PS3 SKUs compared, no PS2 backwards compatibility found
By Joshua Fruhlinger 
posted August 26th 2008 9:32AM
posted August 26th 2008 9:32AM
posted August 26th 2008 9:32AM
Sony PlayStation 2 1st-gen
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Sony has always released a slimmer version of every PS model. Typically it happens 3-4 years into the run of the system. So that rumor is probably pretty spot on, however due to the chips and the cooling within the system -- it's most likely not going to be happening for at least another year. Also, the amount of money they'd lose (on top of their current loss) to retool the machine line and crank out a new body style would discourage a release right now.
If you're waiting on a slimmer version, it'll be awhile. I'd project end of 2009 or 2010.
Sony are actually currently looking at including BC for PS2 games via emulation on a game by game basis. This would be included as part of firmware updates.
Can't say i'm fussed at all though. PS3 remains to be the best electrical product I have ever bought and the games and media functionality just keep getting better and better.
i don't understand all the conspiracy theory stuff....
the back-compat ps3 had one of the ps2 chips in it didn't it?
they took it out to save money.
the ps2 is notoriously difficult to software emulate right? like even high-end pcs have problems?
it clearly caused them more bother than worth having a ps3 that ran ps2 games with wildly varied success. imagine the support calls.
Dude, geocities? Really?
Did you switch over to that after they shut down your angelfire one?
You have PS2 if you have PS2 games, it's not the end of the world...
Not necessarily. I have PS2 games but my PS2 blew up. I also don't want to keep my ps2, xbox, gamecube etc all sitting under my telly along side my new consoles. It may not be a big problem for fanboys (who only have one make of console to play around with) but for gamers it can be rather annoying. I have not jumped in bed with the PS3 yet but when I do I would love to be able to play my ps2 games on it without having to buy another PS2 (or if it had not blown up get it out of storage). It is not a deal breaker but I really wish the PS3 had BC.
Every time they put out a new SKU I feel a little bit smarter for going with the 60GB version.
The MGS4 bundle is not on there. And both of those came with ethernet cables, I know for sure the Motorstorm one did.
And I would rather they bundle a headset before a HDMI cable.
That is because they are exactly as you say, Bundles........
An SKU is a hardware model a bundle is a marketing strategy which contains a hardware model.
It was mentioned by a couple people above that Sony probably axed features in order to streamline the production process and turn out more affordable models. The problem I have with that theory is the fact that it's been around 2 years since launch, in that time frame, their suppliers and manufacturing facilities should have naturally streamlined. For Sony to be revising their product in order to make it *inferior* to their previous efforts is truly stupid and insulting.
When the PS3 was launched, it was pretty much an affordable Blu-ray drive, being between $300-400 dollars cheaper than the then $1000 dedicated players. Unfortunately, the PS3 has now lost that edge thanks to the drop in price of Blu-ray players to ~$300 as of this writing. Also, at that time the format wars were in full swing, and most customers were cautious about ponying up to one format or another.
Another point brought up: people already have a PS2 they can play their PS2 games on. I agree, there's nothing wrong with that for many people, but for people like me who already have several systems hooked up such as Dreamcast, SNES, Sega CD, and then the Wii and X360, if I can possibly concatenate one or two machines to save space and spaghetti, I will. With the PS2 I was able to put the PS1 away, and with the PS3 (with the original models) I would have been able to put the PS2 *and* the PS1 away, if I could have gotten over the $500-600 dollar price point. As a business model, the killing off of BC doesn't make sense either; your competitors are embracing BC, they actually work to make it better by releasing software patches, updates, and graphical improvements. Why in the world, especially when Sony is behind in the race, are they going to offer *less* features than their competitors? In comparison to 360 and Wii, their current software lineup is barely adequate, so why would they nix one of their greatest strengths by killing off an out of the box software library of 5000+ games? Games that helped them originally become top dog for two generations straight.
I'm not a Sony fanboy, or a Microsoft or Nintendo one either...I play the system with the best games and I have had (and still have) a ton of systems from different manufacturers throughout the years. I just get bewildered at the choices some companies make, since they are clearly not in the interest of either the company or the consumer. Here's hoping in the *next* iteration of the PS3 (please don't get me started on the habit of redesigning and re-releasing systems for its own sake) they will bring the PS3 back to a fully functioning system, with all the stuff they've cut out in the two years since launch.
Oh and games would be nice too.
take out the controller and HDD, and then throw in a bluetooth media remote:
Sony could sell it as a blue-ray player that can be upgraded to a game console.
Wouldn't this cost sony more money, because the 80GB MGS4 bundle had software emulation so the BC was built into the PS3 OS, right?
So wouldn't this console without software emulation have cost more money because sony would have to re-code the OS so it didn't include BC?
My point is that they shouldn't have stopped BC, and they were stupid to lose the software emulation because they had to pay more to develop a different OS (right?) So they should offer 3 consoles:
A cheap 80GB - no BC.
A mid range 80GB - software emulation
A high end 80GB - emulation chip
No, the PS3's that have PS2 BC have hardware to support it. The new ones lack the hardware, so they have no PS2 BC.
No, he's right. There was a PS3 model with software BC. They removed it because they're idiots, and they refuse to put it back or make any other compromises. That's Sony's business model, and the fact that it keeps working for them is astounding.
How is this current model:
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665371946
NOT backward compatible? What am I missing?
Please excuse my oversight. They are currently OOS.
I understand why they took the BC out. It costs money (raises the price vs. 360) and they think no one uses it. I can totally understand that.
The solution is to make you pay for BC separately, then only the people who use will have to pay for it. They think just selling you a PS2 is a good answer for this.
But here's the problem. It's not as good. If I use my PS2, I need to hook up a lot more cables (component+optical), whereas my PS3 is already hooked up with HDMI. To top that off, I'm out of component inputs on my system. Additionally, if I use my PS2, I have to drag out some PS2 memory cards and fiddle with them. On my PS3, it's all on the hard drive. Finally, if I play on my PS2, I have to use a corded controller, whereas on my PS3, it's wireless.
Sony, if you want to say a PS2 slim is your BC answer, make a PS2 slim with HDMI out and uses PS3 wireless controllers. Ideally, make it take USB memory keys instead of PS2 memory cards or just stores the save games internally.
what's the big deal with backwards compatibility?
obviously you still own a ps2 if you are concerned about this.
man my 20GB one just crapped out, its out of warranty and I didn't get an extended one for some reason
has anyone gotten one repaired by Sony? around how much was it?
was thinking of getting a new one but I did play PS2 games often on it (shadow of the colossus never gets old to me haha)
I disagree, BC should be for those who actually paid the $500-700 pricetag of those models. Everyone else can piss off.
Morne
well that's just you trying to be elitist.
why restrict someone of something because they got the same product for cheaper? it's a mix of jealously and the look what i have complex...
if sony was smart, they create some sort of ps2 adapter for the non BC ps3s.
something that could plug into either the expansion port or one of the usb ports, that had the emotion engine in it and would allow people to play their ps2 games.
think about it, at 50-60 bucks, people would pay it... and they could keep their costs down on console production, and make the money on the BC as well. AND it would drive more sales, because it seems like a resounding reason people are looking for old 60gbs is for the emotion engine. buying a used system DOES NOT help sony.
and though i haven't used the BC (60gb launch) much on my ps3. i can see where people would want it, if i got a wii i'd want to play a lot of gamecube games, and because i'm a 16-bit generation degenerate, i love SNES and Genny games. which i play a lot more than newer games... i usually look to see which system will emulate those the best before i sign up. but still, the effect of playing with an original controller, CAN'T be beat. playing Street Fighter with an SNES pad (i know, it's really an arcade jump-off) is about as close to game heaven i can get....Madden 09 on the 360 comes awfully close lol.
I think most of you forget that the PS3 had an image upscale and shapening for the older titles (PSX PS2) which really did make the games look better on a Hi-Def TV. Not great mind you, but much better.
haha, yea it does make it better. just like the ps2 had the graphic smoothing option for original ps1 games
but it's marginal, the only thing i can see is if your using an LCD you really need it, a plasma handles SD content much better than the LCD.
play it on an lcd, and you start getting blocking and the colors leave the polygons and it's just a big hot mess
People really do seem to forget that, as well as the huge hoopla about botched algorithm for upscaling that took them several months to fix. I just finished playing Persona 3 (120 hours, how's that for not needing BC?) and before I started I compared PS2 to PS3 and decided to play it on PS3 due to better image quality, despite PS2 being quieter and much less power hungry.
Wait so every ps3 plays ps1 games? That makes things a LITTLE better for those of us who couldn't get an 80gig.
In a sense having BC doesn't help PS3 Game sales , because some cheapo's will have a PS3 with BC and see the PS3 Version of a game for £50 and the PS2 version for £25 , and they may end up buying the cheaper version ?
I agree with everyone elses coments. If you have a PS2 library, theres a good chance your PS2 may still be working. Yes BC helps cut down the mess of wires and saves a bit of power at the same time, but if BC is a BIG issue and you don't have a working PS2.... Go buy one (that's what Sony want's you to do), the PS3's are comming down in price and the PS2 Library alone is worth the price of a new Slim. So far this Gen, the Wii is the only winner in the BC war with 100% of Gamegube games working....Right? It's all a Marketing thing, why else would the PS2 still be selling 10K plus units a month..... Smart Marketing,
exactly.
that's probably the biggest factor apart from cost for sony....
who doesn't want to push a few extra years out of their console?
if i remember PSOne games were coming out till about 2004-5 which would fall in with sony's "10 year plan" for any video game system. (update: wikipedia, fifa 2005 was the last game.)
if sony can still sell off the rest of their stock and sell a new console at the same time, well let's just say they aren't idiots.
sony SHOULD sell an add-on for the ps3, or a way to link your ps2 to your ps3 so that you can get the emotion engine. the emotion engine isn't an expensive chip anymore, it wouldn't cost too much and an add-on would sell like hot cakes.
sony has the advantage that all of their systems have been using the same exact controller (almost) since day one, and people would actually like to play old games on their new system because of the nostalgia factor due to the controller.
people recognize things based on the five senses, the most prominent is touch. when u hold something that reminds you of a nintendo controller, you remember back to the time when u were a kid and u had nes, it makes u happier and want to play that game more. sony doesn't even have to try, the controller design is the same all they have to do is make more money.... and i can safely say, no company is opposed to that.
"people recognize things based on the five senses..."
NO FUCKIN' WAI!!! For serious?!?!?!? And all this time I've been using telepathy like an idiot!
"...the most prominent is touch."
Actually, wrong. Scientific studies have proven the most prominent sense out of the five, and the one we associate most strongly through memory is smell. Taste is second (it's tied in with smell), then sight, then hearing, then touch.
Humans are never satisfied. >.>
Why are people still pretending that the PS3 is not a bargain at it's current price point? Please remember that this device includes 802.11 b/g, free online gameplay, and standard rechargeable wireless controllers. Last I checked, 360 required an additional $150 investment to add those basics. I have both, but the PS3 is hands down the better bargain at $400.
Because people like having a good library of games.
Want to play PS2 games ?
Go buy a PS2.
It's only $129 ffs.
It can play ALL PS2 Games, and it can be modded if you don't want to pay for the games which is bad.
Plus a memory card (PS3 doesn't use them for PS2 games, but PS2 does). Plus a wireless controller.
I'd rather play my PS2 games on my PS3, because of the above factors. I have a 60GB PS3 and I've been playing Black this week.
Or, you know, I could not spend $130 and have free software BC that they already have the code sitting around for.
I wont buy one if its not backwards compatible, unless I can do some serious mods to the system. Backwards compatibility is a must for me.
Heh, my copies of DMC, DMC2 and DMC3 just came in yesterday. Thank god the software emulation in my 80GB supports those games :)
i agonized for, literally, 2 months as far as whether b/c was really important enough to warrant the $100 price premium between the MGS bundle and the 'vanilla' ps3. then, when the new 80gb with the dualshock controller came out, i still was on the fence. i never owned a ps2, but the catalog of 'kid-friendly' games for ps2 FAR, FAR exceeds that of the ps3, and i have a 4yr old daughter who loves gaming with her old man, so the idea of b/c was compelling to me. in the end, i took the less expensive route, and used that price difference to justify a 2nd dualshock controller, the blu-ray remote, and a blu-ray movie.
granted, i am a VERY new owner of this system, but wow, i think this is the first piece of gear i've ever bought that i felt ZERO buyer's remorse over.
for $399, i got:
- arguably the best blu-ray and upconverting dvd player on the market
- a media extender that allows me to stream movies and music from PCs on my home network (in hi-def, dolby digital, hdmi-goodness)
- a REALLY good game system that shows signs of (finally) blossoming over the next year or so, AND offers/encourages user-upgradeable storage (that alone caused me to stop seriously considering the xbox 360 for myself and my family. screw proprietary hardware.)
- online access to game demos, SD and HD movies, and TV shows
i very quickly forgot about ever caring about b/c. the ps3, as is, rocks. it's great that the 'old' ones had an extra bell and whistle (the additional usb ports and card reader were nice, but you can get the nyko extender CHEAP and achieve that for your 'gimped' ps3). it's great that a lot of people got in early and get to enjoy b/c with ps2 titles, but honestly, i don't think i will ever look back or care in the least.
in ONE piece of gear, i have the equivalent of 3 or 4 set-top boxes, at a fraction of the price. i will never, ever complain about not having b/c. maybe i'm the rare 'satisfied customer' or something, but i'm thrilled with what i got, and i'm thrilled with what it does.
How come they are so sure the 160GB will have a 65nm CELL and not a 45nm CELL, as in februari Intel told us they would start switching to 45nm soon and the PS3 would be the first to benefit from it.. maybe the new 80GB version is already 45nm (although I doubt it as they claimed the 45nm would consume 40% less as the 65nm version)...
Also people who bitch that others don't need BC should shut up.. Because YOU don't think it is necessary, doesn't mean there are a lot of other people who do think it is necessary.. And let's not forget, Sony promised this would be available when they where promoting the PS3 before release, also in europe there hasn't been a BC version out since oktober last year when the 40GB was introduced, so we didn't have the option to buy a 80GB with BC..
Also people don't like having an extra console under their tv if they don't have to, and let's not forget, what will happen if you have a PS2 but it dies on you, well why buy a new one if Sony promised you could do it with the PS3 too.. (and let's not forget a lot of games look better on the PS3 as they did on the PS2..)
Try to be more openminded for people who do want BC.. and let's not forget, a lot of PS2 games are waaaay cheaper as a PS3 game, and also old games are still a lot of fun..
60GB FTW!! Still, I wouldn't mind a quieter, cooler processor, especially for BD playback.
I have a PS2 and plenty of games that I still play. I don't want a PS3 *and* a PS2 sitting under my TV. I don't want to have to buy my PS2 games again in some code morphed format. The only thing stopping me from buying a PS3 was the price, now is is the lack of backwards compatibility. It is a deal breaker for me.
Sony has a nice catalogue of PS3 games, but the increasing lack of exclusivity means I just have to wait a little until it is released on another platform. Cheaper Blu Ray players are also removing another advantage of having a PS3.
BC is not cheap, and even 'software' emulation on the PS3 required a special graphics chip. However, letting accountants drive a design process is not a good idea. Stripping features (no matter how useless they may seem to them) to make manufactuirung cheaper and raise profit margins is not going to sell more consoles. Posts here and elsewhere show that plenty of people do think that BC is important. Removing BC from the PS3 is not a good idea (no matter how trivial it may seem to them), especially when Sony is still fighting MS and Nintendo for uptake (and both MS's and Nintendo's current generation of consoles feature BC).
I may be firmer on my stance on BC than others, but if I had the option I would happily pay more for BC (either with a more expensive model with BC, or some kind of expansion card for BC). Unfortunately Sony seem to have been very decisive on this, so the only thing for me to do is vote with my wallet and look elsewhere.
A Table with details of all PS3 on http://www.ilogan.info
I'm getting a PS3 soon (primarily as a Blu-Ray player and living room web browser, but I'm also selling my 360 and switching to the PS3 for my now-sporadic gaming hobby). While I'd like BC, I don't care all that much. I've played a lot of PS2 games, and I can't think of any that I'm dying to re-play, or get around to playing this late in the PS3's life. If it's not next-gen and HD, I won't bother. It's time to move on.
That being said, I think for $399 I should get the following in the box:
* PS3 with Wifi, 2 USB ports, Ethernet port, etc.
* Component and HDMI cables (they're less than $1 to manufacture, for gosh sakes!)
* Blu-Ray remote (if they're selling this based on the Blu-Ray player, they should include a cheap remote)
* A Blu-Ray movie (any movie will do. Just to give people the incentive to buy more Blu-Ray titles after seeing how nice that one looks.)
* DualShock controller (no Sixaxis!)
For $400 I want to be able to get it home and try out the Blu-Ray player immediately, as do many people. They advertise it as the least expensive, best Blu-Ray player out there, but it's also the ONLY Blu-Ray player that doesn't come with a decent "clicker" remote control, and non-gamer types won't like the DualShock for controlling movie features. They should also include the HDMI cable (do they now?) because they're CHEAP to manufacture, and it's rude as hell to sell the PS3 based on its superior HD abilities and then require people to grab the necessary cable as an accessory (which Best Buy sells at a 500% mark-up, BTW).
And a free movie is just an obvious thing. Even MS was smart enough to put one in the HD-DVD Player box, so that people would try it out and see how nice it looks.
When you're getting into the $400+ category for hardware, a few $1 (cost) accessories won't hurt your bottom line so much. I'd rather see these things in the box than BC. They'd be better off giving us cables and a free Sony Pictures movie, and then charging a small fee for the software that enables BC, for those who *really* want it.
Backwards compatibility is a huge deal for me and I love playing PS2 games on my PS3. I am glad I got one early. I wish they would add remote play support to PS2 games also, I play my PS1 games through it now, but wish I could play FFX and FFXII through the PSP like I do FF8. Killing the PS2 support probably killed any chance of that happening. I would gladly pay an extra $100 for one device to play all those. They should at least keep one SKU active that can and if it doesn't mean anything to you, buy the cheap one.
ps2 was a pain in the ass to program multi pass gpu when a 1 pass gpu is eazy.