SCEA CEO Jack Tretton wants you to buy both a PS3 and a PS2...to save money
By Nilay Patel 
posted October 18th 2007 8:02PM
posted October 18th 2007 8:02PM
While we're not going to complain about the launch of the cheaper 40GB PS3, we are still kind of miffed that it isn't backwards-compatible with our huge library of PS2 games -- especially since newer PS3s retain compatibility through software emulation and not specialized hardware like earlier models. Not to worry though, because Sony Computer Entertainment America CEO Jack "Daniels" Tretton is here to dazzle you with mathematics: according to Jackie, the consumer actually benefits from Sony's move to cut emulation, because now you have the opportunity to buy both a $399 PS3 and a $129 PS2, for a grand total of $528, which is -- wait for it -- less than the original 60GB PS3's price of $600! Of course, what Mr. T here is forgetting is that most people would prefer a single, $399 PS3 with backwards compatibility (and rumble, for good measure), but really, once you get spinning that fast it's awfully hard to stop.[Via Joystiq]
Meh...
1. Had a PS2 before PS3. (And an Xbox before 360)
2. Have more than 2 inputs on my receiver, so that's not a problem.
3. Anyone who cares about upscaling already has a TV that upscales.
4. I'm not an anal-retentive mouth breather who is miffed by having more than one console plugged in.
5. I don't need my MP3 player to play 8-track tapes either.
1. Your PS2 hasn't crapped out on you yet? lucky you. Mine has, twice.
2. The actual amount of plugs doesn't bother me nearly as much as the lack of shelve space, especially considering the open air environments that the PS3 and 360 need, and most home entertainment shelves don't offer.
3.Who cares about upscaling PS2? it'll still look like the innards of a dumpster. Where was upscaling even mentioned anywhere?
4. Who said they only need one console plugged in. Between PS3, Tivo, DVD player, 360, and wii, who needs an ugly old PS2 to take up room?
5. Thats why you get an input to you computer and record the streaming audio. Oh look, it's the same media but in a different format, i'm sure plenty of people have done this. If you could still play your PS2 games in a different format, no one would have a problem.
1. Nope. If it did I'd just trade it in for a refurbed one.
2. No issue with space here.
3. It was mentioned in the article: "...and if said consumer hadn't come to depend on the PS3's upscaling of old games."
4. No, the PS2 isn't pretty. But with 3 items capable of playing DVDs in that list.. i'm guessing you could find a little bit of room in there somewhere.
5. I bet that'll sound as good as PS2 games look on my PS3! While i'm at it, I might as well copy all of my VHS tapes to DVD.
The problem for me is not the consoles, it's the freaking controllers, memory cards... One more box isn't a problem, it's all the random junk that accompanies it.
For that same $530, couldn't you just go get a 360 arcade and a Wii?
Can you still buy a PS3 that DOES have backwards compatability?
the 500$ should still have backwards compatibility.
80 GB has software emulation
60 GB (discontinued but still in stock at Amazon and Gamestop) has full backwards compatibility.
Both are now $500
Sure, but you better buy it quick.
Remember how they stopped making the 60GB versions? They will eventually stop with the 80GB with the PS2 Graphics Chip and PS2 software emulation. They will release a new, maybe a 100 or 120GB version with no BC for $499 once the 80GBs are nearly all sold.
This is because of their statements that BC is a core ideal they will always follow, and that all Playstations will ALWAYS be able to play all versions of PS games. Heck, can we get another job so we can afford a PS2 and a PS3?
this should have been a CEO NO HE DIDN'T!
could sony shoot themselves in the foot more? it's like their favorite thing to do
If you can find a PS2 *and* a PS3 in a store, Jack will give you $3000 dollars.
I don't have a PS2 and have 0 interest in playing any of its games, so I'll be buying a $399 PS3. BUT, if I did have a ton of PS2 games, or wanted to play them I would pony up the $100 instead of QQ.
I have a way better idea. Why not install linux on the pis*3 and then an PS2 emulator which will allow you to not only play originals but back ups as well. Seriously where is their head.
LOL
There are 120 million+ PS2s out there. I'm going to wager that a good amount of those are still in homes. Now the PS3 is still an expensive console so Sony wants to lower the price down so they cut BC and lower the price.
Go get:
1) 80 gig for $499 w/ limited BC
or
2) 40 gig for $399 and a cheap PS2, refurbed/used for $60? and you get perfect BC, or possibly already own a PS2.
Sony doesn't have a lot of options seeing as how they already made the PS3 so expensive so they're working with what they have, which the options are limited. Sony has gotten almost nothing but hate this generation, I think this is a step in the right direction.
I see the best way to solve this problem (anyone correct me if I'm wrong in my intellect) would be for anyone thats hard up for a ps3 w/backwards compatibility on the cheap would be to score a 20 gig ps3 on Ebay or from your local pawn shop and have it modded with a 80 gig hard drive and a modchip that allows games to run off the hard drive (like microsh1ts slave xbox), get a subscription to Netflix game rentals and really show Sony how they're screwing themselves over because to them its just a numbers game. Last I checked you can get a 80 gig hard drive easily. Theres always a used beige/dell pc with hard drive that size just laying around waiting to be used for drive blockbuster video, Tower Records, Virgin Music stores out of business. But what do I know?
I have a feeling that the PS2 is still outselling the PS3, as well as the games. Why else would Guitar Hero 3 and other games still be released on all platforms (PS2 included)? That's probably the reason why they are ripping out the backwards compatibility. It will be funny when the next gen consoles come out (Xbox 720 and Wii-Wii) and SONY's still milking their PS2 with Ceramic White, Orange Cream, Desert Camo and Simpsons paint jobs.
Wow. LOL
hi this is frederick nana amissah junior,please email me when someone replies to the comment.
God damn you, Sony. You're completely dead to me, now.
No more headphones, speakers, TVs, mp3(atrac3) players, MD players, CD players, or game systems... after all the money I've thrown at you, I have no desire to own your products, anymore.
Samsung, Toshiba, Microsoft... I'm listening.
go ahead and file this one under "dipshit"
Sent from my iphone.
Hmm, do you know what's cheaper than buying PS2 and PS3 for $529. Not buying either.
This kind of arrogance ruined PS3. I remember Nintendo being like that back in the Famicom days.
Maybe in something like 10-20 years, the PS6 will kick ass, if Sony is around, I mean.
Can you guys only imagine the selling point and bruhaha if Microsoft figured out PS2 emulation and implemented it into the 360? I'm not sure the hardware is powerful enough (following the basic rule that you need at LEAST double the power of the system being emulated), but I could be wrong.
I imagine those pissed off by Sony may reconsider if they could play PS2, XBOX and XBOX 360 games on the one console!
Yeah but everyone knows what happened to Bleem! on the Dreamcast.
I'm still pissed about the Dreamcast, so unfair. Sega will come back though, I know it, and its gonna be big. Probably not soon though :/
...I give up! I don't even want one anymore! It's not just this, its all the crap sony does with this system. Just start over, Make PS4, and offer a trade up program or something, Cut your losses now sony! I really don't understand, the PS2 was so awesome.
I wish Blockbuster still rented out consoles so I could get MGS4 out of my system and never have to worry about it again.
What do you mean by all the other stuff?
Like taking out Rumble because it was so last Gen, and now adding it back by forcing users to buy another controller with rumble? Now you will have some PS3 games that don't support rumble and some that do. Stupid.
pulling a page right out of the nintendo book but doing it all wrong... see nintendo was smart... instead of "cutting" backward compatibility and making you buy the old hardware... they are simply never giving you backwards compatability and selling you your old games again for cheap!
To be fair to Nintendo, where do you exactly expect to shove all those different shaped cartridges that are all wired differently? At least they are 100% compatible with GC games, which was the first Nintendo system on optical disks.
As for Sony, they can eat me. Cutting BC just so they can try and sell me a 2nd console that I shouldn't even need. They're the only company that still has last gen games coming out and they're the first to cut BC completely. At least MS partially supports older games and has added all new games that came out for the Xbox since the 360 came out. On top of that, at least there's a lot of good games out for the 360, which makes BC less important. The PS3 doesn't have many good games, making BC very important for a lot of people that don't feel like beating 2 games and watching BD movies for the next 6 months.
I'm planning on weighing up my options once some decent PS3 actually start to appear. If the backward compatable stock is consumed by then I'll be reaching for a 360. I have a PS2 and ~30 games but there's no way I'm sitting them side by side.
I thought they were trying to WIN this hi-def war (not that the xbox poses much challenge on that front)
How much does software emulation set you back Sony? $0.21c or so?
Well, I gotta say, for a student like me on a tight budget, I can get PS2 games second hand pretty cheap, so backward compatability is a must for someone who hasn't had the chance to own a PS2. But, being stingy to consumers who actually want/need the the PS2 GPU and/or CPU inside that PS3 is not great marketing, is it? The Wii is a lot cheaper than the PS3 but it can still play discs smaller than those of the Wii.
hmm... with how wildly popular the ps2 is, why doesn't sony seem to think that backwards compatibility is something worthwhile?
i still have the original ps2 (not the slimmy.) and if i got a ps3, there'd be nowhere in my entertainment system to put it.
oh, and, the sony reps that i've spoken with(worked in a dept. store) have all said that NO ONE at sony has ANY doubts about the ps3, and how well it's currently doing.
i asked them (all) why, then, would there be a slew of games still planned to be released for the ps2, over the next year, if they weren't worried that number 3 was a complete bomb?
no one could answer.
to be honest, if the PS3 was designed correctly it would not need BC. What I am saying if the console had good games on the current gen you would not need to play the old PS2 games. When I purchased my 360 I played the old xbox for about 2 months. At this point I am so busy playing new games (i don't have time for all of them):
Bioshock
Orange Box Episode 1
Orange Box Episode 2
Orange Box Portal (which is absolutely awsome)
Orange Box TF (multiplayer)
Halo 3
Forza 2
PGR 4
RainBow Six Vegas Night
Coming soon:
Call of Duty 4
Army of two
Mass Effect
With all of these games I am very busy and I don't have time to play the old games nor do I want to.
Lol, fanboy comments detected!.
Xbox360 was launched almost 2 years before ps3, so be a bit fair.
Magallanes, you have to be the biggest retard ever. The 360 came out Nov. 2005 and PS3 Nov. 2006.
2006-2005=1 (and not two)
@timatl
You are a fanboi. A year is still a long time. There were hardly any titles to brag about during year 1 of the X360. We are starting to see a wave of titles for the PS3. Frankly, I have both consoles and think the PS3 is superior in every way except the most important *at the moment* games. Im on X360 #4 (and this one is also broke as it wont read dvd's, gives me a region error) Thank god MS has had the warranty program otherwise I would be out alot of Payola. Multiplatform games currently look better on X360 simply because they were made for that console. However, with every PS3 having a built in HD it doesnt limit developers like Rockstar from utilizing that feature so users can quickly access content along different sections of a map. X360 cant use this feature because they chose to sell consoles without HD's. I wont argue that the titles are much better at the moment for the 360. But, I would say that by this time next year that will be a memory. Folklore,Lair and Heavenly Sword are all exclusive ir 1st party titles that are fantastic games. All are recent releases. Just b/c the 360 had a years long advantage doesnt mean its a better console. Look at the comparison of features. Its not even close.
Why are so intent on defending Sony's poor decisions?
Can you defend their reasoning for not including rumble and now deciding to add it in?
You don't need to tell us that Sony is right. We are not robots. It sounds like the majority of the people posting, and other people writing blogs, feel that Sony is again backing up on their claims that BC is a core business philosophy and that all Playstations will always be able to play consumers library of Playstation games. You can provide all the quotes and interviews you want, most of us still don't like this. I want to get rid of my PS2, not keep it when I upgrade.
Do you keep your old TV under you new TV when you upgrade? No, you get rid of it.
Do you still have a portable CD player to play your CD music collection? No, you get rid of it when you rip them all to your computer and put them on your mp3 player.
So why would I want to have an 8 year-old tech sitting under my 1080p LCD tv?
/slow clap
That is all.
I keep on trying to reply to Eric's reposting of the article and stupid defense of SOny, but his comment keeps getting deleted.
Actually, isn't that Sony's stance with DVDs and Blu-Ray players, too? "Buy a DVD player."
And isn't that Sony's stance with UMD? "Buy the UMD *in addition to* the DVD of your favorite movie."
In fact, isn't this ALWAYS Sony's stance on technology? "We're making a new proprietary format, and we're ditching our old format, but if you still want to use that old media you'll have to buy our older products which we've conveniently redesigned to be ultra-cheap to build, yet didn't drop the price, thus maximizing our profits on that hardware."
This is par for the course with Sony, and it's why I don't own any Sony products anymore. At least every generation of iPod supports the older formats (MP3 is ancient by tech standards, but it still supports it). At least the XBox 360 puts an effort toward backward compatibility (the list is pretty long now). Even Nintendo supports GameCube games right out of the box.
Sony? Nope. Usual Sony attitude. "You love us SO much that you're going to buy a different piece of hardware to handle each of our forms of media."
Bite me, Sony.
ZeroCorpse needs a reality check. Here's how to understand what's going on.
Old Sony Strategy:
-Anyone who buys a PS3 is paying for backwards compatibility whether they need it or not
New Sony Strategy
1) Anyone who needs backwards compatibility will be able to get it
2) Anyone who doesnt can save $100
Sony actually loses more money by giving you the cheaper option. What's there to complain about? I do not need backwards compatibility so I'll be getting the cheap one and putting the money towards the online subscription ... oh wait ... PS3 online is free! Maybe I'll put it towards a huge hard-drive!
I have no shares in Sony or special affection for any corporate giant, but people have forgotten who Microsoft really is and how dirty they play. It's remarkable how well Microsoft has used guerilla marketing to turn it's image around. If only you folks knew how many bloggers and forum users (and some forum owners) are really extensions of marketing companies.
Sony Blu-ray players (including the PS3) and all other Blu-ray players are backwards compatible with DVD. And according to several reviews, the PS3 does the best DVD upscaling too.
Quit your trolling, ZeroCorpse.
I think it's fantastic that Sony can't figure out how to do what some random gamer nerds can do.
Granted, it ain't anywhere close to perfect emulation yet, but there are a LOT of games that are playable.
OK, so no links in the comments...
http://www.pcsx2.net
Sorry about that, I keep on trying to reply to Eric's reposting of the article and stupid defense of SOny, but his comment keeps getting deleted. I guess this one got moved under you, Kid. SOrry about that.
It's kind of frustrating how many people don't actually understand PS3 backward compatibility. The 80gig PS3 was NOT actually a full software solution for BC. It only emulated the EE chip in software, while it still had a GS chip in hardware. Even big "news" blogs like Engadget keep making this mistake!
It's also silly how many places are saying that the 40gig PS3 won't have PS1 BC. The PS1 BC is 100% software, and should still work fine in the 40gig model. They're even selling these games to be played on the PS3 in the PSN Store, I doubt they would release a PS3 that would be incompatible with something specifically marketed for the PS3. That's something the "Remove BluRay from PS3" coalition also fails to understand. Anything marked as being FOR PS3 by Sony, must continue working with the PS3 even if it is redesigned. Anything that would break this compatibility, including removal of Bluray, PS1 compatibility, the Cell chip, etc is off limits.
So, it's an abomination that Sony cut backwards compatibility from the cheapest PS3, yet the fact that the Xbox 360 came out with crippled backwards compatibility is okay? (really, crippled: big games like Splinter Cell didn't work initially) Also, the recently released "Xbox 360 Arcade" features no Xbox compatibility.
Did everyone complain this much about having to keep an NES around when the SNES came out, or keeping their SNES when the N64 and Playstation were around? No, Sony set the precident of backwards compatibility with the PS1-PS2 transition.
For full disclosure, I'm in the camp where I own a PS2 (a launch unit, by the way, that has never failed), and will likely get a PS3 because I like Sony's franchises better than Microsoft's, and am excited about the original content they have lined up.
Hi John, you are certainly right about the fact that the Wii is a console targeted for a different audience, I don't think it is aimed to be a console for young ones, in my opinion it is targeted to whole families... Certainly the PS3 will have some good games in the months to come but I don't think that everyone has 600$ to spend in a console and comparing the PS3 to the xbox 360, in terms of graphics it looks exactly the same and the xbox 360 has much more games. By the way I owe a 360. Now if we start to speak about games the wii also has and will have more games to come for a more mature audience such as manhunt 2, bully, metroid 3, resident evil 4, and zelda... While the xbox 360 has Halo 3, GTA IV (coming) and a huge variety of other games. Now, we are actually speaking about the businss strategy, they have two consoles against them, one which is the cheapest and most revolutionary one (The Wii) and the other which is also cheaper, in terms of graphics looks almost the same and has a much larger amount of games (Xbox 360). I respect your opinion but I don't share it...
or rip a dvd and put in on your psp's memory card...thats what I do
Joystiq and Patel need to do some research before spreading what amounts to FUD. BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY with Playstation 2 games REQUIRES SPECIALIZED HARDWARE to exist within the PS3!