PS3: Stepping backwards?

Cygnus · 10-14-2007, 02:21 PM

The heading for this is hilarious. So now sony sez PS2 backwards compat. is a "luxury feature". Heh, gotta luv the spin doctors

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=29509
“Sony now considers backwards compatibility to be a luxury feature - something consumers should be willing to pay additional money for”

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.

Ntruder · 10-14-2007, 03:11 PM

Type A · 10-14-2007, 03:14 PM

M$ did it right...dont alienate your fan base, just stop making games. Still wanna play last gen...Get a $50 ps2 last gen console and STFU. Oh, BTW, I have a Halo Xbox console, dual wireless, hd connect, and 20 games goin' cheap...anyone interested? Currently gathering dust in my closet, almost brand new, hell, Ill never play them again. This thread is another waste of time....not unlike most of Cygnus's threads.

ragemaster68 · 10-14-2007, 03:16 PM

Is George W. running Sony these days?

Ntruder · 10-14-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Type A

M$ did it right...dont alienate your fan base, just stop making games.

True, but in MS's case, they only had like 5% of the number of consoles on the market as the PS2, so it was more important for MS to establish themselves in the next generation than to hang on getting future customers out of their Xbox 180 owners. This is what Sony is counting on, but its hurting them bad in the meantime.

junehhan · 10-14-2007, 04:57 PM

Wow, BC is now a luxury feature? IMHO, BC is a much bigger deal on the PS3 simply because of the insanely larger number of games available for the PS2. What I don't understand is that BC was established via software emulation. If this is the case, this is a feature that DOES NOT FRICKIN cost more as it is a feature that had a simple initial cost of developing it. It's not like they are packaging any extra chips like they did with the initial PS3's with hardware emulation of the PS2 games.

BMVickery · 10-14-2007, 08:10 PM

Again, Sony screws up. I am not a M$ fanboy or Sony, just want the product that will give me the best deal for the money and it appears Sony is kissing that part good bye.

phearcat · 10-14-2007, 09:57 PM

Sony thinks Blu Ray is a luxury feature that you should pay extra for as well.

Cygnus · 10-15-2007, 01:14 AM

I wondered the same thing. Supposedly the PS3 uses components of PS2's Emotion Engine to run PS2 games. However PS3 does run PS1 games via software emulation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by junehhan

What I don't understand is that BC was established via software emulation. If this is the case, this is a feature that DOES NOT FRICKIN cost more as it is a feature that had a simple initial cost of developing it.

BiggNewt · 10-15-2007, 01:19 AM

Who in the world doesn't have a PS2? Trade-In values for them are next to nothing, this is not that big of a deal.

Cygnus · 10-15-2007, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Type A

M$ did it right...dont alienate your fan base, just stop making games.

I vehemently disagreed with M$ just dumping XB like that. XB owners had a right to be angry at M$. I know I would have if I owned one. They claim they won't do that again with 360...only time will tell of course...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Type A

This thread is another waste of time....not unlike most of Cygnus's threads.

My bad. Its just kinda fun to see guys like BLOW, steve, etc squirm with these posts.

360kid · 10-15-2007, 05:30 AM

I thought dropping the Xbox was a brilliant move. It made sure that those who invested in the 360 would be getting all the new games. It would have killed be to buy a 360 but still have to buy original xbox games if I wanted the new game. Dropping the Xbox helped out 360 users alot and it helped sell more 360 consoles faster.

Plus... For those who did hang on to the xbox a bit longer, MS still put out games until the end of that fiscal year. Also, original xbox games became extremely cheap to buy. So people who hung on could go get all those games they passed over really cheap.

But with every situation, not everyone was happy with the decision. I know I was as was happy and so was a lot of other early 360 buyers.

Steve44 · 10-15-2007, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cygnus

I vehemently disagreed with M$ just dumping XB like that. XB owners had a right to be angry at M$. I know I would have if I owned one. They claim they won't do that again with 360...only time will tell of course...

My bad. Its just kinda fun to see guys like BLOW, steve, etc squirm with these posts.

...um...but I haven't with this post because we all know how unimportant this post is. That's why I didn't go there before until you brought my name into it just now.

Ntruder · 10-15-2007, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phearcat

Sony thinks Blu Ray is a luxury feature that you should pay extra for as well.

Sony thinks SONY is a luxury feature that you should pay extra for.

Noct · 10-15-2007, 10:57 AM

Well, I havent bought a Ps3 yet, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but the main reason I want BC for x360 titles is so I can play them in HD. (and sys link them). Much like with Wii, which finally allowed me to display my GC games in Prog scan since I could never get ahold of that darned cable...

Doesn't Ps3 offer a similar situation in that you can take these games that on your ps2 were limited to 480p, and display them in true HD?

Whether or not you still have the ability to play them on your old ps2 is irrelevant. I know my old xbox isn't even hooked up to my main tv anymore. (I have it on a second tv in another room and networked to the 360 for playing BC games through System link).

M$ has dropped the ball on this too by not releasing enough updates to make thier games BC, but at least there are some games that work, and the hope of more in the future.

If you ask me, releasing non BC systems only accomplishes one thing...more sales of your now defunct system, which can not be good for their bottom line.

M$ needs to step up thier BC too...I would love to know why they have dozens of inane ignored titles available, and have yet to release updates to run some of the most succesful game in their history. (Like Enter the Matrix for example).

10-14-2007, 02:21 PM	#1
Cygnus The Bringer of Balance Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 6,832	PS3: Stepping backwards? The heading for this is hilarious. So now sony sez PS2 backwards compat. is a "luxury feature". Heh, gotta luv the spin doctors http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=29509 “Sony now considers backwards compatibility to be a luxury feature - something consumers should be willing to pay additional money for” 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. __________________ Toshiba 57H81 Kenwood VR-616 Comcast DCT6412 III XBox 360 GamerTag Sec0nd2N0n3

10-14-2007, 03:14 PM	#3
Type A 1080 Optical Supporter Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Panama City, Fl Age: 38 Posts: 2,724	M$ did it right...dont alienate your fan base, just stop making games. Still wanna play last gen...Get a $50 ps2 last gen console and STFU. Oh, BTW, I have a Halo Xbox console, dual wireless, hd connect, and 20 games goin' cheap...anyone interested? Currently gathering dust in my closet, almost brand new, hell, Ill never play them again. This thread is another waste of time....not unlike most of Cygnus's threads. __________________ Mitsubishi HC3000U HD projector Dual Optoma 106" screens Harman Kardon AVR-7000 receiver Bose 901 VI, 301 IV, VCS 10 Bose AM-6 Series III Sony STR-DG600 receiver JVC GR-HD1 HD camcorder Xbox 360 Pro / PS3 40 Gig HD DVD 0 / Blu Ray 15 Games 18 / Games 2 Gateway 901x HTPC (modified) Sling Box Pro w/HD Connect Cable Dish 211 receiver w/Absolute HD pack HP Pavilion dv-6000 laptop (HTPC2GO) Link-Theater Gallery - 100,000+ views Link-55 Restoration Updated 6/21/08 Last edited by Type A; 10-14-2007 at 03:35 PM.

10-14-2007, 03:16 PM	#4
ragemaster68 Day Watch Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ontario Age: 25 Posts: 560	Is George W. running Sony these days? __________________ HT: LG 60PG70 Winegard Squareshooter UHF Antenna Denon AVR-1909 7.1 Receiver - New Toy Polk CSi3 Centre Technics SB-A16 Fronts (10" Woofers) Aiwa SX-AV900 Rears Viewsat Ultra FTA Receiver ------- Blu-ray Movies - 140 and counting Detailed movie list at DVD Aficionado. ------- Gaming: Xbox 360 - "RE" Elite - Jasper - 18 Games Playstation 3 - 60gb - 2 Games PSN ID: Larcenous1 Gamertag: Bausko -------

10-14-2007, 04:57 PM	#6
junehhan High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Aug 2006 Age: 29 Posts: 5,661	Wow, BC is now a luxury feature? IMHO, BC is a much bigger deal on the PS3 simply because of the insanely larger number of games available for the PS2. What I don't understand is that BC was established via software emulation. If this is the case, this is a feature that DOES NOT FRICKIN cost more as it is a feature that had a simple initial cost of developing it. It's not like they are packaging any extra chips like they did with the initial PS3's with hardware emulation of the PS2 games. __________________ X360 Gamertag junehhan Toshiba HD-A1 HD-DVD player -Klipsch RSW10 Subwoofer -Pioneer VSX1016TXVK reciever -Klipsch Synergy Quintet III 5 channel speakers AIM: jhhan80 HD-DVD's: Loving it! BD's: When we get a reasonably priced BDP with lossless decoders Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state, they forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone - Frederich Bastiat, 1848

10-14-2007, 09:57 PM	#8
phearcat Me So HD Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: The OC Age: 39 Posts: 698	Sony thinks Blu Ray is a luxury feature that you should pay extra for as well. __________________ 50" Pioneer Plamsa pdp-5070hd HDTV XBox 360 Elite (HDMI) w/HD-DVD XBL: Phear Cat Nintendo Wii HD DVD: 41

10-14-2007, 03:11 PM	#2
Ntruder Defender of Sanity Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 3,239

10-14-2007, 08:10 PM	#7
BMVickery High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 92	Again, Sony screws up. I am not a M$ fanboy or Sony, just want the product that will give me the best deal for the money and it appears Sony is kissing that part good bye.

10-15-2007, 01:19 AM	#10
BiggNewt High on Definition Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 1,422	Who in the world doesn't have a PS2? Trade-In values for them are next to nothing, this is not that big of a deal. __________________ Panasonic TC-P46G10 Plasma HDTV Samsung LN-T4061F 1080p HDTV Panasonic CT26WX15 CRT HDTV Onkyo TX-SR604 7.1 HDMI Receiver Optimus Mach Three Front Speakers Sony SS-CN5000 Center Speaker Sony SS-B1000 Surround Speakers (7.1) Sony SA-W3000 180W Subwoofer Sony PS3 (60gig w/ Linux installed) XBox 360 Premium Sony PS2 (160gig HDD, Messiah Pro 2 Modchip) Phillips DVP642 Divx/PAL DVD Player ViP 722k DVR Dual-Tuner 500GB

10-15-2007, 05:30 AM	#12
360kid Life Is Expensive Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 838	I thought dropping the Xbox was a brilliant move. It made sure that those who invested in the 360 would be getting all the new games. It would have killed be to buy a 360 but still have to buy original xbox games if I wanted the new game. Dropping the Xbox helped out 360 users alot and it helped sell more 360 consoles faster. Plus... For those who did hang on to the xbox a bit longer, MS still put out games until the end of that fiscal year. Also, original xbox games became extremely cheap to buy. So people who hung on could go get all those games they passed over really cheap. But with every situation, not everyone was happy with the decision. I know I was as was happy and so was a lot of other early 360 buyers. __________________ Hitachi 50" Plasma 1080HD Sharp 32" LCD Toshiba HD-A2 Playstation 3 Xbox 360 Pioneer HTiB Directv HD

10-15-2007, 10:57 AM	#15
Noct Toys in the attic... Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: NY Posts: 385	Well, I havent bought a Ps3 yet, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but the main reason I want BC for x360 titles is so I can play them in HD. (and sys link them). Much like with Wii, which finally allowed me to display my GC games in Prog scan since I could never get ahold of that darned cable... Doesn't Ps3 offer a similar situation in that you can take these games that on your ps2 were limited to 480p, and display them in true HD? Whether or not you still have the ability to play them on your old ps2 is irrelevant. I know my old xbox isn't even hooked up to my main tv anymore. (I have it on a second tv in another room and networked to the 360 for playing BC games through System link). M$ has dropped the ball on this too by not releasing enough updates to make thier games BC, but at least there are some games that work, and the hope of more in the future. If you ask me, releasing non BC systems only accomplishes one thing...more sales of your now defunct system, which can not be good for their bottom line. M$ needs to step up thier BC too...I would love to know why they have dozens of inane ignored titles available, and have yet to release updates to run some of the most succesful game in their history. (Like Enter the Matrix for example).

Similar Threads to PS3: Stepping backwards?
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
MLB '07: The Show (PS3) REVIEW	SOBAY310	Gaming & Systems	29	02-08-2008 10:43 AM
"Insomniac Games Chief: 10 Reasons Why PS3 Will Win This Console Generation "	Colt45	Gaming & Systems	42	12-05-2007 09:51 AM
another ps3 v.s. 360 article posted by a game developer.	bboncorr	Gaming & Systems	28	11-14-2007 07:07 AM
PS3 Backwards compatibility issues fixed	EddieDZ	Gaming & Systems	17	01-26-2007 11:57 AM
Sony's Grave Error: The $499 HDMI-Lacking PS3.	Razor05	Gaming & Systems	34	05-30-2006 03:40 PM