Jack Tretton on PS3 BC

[mwales]

Sony, or SCEI needs to go down to this dudes office and tell him to pack his stuff up. WTF is he thinking

http://kotaku.com/gaming/spin/jack-t...res-312628.php

Personally, I flat out don't believe it. They ripped USB ports out for cryin out loud to bring the PS3 price down out of the stratosphere. I'm also guessing that SCEA has little to do with design decesions for the PS3.

Even if it was true, only a complete idiot would come out and say so. He just created a shit ton of bad press for Sony and Blu-ray.

[MrBogey]

Maybe it's just SCEA/SCEE that gets the crazies. But I've never seen the other branches of Sony handle issues so poorly.

Removing BC was a huge minus for a ton of people. You can't work to remove justification for it. I remember earlier this year when some VP in SCEE kicked up dirt over Square Enix releasing FFXIII on a non-exclusive basis.

Sometimes you just need to not work against your company...

[androvsky]

Considering they took out SACD playback just to save a few bucks on the optical read head, yeah, I'm thinking they're mainly interested in cutting costs.

Still, expect a pure software emulator for the 40GB systems in a year or so. Or, failing that, expect the ps2 emulator for linux to get a port to the ps3.

Removing BC was a huge minus for a ton of people. You can't work to remove justification for it. I remember earlier this year when some VP in SCEE kicked up dirt over Square Enix releasing FFXIII on a non-exclusive basis.

Ugh, I remember that too. Wanted to smack the guy for that. What stinks is the thing I was looking forward to most (oddly enough) with the ps3 was the full software emulator that could run ps2 games in HD (and no, scaling and smoothing SD output like it does now doesn't really count). It's possibly the first promise Sony made for the ps3, way before even the CGI trailers of e3 2005.

[tindizzle]

Where did you read that they took out the SACD capability?

[darinp2]

Originally Posted by mwales

Sony, or SCEI needs to go down to this dudes office and tell him to pack his stuff up. WTF is he thinking

http://kotaku.com/gaming/spin/jack-t...res-312628.php

I found this especially interesting:

Instead, the handicapping of the PS3 was part of an effort to "encourage buyers of the entry-level PlayStation 3 to purchase more games designed specifically for the new system.

given that 2 weeks ago I said:

Originally Posted by darinp2

And maybe to encourage buying the PS3 games to help get some of that money back. Basically, if a person mostly wants a PS3 to play the PS2 games they have, they have to buy the model that Sony loses less money on, but if they just care about the new games, Sony can lose more money on them as far as selling them the system (at least as a group). Of course, this doesn't stop people from just renting, but does seem like it would encourage a higher attach rate for PS3 games.

and was told I was wrong. Looks like he said basically what I had said earlier might be a reason. Of course, Jack Tretton talking about it in a meeting and saying it in public are 2 different things and I could see people being upset about them them using lack of BC to encourage people to buy PS3 games for the cheaper model, even though from an economics standpoint it makes some sense.

--Darin

[kknight]

I think Sony did the right thing to bring down the cost. I mean if you really want BC, just grab the $500 SKU. Honestly, I don't care for BC but that's just me

[GTsmokeya]

I dont know I bought the sixty gig when it was 600 and love it to death. It has been flawless, but i rarely play games on it I own like 20 something movies and two games. But yea if you want the extra features like everything else in life you gotta pay for them.

GTsmokeya

[jon s]

i also read somewhere the 40GB PS3 does NOT have SACD capability.

[lokus]

People are so obsessed about this backwards compatability and I have no idea why. Sure, I know you would want to play your ps2 games in your ps3 but for god sakes if you own ps2 games you most likely still own the console. So...just leave the dang thing hooked up to your TV if you want to play them that bad.

[ikbradley]

The BC does matter now, because there are no sequels to the biggest exclusives, such as DMC, GTA, GT, FF, GOW, etc.

With this said, as soon as the sequels come out, within a year, I doubt many people will want to play previous-generation games.

Also, it may be better to save the $100, because if you are playing the PS2 titles that heavily, just get a PS2 for $100 and save the wear and tear on the PS3 unit.

[JAGUAR1977]

Originally Posted by mwales

Sony, or SCEI needs to go down to this dudes office and tell him to pack his stuff up. WTF is he thinking

http://kotaku.com/gaming/spin/jack-t...res-312628.php

Personally, I flat out don't believe it. They ripped USB ports out for cryin out loud to bring the PS3 price down out of the stratosphere. I'm also guessing that SCEA has little to do with design decesions for the PS3.

Even if it was true, only a complete idiot would come out and say so. He just created a shit ton of bad press for Sony and Blu-ray.

99% of consumers cou;dn't careless about bacjkwards compatibility.

Those that do will either buy a 60/80gb model or keep their PS2.

BC is a gimmick, it's the last point fanboys can latch onto to knock PS3.

I've been a gamer for 20+ years and don't know a single person who cares about BC, let alone gets on their high horse refusing to buy a sysyem because it's not included.

Hundreds of threads have been created discsussing why gamers aren't buying PS3, cost and quality PS3 games were the reasons given, I doubt BC sold 1% of consoles.

[NARMAK]

Now as much as i love my PS3, i loved the fact i could go back 2 playing my PS2 games on my shiny new PS3 allowing me to save shelf space, so it was dishearting for me to hear that sony ONLY took out BC because they wanted entry level console owners to buy PS3 games and not because it saved a lot of money. Jack Tretton mentioned this in the wall street journal, i saw it on teletext on ITV.

Now i'm not against sony but that has to be very damaging news, alongside the fact that the recent 178% PS3 sale surge was mainly for the 60GB with 20GB more, BC & 2 free games (& 2 blu-rays @ virgin megastore) i think sony have got to consider keeping the 60GB until after christmas at least

Sony say the have a carefully thought out plan & i hope so cause more consoles sold means more EXCLUSIVES for US

[mwales]

Originally Posted by lokus

People are so obsessed about this backwards compatability and I have no idea why. Sure, I know you would want to play your ps2 games in your ps3 but for god sakes if you own ps2 games you most likely still own the console. So...just leave the dang thing hooked up to your TV if you want to play them that bad.

BC isn't the issue.

The issue is that Tretton is saying it didn't cost them very much to keep it, but they got rid of it to create artificial value for the next higher up model (which the 80gb doesn't have very good BC anyways).

The average consumer doesn't like idea of paying an extra $100 for a feature that should have been free (it doesn't cost the company anything).

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by mwales

BC isn't the issue.

The issue is that Tretton is saying it didn't cost them very much to keep it, but they got rid of it to create artificial value for the next higher up model

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head with that statement! The truth is, Sony is not saving a dime on removing BC from the 40 gb model. They are creating the illusion that there's more value in the 80 gb model. Now Sony can say "for just 100.00 more you get 2 extra USB ports, a memory card reader, a larger hard drive, and backwards compatibility with all PS1 and PS2 titles."

I think the bottom line is that Sony will try to push the 80gb model over the 40gb just like they did with 60gb over the 20gb.

BTW, has it been confirmed whether or not the rumble controller will be packed in with the new model?

[ikbradley]

Originally Posted by mwales

BC isn't the issue.

The issue is that Tretton is saying it didn't cost them very much to keep it, but they got rid of it to create artificial value for the next higher up model (which the 80gb doesn't have very good BC anyways).

The average consumer doesn't like idea of paying an extra $100 for a feature that should have been free (it doesn't cost the company anything).

There are probably some efficiencies created by not having to put in the PS2 graphics processor on the PS3 motherboard. You cannot, at this point, use complete software emulation. The PS3 80gb removed the PS2 CPU but not the PS2 GPU.

Adding that extra chip probably cost a little to produce and also increased the chance of defects in production. Less parts, less issues with reliability.

[Go Blu]

This also plugs a very important hole in the BDP market.
The cheapest BR player out!

No one can overstate the importance of that going into Q4.


This is a great thing in two ways.
It's a much cheaper PS3 for all the gaming fence sitters.
And it's the cheapest Blu-ray player for all of those who just wanted
it as a BR player. They did the right thing...its a Win win!

[eat_me_cool]

Originally Posted by kknight

I think Sony did the right thing to bring down the cost. I mean if you really want BC, just grab the $500 SKU. Honestly, I don't care for BC but that's just me

QFT.

Sony surveyed potential customers and most of they won't use BC. You do have the choice after all and the BC cost $27 in chip costs. If you want BC, go and pay for it. Go on, buy it and STF about BC.

Originally Posted by JAGUAR1977

99% of consumers cou;dn't careless about bacjkwards compatibility.

Those that do will either buy a 60/80gb model or keep their PS2.

BC is a gimmick, it's the last point fanboys can latch onto to knock PS3.

I've been a gamer for 20+ years and don't know a single person who cares about BC, let alone gets on their high horse refusing to buy a sysyem because it's not included.

Hundreds of threads have been created discsussing why gamers aren't buying PS3, cost and quality PS3 games were the reasons given, I doubt BC sold 1% of consoles.

I agree. BC on the x360 is pretty poor yet we still have to listen to the xbots whine about BC on the PS3.

[Shu76]

People want a full 100GB PS3 for $299 right now...guess what? It's not going to happen without it being stripped down.

[ninjanki]

I still think it was a bad move. Backwards compatibility is certainly not an essential feature for the console, but it is part of the value of the console. It is not about preventing people from buying new PS2 games(Sony profits from those, and not many PS3 owners will be dying to buy new PS2 games...), but allowing them to play old games they already have on the newer console. Less space, less TV connections and cables, and the upscaling ability. Without BC, new buyers will either be pissed with the fact they have to keep a PS2 for their older games, or even worse, by not understanding there is such difference between the SKUs, feel cheated when they find out their new console which, on their mind, should play old PS2 games, doesn't. Different SKUs with different software compatibility is an awfully bad move when it comes to explaining to the customers what work and what does not work...

Also, I don't understand what they gained with the removal of SACD capability. If I am not mistaken, SACD was done in software, converting it to PCM using a decimation algorithm. So they saved nothing by removing that capability, although most users will not miss it. It is just bad given that very few wanted the feature in the first place, and the ones who did probably would have bought the more expensive model(SACD equals high-end audio system, so higher income...). If they save no money, and do not create extra demand for the higher-end SKU, why remove a feature that would at least look good on paper?????

Allan

[joeorc]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

Bingo! You hit the nail on the head with that statement! The truth is, Sony is not saving a dime on removing BC from the 40 gb model. They are creating the illusion that there's more value in the 80 gb model. Now Sony can say "for just 100.00 more you get 2 extra USB ports, a memory card reader, a larger hard drive, and backwards compatibility with all PS1 and PS2 titles."



I think the bottom line is that Sony will try to push the 80gb model over the 40gb just like they did with 60gb over the 20gb.

BTW, has it been confirmed whether or not the rumble controller will be packed in with the new model?

yea..but there is also something a number of people are overlooking....


its about the perceptive value and FUNCTION . SONY is making an effort to show you cannot compare the price of the xbox360 and a playstation 3's value and expect to pay LESS for the playstation 3. the playstation 3 has more hardware and a higher QUALITY of parts over the XBOX360

I see people all the time "well i will buy a playstation 3 when it drops below $300.00 ... after they paid $400.00 for the xbox360... . its pretty funny the person thinks its alright to pay $400.00 for a system with a design flaw. but not OK to pay for a quality system. .

THEY say because the xbox360 has more games right now...but that's the thing if the system has a design flaw off the bat, even with more games they are putting a higher value on the xbox360 over the playstation 3..? not trying to bash the XBOX360 the games are fun but the system has alot of problems for its design.

even right now with the PLAYSTATION 3 now at $399.00 notice the BC is now software driven . it can be added later... , but the big thing is the $400.00 playstation 3 is now more targeted as a Blu-Ray player. if people want a Blu-Ray player the $400.00 SKU is downright a great price for a future profile 2.0 Blu-Ray player ..what about that Firmware update that will update playstation 3'S for the new BD-J profile's. the MEDIA had ran a number of claims that people did not know that the playstation 3 can play Blu-Ray Movies.

this is going to fix that problem..its no problem to stick a Blu-Ray movie like spiderman 3 along with the $400.00 SKU. to SHOW ONCE again the playstation 3 is a BLU-RAY player..Toshiba keeps touting along with MICROSOFT that the Playstation 3 does not count as a standalone Blu-Ray player.Sony is going to make a statement with that new 40GB PLAYSTATION 3.

That the PLAYSTATION 3 MAKES A GREAT STANDALONE Blu-Ray player .even if you don't count it the consumer ,like when the playstation 2 was first released was a great DVD player for people at the time when DVD first started off. beside being ableto offer Backward Compatability later is good anyway.
now it sucks not haveing it off the bat but there is a option if you want it.