Sony: PlayStation 2 compatibility 'is not coming back' to PS3
By Ross Miller 
posted August 20th 2009 9:49PM
posted August 20th 2009 9:49PM
[Via Joystiq]
posted August 20th 2009 9:49PM
powered by gdgt
Sony PlayStation 3
Sony PlayStation 3 Slim
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.
Actually, I don't care too much. If I bought a PS3, I'd buy it for the PS3 games (and Blu Ray and internet media).
Really, I'm intrigued. I love the lower price and the lower power consumption. I'm tempted to buy one now, though I'm still a little on the fence.
The reason why PS3 is not PS2 compatible is because Sony wants to keep selling PS2s. It's as simple as that. You lot just have to deal with it.
Sony proved the could do PS2 BC with the 1st release of the PS3. Then they realised they can still make alot of money from the PS2. And a bit more proffit on the PS3 by excluding the emoticon chips or whatever is needed. As usual the customer suffers.
So on principle I slim won't buy PS3, fat camped or not. Or any Sony product after the way the PS3 was launched/priced etc.
Sony are just a bunch of assholes, with every SKU they remove some feature: Look at the original 60GB:
- mediaslots
- SACD
- full BC through hardware
- OtherOS
- 4 USB slots
and now the current Slim version is missing everything, so the current PS3 isn't the PS3 anymore that was promised... that never has happened in the past with the PS1 and PS2..
So it's just waiting for the next SKU to see what will be removed...
No PS2 BC anytime? then what about the PS2 store that is rumored and the God of War 1 and 2 released on BD near the end of the year (according to rumors).. the only way that is deemed interesting is when the PS3 will get BC through software back, otherwise the ammount of PS3's that have BC is waay to small compared to the group that doesn't have BC...
How about a PSP emulator too, that shouldn't be too hard for the PS3.....
The features they removed are irrelevant to playing PS3 games. If anything, not having some of those features such as other OS, will encourage more people to buy it to play PS3 then buy it for some super computer calculation BS. Everyone complained about PS3's price and wanted a cheaper PS3, now you have it. They are taking irrelevant features away to save them money while still keeping the core features. I think the exchange for a cheaper price is well worth it. They could of released the slim with everything it doesn't have now but it would be $400.
To be fair, the PS2 also removed a few features over the years, like the Firewire port (used for some early system-link games) and the HDD compatibility. Granted, those aren't huge features, but neither were SACD playback or the multicard reader on the PS3. Also, it's worth mentioning that PS2 also added features along the way, like Progressive Scan DVD playback, built in IR window, and an ethernet port, so it's not like they were just straight up removing features like they have been with the PS3.
Apart from backwards compatibility, all of those features are entirely expendable. Let's not forget its a game console first and so removing features not essential to the core operation to make it cheaper for the consumer is totally valid in my eyes.
'Core operation' does not include PS2 gaming.
Consider that it might cost an extra $50 for the stuff to make PS2 games work (just a guess) and Sony have done market research into how many people would use it. What if under half of PS3 owners said they didn't give a toss about playing PS2 games on their PS3 and would rather just play on their PS2 if they really wanted to play. Would you increase the price of your console by ~17% just for this feature?
What incentive to buy a PSP do you have if Sony offers a PSP emulator? That's a terrible idea.
best ps3 deals online: http://dealbit.com/b/VideoGames/14210751/PlayStation-3
ps2 compatibility would not be coming as long as the ps2 is dead. or as long as they need to boost their ps3 sale sale again if microsoft cause any troubles
I wish they would beef up the PSOne compatibility on the PS3. I bought a 60gb system the day after they were discontinued so that I could get complete Backward Compatibility in one system, but I find it extremely disappointing that the PS2 was so much better at playing PSOne games than the PS3 is.
For those who don't know, the PS2 had the option to smooth out textures on PSOne games to make them look a little more modern and less blocky, but the PS3 removed that feature. If you look in the options it has an option to enable a smoothing effect, but it doesn't do anything to the texture rendering, it just throws a post-processing filter on the fully rendered frame to smooth out some pixels on higher resolution monitors. It's not even remotely close to being the same feature.
But again, why not just keep the older system alongside the new one rather than worry about backward compatibility? SInce I already have, and plan to keep, a PS2, I'd rather pay less for a PS3 that didn't cram in extra hardware (or bloated software) for BC. Someone living in a tiny dorm room, or who moves a lot, might disagree, but I don't think that having multiple boxes is a big deal.
I also don't think that the (many) folks) who want do-it-all boxes (game machines, cellphones, sound systems, HDTVs, whatever) have thought carefully enough about the compromises involved. It's this trend towards cramming together and dumbing-down our gadgets that *I* find extremely disappointing. Advancing technology should *improve* quality, not force us to reduce our standards.
@ZhuZhu: and what if your PS1 and PS2 dies? what if you don't want to spend wasting your time on the cablemess of having 2 extra consoles connected (which you propably even can't without an extra expansionbox as your tv only has so many connectors)..
To all the folks claiming that Sony is stupid for not including in the PS3 backwards compatibility with PS2 games:
If it didn't involve compromises (price, speed, whatever), don't you think they'd simply include it and avoid the criticism? They are wise to realize that a lot *more* people would complain if they had to keep the price higher (remember, they're losing money on the consoles as it is) to include the BC hardware. That would not be a good competitive strategy.
Kiddie commentators (and some others who should know better) don't seem to understand that their wanting something doesn't necessarily make it practical. They cling to the sci-fi fantasy that technology can accomplish all things, and that 99¢ (or free!) is a fair price for whatever they want. I'd like my smartphone to include an SLR camera with a 200mm zoom lens, cost $100, and still fit in my pocket. But it isn't going to happen, and for good reasons.
No big loss - PS2 games look crappy on big screen TV's anyway.
Good to see that the PS3 is the only console to be losing features this generation. Keep up the good work, 3rd place!
Sony: "Common sense and smart business not coming back to Playstation"
Also, if people are buying it for PS3 games and blue-ray then why is it PS1 BC?
Because PS1 games require very little horsepower, and purely-software emulation is trivial. Not so with PS2 titles, which strain the PS3.
That is, strain the PS3's advanced, but incompatible, hardware.
... what would be really, REALLY neat is if one could prove ownership of a ps2 or ps1 game by putting the disk in the drive, then, one could download that title from the network and play!!! hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
The thing is, it IS free to Sony. They have already developed the software to emmulate PS2 BC on their 80 GB units. The hard work is done, they are simply not putting it in their new PS3 because they seam to think they are poaching their own sales by including it in the PS3. This may be true but it is one feature that is keeping me from buying a PS3. I already have a slim PS2, I don't want to have 5 consoles next to my TV.
Sure I may be in the minority but it's a feature that I want and that is important to me, if my money/needs aren't strong enough for Sony to add it back then so be it.
This is precisely why Sony didn't get my money when I bought my PS3. I didn't want to pay $599 for a launch console, so when the prices dropped, I bought one of the 60GB full backwards compatible models from GameStop (not that they're any less evil...) Game I'm playing right now? Half Life 1, a PS2 title. I've bought and played several PS3 titles, but there's still a bevy of backcatalogue to go through.
Dear Loyal Customers
Please buy the PS2 slim if you desire PS2 games.
You don't want PS2 games on the PS3. The PS3 is its own man, now with less youthful shine and more matte (stubble). This means manhood is upon us. PS2 games being a selling point to those buying the PS3 in this late stage of the game is debatable; nobody expects it now, why should we cut into our margins to submit to the public's non-wishes? She was a fine console in her day, and she still delivers. But let's move on. We cut the price so Joe Customer would get the message and finally snag some PS3 Slims.
Don't make us cry.
Regards,
Sir Howard Stringer
Sony Corporation CEO and avid PS3 gamer. Man, this Bravia (TM) is great.
I must go now. I won't forget to take my Walkman (TM) and Handycam (TM) with me.
Like so:
http://LifeInAGunShell.com/temp/PS3slim.PNG
They want to sell you the digital copies for $5-$10. You'll see all the PS2 title on the store once the PS2 hardware is no-loger supported
It's a new revenue stream with virtually no overhead. Plus you can't resell digital copies.
No that's not true, the 80GB SKU you are mentioning (as the EU 60GB version) still have 1 PS2 chip, compared to the original 60GB version which had 2, whereas the second chip is being emulated by the PS3.. The 40GB and the EU 80GB didn't have any PS2 chips anymore and sony appearantly can't (or are to lame) find a developer who can also get the second chip emulated... If they would have allowed full access to the RSX from Linux then some other developers would have already done it, but damn, even they ripped the Linux part out of the PS3 slim..... Sony just sux.... (I own the EU 80GB PS3)..
But look at that from different prospective: they sell you both PS3 *and* PS2....
Sony never really cared about consumers. They do good stuff, but consumers are just afterthought.
Especially now when they are in damage control mode, trying to bring their entertainment unit back from red numbers.
I used to care about this... then I discovered PCSX2
What specs your PC has?
Does it come with anything in single package? Or like some emulators "bring your own BIOS"/whatever??
Thats why I bought my original 60GB PS3 with the emulator chip in it, I have the original which IMO is the best PS3 of all
To me, I don't give a damn about backward compatibility issues for PS3. I wouldn't want to pay extra to Sony for develop PS2 backward compatible on PS3. If I want play PS2 games, I'll use the PS2! PS2 is dirt cheap and it is not EOL yet for God's sake!
Sony dropping $100 by removing backward compatible, hey, I am more than happy with that. Why pay extra $100 while I am sure (most of) you all already have a PS2 at home (collecting dust)? You are paying for something you are unlikely to use.
Let's assume you don't have a PS2 console, and If you want to play PS2 games, the best solution is buy a SP2 system! After all, PS2 costs $100 only. PS3Slim + PS2 = $299 + $100, it still comes back to the previous PS3 price and yet you get two PS2 and PS3 systems! It is a much better deal if you ask me.
there should be new games on ps2