has been targeted by North American media as the anti-christ. Nowhere else in the world does Sony get lambasted at such a mass and frequent level. Everything is either DRM or evil blu-ray trojan horse. As for the US being anti-japanese, I would say that Americans like to buy American, which you support. This is one of many reasons why the 360 continues to do well in the US. It clearly is an American product, with the American FPS gamer in mind. As for the educated consumer, and correct me if I'm wrong, the numbers pulled from NDP concerning PS3 user awareness of blu-ray capability was a North American thing. That, Sir, was just God awful.

I'm pretty sure that the PS3 is outselling the 360 in Europe by a wide margin. As for the Wii, I really don't have a bone to pick with it. No serious gamer settles for the Wii by itself and Japan will not ignore the PS3 for too long. There are just no AAA Japanese titles out yet and the couple of real successes have been Insomniac offerings, Warhawk and Oblivion. They are coming in 2008.

I don't want to turn this into anything other than pointing out that it's the North American consumer supporting the 360 and HD-DVD. If the North American consumer was educated, this whole fiasco could have been avoided.

Teazle · 10-12-2007, 07:26 PM

It was very confusing indeed when Nintendo, announcing its then-new GameCube, declined to support backwards compatibility with the N64. The Atari 7200 wouldn't play 2600 carts. Also extremely puzzling. The 360 initially only supported b.c. for a handful of original Xbox games and even now they aren't all supported. Yes, this is one head-scratcher of a problem for Sony too.

Blu Blur · 10-12-2007, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikbradley

Look, I didn't want to step on your toes, as I know that you are a proud American (which is great - people should be proud of their country), but Sony has been targeted by North American media as the anti-christ. Nowhere else in the world does Sony get lambasted at such a mass and frequent level. Everything is either DRM or evil blu-ray trojan horse. As for the US being anti-japanese, I would say that Americans like to buy American, which you support. This is one of many reasons why the 360 continues to do well in the US. It clearly is an American product, with the American FPS gamer in mind. As for the educated consumer, and correct me if I'm wrong, the numbers pulled from NDP concerning PS3 user awareness of blu-ray capability was a North American thing. That, Sir, was just God awful.

I'm pretty sure that the PS3 is outselling the 360 in Europe by a wide margin. As for the Wii, I really don't have a bone to pick with it. No serious gamer settles for the Wii by itself and Japan will not ignore the PS3 for too long. There are just no AAA Japanese titles out yet and the couple of real successes have been Insomniac offerings, Warhawk and Oblivion. They are coming in 2008.

I don't want to turn this into anything other than pointing out that it's the North American consumer supporting the 360 and HD-DVD. If the North American consumer was educated, this whole fiasco could have been avoided.

Fair points, though this American is well versed in technology and I choose Blu-ray before it was even in stores

. I do see you point though I buy what I want when it comes to electronics(been a Sony & Sega guy for a LONG time), everything else well thats a different story. Glad to see you kept it civil and intelegent, hats off to you

ikbradley · 10-12-2007, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blu Blur

Fair points, though this American is well versed in technology and I choose Blu-ray before it was even in stores

. I do see you point though I buy what I want when it comes to electronics(been a Sony & Sega guy for a LONG time), everything else well thats a different story. Glad to see you kept it civil and intelegent, hats off to you

Awesome, I love it when I can go back to a thread knowing that things didn't go the way of the flame war. I, too, love Sega. The Dreamcast was my favourite of the last gen consoles. Shemue, Sonic, Soul Caliber, Jet Grind were awesome. Cheers

Proteus · 10-12-2007, 09:06 PM

Backwards compatibility really doesn't matter.

Anyone who has any form of library of PS2 games has a PS2 and if theirs broke they can replace it for under $100.

Sure, it's nice to have just one console in the living room (my PS1 is buried in a back room), but if you are _that_ concerned about old titles then having the 'old' console around probably doesn't matter much.

Frankly, within a couple months of playing 'next gen' it would probably be a pretty rare occurrence for someone to even touch PS2 titles. Probably more for novelty than anything. I just recently pulled out my old FFVII for the hell of it, granted, but it didn't last long once I started playing it. That magic is gone man.

10-12-2007, 01:29 PM	#1
Cyorg Special Member Member since:Jul 2007 Location:San Antonio, TX. PSN ID: Cyorg Blu-ray collection:62 Blu-ray reviews:1	PS3: Stepping Backwards Stepping Backwards There is something inherently depressing about the fact that, two years on from the first hardware launch of a new generation of consoles, we're still talking about backwards compatibility - a topic that has somehow managed to continue being a hot potato, and for all the wrong reasons. This week, it's Sony's turn to wind up the backwards compatibility toy and send it rolling across the room, beating a tiny drum and tripping up anyone unfortunate enough to walk through its path. After disappointing consumers by reneging on their promise of totally reliable backwards compatibility on the PS3, the firm had seemingly pulled a minor victory from the jaws of self-constructed defeat by providing software BC in its European models which was actually, really, rather good. Now, however, the company has decided that after spending months convincing us all that software backwards compatibility was genuinely good enough to satisfy the vast majority of consumers, what we've really wanted all along is no backwards compatibility at all. The announcement of an entry-level 40GB PS3 model should have been a resoundingly positive one - especially as it came, in Europe at least, alongside a significant price cut for the high-end 60GB version. The bundle now being offered at GBP 350 - a 60GB console, one controller and two games - is rather good value, not an accusation that's often been leveled at the PS3. The 40GB model, we were less convinced of from the outset. We don't know exactly how well the Xbox 360 Core has fared since its introduction, but we do know that at launch, many of the consumers who bought Core systems only did so because they couldn't get their hands on the more complete bundle. In the United States, the previous low-end PS3 model (which had 20GB of capacity) sold so badly that it simply disappeared quietly shortly after launch. In light of this, it's hard to see why Sony thinks yet another low-end SKU will help the PS3 in the marketplace this Christmas. However, on the face of it, more choice can't be a bad thing - and coming alongside the announcement of a genuine price drop for the full-fat version of the console, this should have been a glowingly positive announcement all over. This does not, however, account for Sony's uncanny recent ability to deliver an entire storm system's worth of clouds for every silver lining they dish out. Two pieces of information have left a seriously bad taste in the mouths of media and consumers alike in the wake of this announcement. Firstly, there is the utterly peculiar announcement that the 60GB model is being discontinued in Europe - with no new stock to be brought in once existing stock is depleted. It's not as bad as it sounds; Sony claims that the existing stock will last through until Christmas. However, that fact in itself leaves us wondering why on Earth the company decided to share this information. If the 60GB model is to be discontinued with no replacement, this is one of the most bizarre and, frankly, dumb decisions we can imagine. Unless Sony actively wishes to discourage core gamers from investing in its product, we simply can't envisage any reason to take the high-end option off the market - and therefore we have to assume that the 60GB model will be discontinued so that it can be replaced, perhaps with an 80GB (becoming standard in other territories) or even 120GB model. In which case, why tell people months in advance that the model is being discontinued? Why not wait until after Christmas, announce the new model, and enjoy a January sales spike when the new version hits the shops? The simple, and sadly rather cynical, answer is that Sony want people to be fooled into thinking that this is their last chance to pick up a "proper" PS3, to help drive sales ahead of Christmas. We don't have a problem with companies talking up their products. However, anyone who's been following Sony's trials and tribulations in the last year could have told them that playing tricks and word games on their consumers is pretty much the last thing that a company with a reputation for breaking its promises needs right now. Secondly, and even more bizarrely, there is the unwarranted crippling of the 40GB model. This is where the backwards compatibility debate is re-ignited. Not content with simply knocking 20GB off the hard drive space, taking out two USB ports and removing the memory card slots, all of which are reasonable functionality reductions in a low-end model, Sony has also chosen to entirely remove backwards compatibility with PS2 games. Any claim that this has been done for cost purposes is clearly false, because the European PS3 already emulated its predecessors in software. Some legacy chips remained on-board (but not the central processor, the Emotion Engine), but their cost is unlikely to have been much more than a dollar or two per unit - if even that. No, the backwards compatibility has been removed not to save costs, but rather to create a distinction between the high-end and low-end models of the PS3. The absolutely staggering implication of this is that Sony now considers backwards compatibility to be a luxury feature - something consumers should be willing to pay additional money for, or which only high-end consumers will want. Long-term readers will recall that we lambasted Microsoft over its farcical implementation of backwards compatibility in the Xbox 360, a problem whose eventual effect on the 360's hardware sales is impossible to gauge - but whose hugely negative effect on long-tail sales of Xbox software can be seen in any media retailer in the western world. On the PlayStation 3, backwards compatibility is even more important - and not just because we all chuckled at Sony's assertion that it's not needed because the company will have a whole sixty-three titles for the PS3 by this Christmas. It's more important because the PS2 was a vastly popular system for which an enormous library of software exists - a library which continues to be expanded, and satisfies the gaming needs of a huge number of people. The PS2's ecosystem continues to be hugely important to the software industry as a whole, and the PS2's library is still the biggest and best resource of gaming experiences for consumers. For Sony to treat compatibility with that library - and the support of that ecosystem - as a luxury feature in its new console is ludicrous, especially given the firm's own regularly cited line about PlayStation being a platform, not just a brand. The sad thing is that up until now, Sony practically had this aspect of the market in hand. Whatever about the quality or quantity of its software titles, or its pricing strategy, one thing that was regularly praised about the PS3 was its backwards compatibility - even on the European software-compatibility models. For users with HDTVs, the ability to upscale and smooth old games in higher resolutions is a huge boon - one owners of the new 40GB models will miss out on entirely. More than anything else, this move simply confuses the market. Last week, asked about backwards compatibility, we could simply say that the PS3 does it very well. This week, the answer is "it does it sometimes, it depends what model you get". We're all for choice - but in this instance, Sony seems to have added a choice into its range that no consumer actually wants. Update: An earlier version of this feature erroneously claimed that PS1 compatibility had also been dropped from the 40GB model. This is not the case, as it is only PS2 compatibility which is being removed. http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=29509

10-12-2007, 04:05 PM	#6
BigB88 Active Member Member since:Aug 2007	BC is not all that important now Anyone who had large libraries of PS1/PS2 games, most likely already have a PS3 with BC. The 40GB model is aimed at buyers who have little to no PS1/PS2 games and who also would like an inexpensive Blu-ray player, simple as that. If buyers are so keen for backward compatibility because they have a large investment in PS1/PS2 or they want to play PS1/PS2 games constantly plus periodcally watch some movies, then they will get the 80GB model. Remember Sony is attempting to flood the market and in so doing sell as many PS3's as they possibly can, that means they want to sell BOTH models. What is the use of having the 80GB model, if the 40GB is going to offer almost everything that the 80GB does with exception to the HDD (which can be upgraded anyway)?

10-12-2007, 04:28 PM	#11
airwedge1 Active Member Member since:Apr 2007	False Information I think the article has false information. I don't think the europe BC will changed at all with the new model. PS2 BC is just done through software, just not using an embedded emotion chip. I believe it just makes the game compatibility like 70 - 80 percent instead of 90+

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
PS3 backwards compatable?	PS3	browndk26	2	12-04-2009 03:31 PM
Backwards compatable PS3?	PS3	sjbluray	7	07-03-2008 04:30 AM
PS3 Backwards Compatibility	PS3	LGShepherd	13	12-28-2007 04:49 PM
PS3 Backwards Compatibility	PS3	cathexist	20	10-11-2007 06:48 AM

10-12-2007, 03:58 PM	#4
dgator783 Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Feb 2007 Location:Lakeland,FL 4K collection:377 Blu-ray collection:1521 Blu-ray reviews:11 Trading Score:14	compatablity loses its appeal after awhile esp when PS2 games begin to be phased out....I beat in a year or so, most of your Ps2 games will have collected lots of dust....just dont throw away your ps2....its just that easy...selling more PS3s is a great thing no matter what...as long as it still plays blu rays....

10-12-2007, 04:04 PM	#5
What'sHD Senior Member Member since:Feb 2007	The article has a hole in it. He says lower cost is not going to help PS3 sell more since the 20 GB did not sell well. Then, he goes on to say that Sony considers BC a luxury feature which customers should be willing to pay extra for. 1stly, the BC is not extra cost. The 'lack of BC' SAVES cost, for those who wish to save it. If no one wishes to save cost (as he asserts) then people will buy the 80GB and sony has lost no sales. But if people want a cheaper console, they can forgo BC and Sony picks up those new customers, which they could not have w/o the 40GB SKU. The writer, Imo, is filling column inches/word limits.

10-12-2007, 04:06 PM	#7
ikbradley Senior Member Member since:Aug 2007	Sony is great at making the machines but their marketing has been off for awhile. While the lowered price is good, they should have just stuck it out with the 20 gig, removed the emotion chip/used software, and lowered the price to $399 to compete with the XBox premium. It should have also increased the 80 gig to 160 gigs (since the price of hard drives are relatively the same cost when purchased in the millions), to have an advantage over the Elite. At this point it is optics. A true enthusiast will know the technical superiority of the PS3. Try telling that to someone who sees two things on the 360 brand: bigger harddrive and backwards compatibility. I know it sounds stupid, but Mom and Pop only know so much and numbers like 120 versus 40 and 80 don't sell the PS3. Neither does Blu-ray, because an ignorant salesperson will say that the upscaled SD movie is good enough and that it doesn't require more expensive HD media. Japan and Europe sell the PS3 because of a better educated consumer. The North American market likes little marketing blurbs and are anti-Japan, so even Microsoft manages to get preferred branding. This coupled with Microsofts attachment to NBC and Ziff Media has really produced a great propoganda campaign against the PS3. Bring back the 20 gig. It was beautiful. At a lowered cost it would have been the 360 killer.

10-12-2007, 04:11 PM	#8
JennyBunny Member Member since:Aug 2007	This guy really likes the work "however".

10-12-2007, 04:50 PM	#12
Copywriter Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Sep 2007 Location:Vegas Baby, Vegas	PS3 more expensive? I just walked into BB and the 360 Elite was like $450ish. And it doesn't even come with a next-gen drive--add $200 more please. My PS3 didn't cost me $650 and it's not a collection of "pieces" either. Evidently most 360 owners are 5-year-olds who haven't learned how to compare apples to apples yet.

10-12-2007, 07:26 PM	#15
Teazle Power Member Member since:Aug 2007 Location:Canada Blu-ray reviews:1	It was very confusing indeed when Nintendo, announcing its then-new GameCube, declined to support backwards compatibility with the N64. The Atari 7200 wouldn't play 2600 carts. Also extremely puzzling. The 360 initially only supported b.c. for a handful of original Xbox games and even now they aren't all supported. Yes, this is one head-scratcher of a problem for Sony too.

10-12-2007, 09:06 PM	#18
Proteus Power Member Member since:Apr 2007 Location:SoCal PSN:CaptBurn	Backwards compatibility really doesn't matter. Anyone who has any form of library of PS2 games has a PS2 and if theirs broke they can replace it for under $100. Sure, it's nice to have just one console in the living room (my PS1 is buried in a back room), but if you are _that_ concerned about old titles then having the 'old' console around probably doesn't matter much. Frankly, within a couple months of playing 'next gen' it would probably be a pretty rare occurrence for someone to even touch PS2 titles. Probably more for novelty than anything. I just recently pulled out my old FFVII for the hell of it, granted, but it didn't last long once I started playing it. That magic is gone man.

Best PS3 Game Deals