PS3 40GB Model Lacks Backwards Compatibility?

[somunny]

Is this true?  It (BC) seems to be missing from the option list when compared to the 60 and 80GB versions. 

[versapak]

Yep, it is true.


Pretty lame, since BC is just a software feature on PS3s now anyway.

[Grasshopper]

I'm afraid it is and it's a seriously bad move by Sony IMHO. Removing the backwards compatibility would have saved them virtually no money whatsoever as the chipset that provided the compatibility had already been developed. Indeed, it might actually have cost them more money to get the PS3's motherboard redesigned.

The same applies to the 40Gb drive vs the 60Gb drive - virtually no cost savings to Sony. They ought to be increasing the drive capacity, not reducing it otherwise they risk being left behind.

I can only assume they've made these changes to try and entice people on lower budgets to buy an entry level PS3 but also justify charging significantly more for the other more profitable models.

[Grasshopper]

Yep, it is true.


Pretty lame, since BC is just a software feature on PS3s now anyway.

I wasn't aware of that. But you're right. That makes the decision even more lame.

[somunny]

Thanks for the info, guys. 

With the currently available game selection (or lack of), this makes the 40GB PS3 a $400 Blu-Ray player.    And while I think the format will eventually win (the drastic HD-DVD player price cuts seem like a last ditch effort), I'll probably wait another year before entering the High Def player market.

[somunny]

Another thought:

If the BC is just software, is this something that may be added to the 40GB in the future? 

[Grasshopper]

Another possibility that occurs to me is that Sony might be trying to kill the second hand PS2 game market which obviously doesn't make them any profit. If that's the case then it's likely to backfire as people wanting to play PS2 games can simply buy a second hand PS2 instead of a PS3.

[shmokes]

I half suspect that it's a short-term tactic to increase sales.  I think they want people to be like, "What?  Sony's cutting B/C?  I planned to get a PS3 eventually once the price came down a bit, but if I hold out am I going to have to resign myself to an inferior product?  Damn it!  I'm just gonna have to suck it up and drop $500 now.  Better than paying $350 a year from now and not having B/C.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if, by next holiday season Sony will have bought back B/C "due to popular demand".

[AcidArmitage]

sony sucks at life

[SavannahLion]

I'm afraid it is and it's a seriously bad move by Sony IMHO. Removing the backwards compatibility would have saved them virtually no money whatsoever as the chipset that provided the compatibility had already been developed. Indeed, it might actually have cost them more money to get the PS3's motherboard redesigned.

You have to remember that companies like Sony operates on the scale of millions of PCB's and components in and out of their factories. Sony probably paid an engineer $48,000 (or whatever) to redesign a PCB to remove X number of components, use cheaper components, and streamline the process to save $1.4 million (or whatever). Shaving half a penny off the cost of 1 million boards would save a company $5,000. Five cents makes it $50,000.

The same applies to the 40Gb drive vs the 60Gb drive - virtually no cost savings to Sony. They ought to be increasing the drive capacity, not reducing it otherwise they risk being left behind.

I don't agree with this move but I can see why Sony did it. It's nt an apparent cost savings to us with retail prices and measuring single sales. But to someone like Sony, it would appear to be a measurable cost savings to the idiot bean counters.

I can only assume they've made these changes to try and entice people on lower budgets to buy an entry level PS3 but also justify charging significantly more for the other more profitable models.

I only hope that's the case and not a case of Sony shaving off "unused" elements of the console with the expectation of killing off the full featured models. I'm still really annoyed that the slim PS2 has no direct method of accepting an external HDD. Or the loss of various external ports on previous consoles.

[lcddream]

This might interest some of you:

A PS3 Venn Diagram

http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/10/diagram-compari.html

[SavannahLion]

This might interest some of you:

A PS3 Venn Diagram

http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/10/diagram-compari.html

Wait, what? The 80GB model has limited backwards compatibility? I missed that one.

Sony sucks. 

[shmokes]

I saw that Venn diagram.  It's confusing more than anything, but it also appears to be incorrect.  According to the diagram some all 80 GB PS3s are partially backwards compatible, but some are fully backwards compatible.  I don't believe that's accurate.

The diagram itself is bizarre.  Their categories are blended between versions of the consoles and features, and it's hard to see what each section is meant to be referring to.  It would make sense to say, "Here's the memory card category; here are all the consoles that fit in this category, but instead one category is 80 GB PS3s AND limited backward compatibility.  Then you've got overlaps that suggest that some 20 and 40 GB PS3s are 80 GB PS3s.  It makes no sense.

edit:  I think I see how it's meant to be read.  Maybe there aren't any inaccuracies with the diagram.

[AtomSmasher]

This might interest some of you:

A PS3 Venn Diagram

http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/10/diagram-compari.html

Wait, what? The 80GB model has limited backwards compatibility? I missed that one.

Sony sucks. 

The backwards compatibility used to be done through integrated hardware in the ps3, which was 100% compatible with ps2 games.  They switched to using software to emulate the hardware to save some money, so now its something like 98% compatible with old games.  (warning, I haven't done any recent research on this, so the percentages given are probably not accurate)

[shmokes]

Yeah, I think the hardware version was more like 98% and the software one is probably much much lower than that.

[ark_ader]

So what? 

If you want to play PS2 games, buy a PS2.  They are pretty cheap now.  The same goes for PS1 which you can have an emulator or the original running for less than £10.

Besides I really like the opportunity to own a PS3 for PS3 games.  I have seen the PS1 versions and they still look kak  the same goes for PS2 games on the PS3.  £100 is a £100.  And makes a big difference to a large family who might only be able to afford a console in a certain price bracket.  £399 for a console is way too much.  £299 is a possibility, especially if the package comes with a game.  Something the Wii excels at.

I applaud Sony for finally making the right move.  Now they need to get their finger out and make some more games.

[shmokes]

That sounds pretty reasonable to me, but there are certain problems.  It really doesn't make sense to pull B/C that's done in software.  The software is already developed.  They don't save production costs by pulling the feature, it simply allows them to arbitrarily lower the perceived value of the machine (unless they plan to sell the PS2 emulation software as a separate product).

For my part, I'm disappointed.  I planned to eventually get a PS3 when the price became reasonable and I had some money, but in the last generation I only owned an Xbox and a Gamecube, so I missed out on some great PS2 games.  I don't care enough that I will likely go out and pick up a PS2 just to catch up on them, but if my PS3 played PS2 games I'd pick up a couple like ICO and Shadow of the Colossus and God of War.  Oh well . . . c'est la vie.

[knave]

I'm finding that one of the best features of the Wii is it's backwards compatability.  I have two actual Wii games but around seven Gamecube games.  It's a great value.  There is no way I would ever buy a PS2 or a Gamecube so if I ever picked up a PS3 I would want it to play the PS2 games that I missed.

It is especially wierd for Sony to pull the B/C since they already developed it.  It also gives the PS3 an extended library of games to play.  Perhaps since the PS2 is still selling well they don't want to canabalize it's sales but it still doesn't make sense to me.

IMO: Next gen consoles should be compatable with the last generation.  I wouldn't expect them to maintain compatability for all generations though.

[ark_ader]

Actually the PS3 would be stopping sales of PS2 consoles, as I bet they are still selling better than the PS3.  The PS1 market has seen some action with the PSP as of late.  So it makes sense to allow sister products to keep on selling.

I don't see the PS3 making a dent in the console market until 4th quarter "2008" anyway.

[SavannahLion]

It is especially wierd for Sony to pull the B/C since they already developed it.  It also gives the PS3 an extended library of games to play.  Perhaps since the PS2 is still selling well they don't want to canabalize it's sales but it still doesn't make sense to me.

The PS3 wouldn't canabalize PS2 sales if it kept BC. Not long after the PS2 was released, Sony reduced the licensing fees on PS1 games. Enabling a surge of smaller developer houses to buy licenses and develop their own games. Except the first, the Parappa Rappa (sp?) line is a good example of the lowered licensing cost. Despite the lowered cost of the license, the lower cost of the games (sub $20 games were not uncommon), and the odd pairing of the PSOne alongside the PS2, PSOne game sales were amazing. Sony managed to hop-skip all the way to the bank on that marketing move. I would gamble that if Sony did the same move with PS2 licensing that game sales would literally surge. (I'm not mentioning anything about the quality of those titles though.)

I would almost venture to say that Sony removing BC might be an attempt to discourage PS2 game purchases.The PS2 is such a cash cow for Sony I can't imagine Sony really wanting to stop sales in such a suicidal way.

[danny_galaga]

I'm finding that one of the best features of the Wii is it's backwards compatability.  I have two actual Wii games but around seven Gamecube games.  It's a great value.  There is no way I would ever buy a PS2 or a Gamecube so if I ever picked up a PS3 I would want it to play the PS2 games that I missed.

It is especially wierd for Sony to pull the B/C since they already developed it.  It also gives the PS3 an extended library of games to play.  Perhaps since the PS2 is still selling well they don't want to canabalize it's sales but it still doesn't make sense to me.

IMO: Next gen consoles should be compatable with the last generation.  I wouldn't expect them to maintain compatability for all generations though.

hehe. i just recently bought 'viewtiful joe' for the gamecube because i might buy a wii next year 

[shmokes]

I heard Nintendo's going to remove backwards compatibility from the Wii after this holiday season.   

[knave]

hehe. i just recently bought 'viewtiful joe' for the gamecube because i might buy a wii next year 

LOL, that's one of the titles I picked up used for $5.  Pretty fun smal amount I've played it. (I bought the second one too)

[big daddy]

I can't find the link anymore, but I read that there was a "hardware" component (like the ps2 GPU) that needed to be in place in order to do the "software" emulation (it was not really "software" emulation, but some sort of hybrid).  So because it's cheaper/easier to produce without that piece, they've removed it, thus removing any software emulation.

So first units had fully hardware emulation (with pretty much perfect BWC)
second wave had this hybrid software/ps2 gpu (which had BWC % very similar to the 360's)
this latest wave has no bwc

They've also just released a $99 PS2 so I guess no real reason to need BWC 

[somunny]

Question:  Does the 80gb PS3 support BC?

[Samstag]

Question:  Does the 80gb PS3 support BC?

Yes, with software emulation only.  Some games will have various issues.