Sony Ps3 to loose backwards compatability completely

[Kangum]

A couple days ago on the gamespot forums there was a long discussion and a few links to articles stating that the playstation 3 80 gig will be losing backwards compatability. that the ps 3 will phase it out completely. most of the posts were not debating the fact it was happening but mostly people that thought it was stupid of them and pissed off in general that it was happening.

I should have saved the links that showed sonly statements but i didnt. Has anyone heard of when this new stripped
80 gig will be released ?

*edit*

found the answer on sonys site. 3 months ago sony released a new 80 gig sku (model number CECHK01)  wich does not have backwards compatibility with ps 2 games. The 80 gig that does is (model number CECHE01).

The other difference is the old 80 gig model with backwards compatibility had 4 usb ports while the new sku has 2 usb ports only.

please refer to the sony faq link regarding the skus where you can see for yourself.

http://playstation.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/playstation.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=232

[Ginsu Victim]

No idea when, but I've been hearing about it for quite a while.

[Kangum]

i just heard about it a few days ago. i was hoping they would bring back the 60 gig system and they are taking away even the compatability of the 80. im really bummed out. unlike most folks i dont have a ps 2 already.  so backwards compatability would have been nice since it gives me more games to choose from.  ps 2 has a nice rpg library i believe.

[SNAAKE]

WTF ?? 80gb BC is software based and 90% of the game already works. not like its costing them anything so why bother losing the BC.........

[DaveMMR]

WTF ?? 80gb BC is software based and 90% of the game already works. not like its costing them anything so why bother losing the BC.........

Because Sony hates its customers?   

Again, if they make their money on software, why would be the benefit of no longer supporting a HUGE chunk of it?

(EDIT: I didn't see any mention of this on the internet - if you have the links that would be helpful.  Right now I'm taking this as unconfirmed rumor.)

[Samstag]

I was under the impression that these new 80 gig units are already out there in many stores.  These are basically the 40G version with a bigger drive.  The difference is that the old 80G still had partial hardware BC to enable the software side.  The new ones eliminated that for more cost savings.  You can still play PS1 games on them.

[patrickl]

For the European 40GB PS3 they removed BC about a year ago already. The reason was that the software BC was actually part hardware too, so to cut costs they ditched the extra chip (and some other largely unused features) and made the console cheaper. With the current dollar exchange rate I guess you guys in the US aren't seeing much PS3 price drops, but still.

[ChadTower]

Again, if they make their money on software, why would be the benefit of no longer supporting a HUGE chunk of it?

They only make sales off of new copies.  If they don't plan on putting out very many more PS2 games then it is effectively a dead revenue stream for them.

[Kangum]

found the answer on sonys site. 3 months ago sony released a new 80 gig sku (model number CECHK01)  wich does not have backwards compatibility with ps 2 games. The 80 gig that does is (model number CECHE01).

The other difference is the old 80 gig model with backwards compatibility had 4 usb ports while the new sku has 2 usb ports only.

please refer to the sony faq link regarding the skus where you can see for yourself.

http://playstation.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/playstation.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=232

[SavannahLion]

One less reason to buy the PS3 I guess.

The way Sony is handling the entire PS3 market is really pissing the ---fudgesicle--- out of me. Want to know why I haven't purchased a PS3 (besides cost)? Because there are too ---smurfing--- many models. When people have to make Venn Diagrams to make a purchasing decision about a gaming console, you've gone too far in the wrong direction. Choosing a 360 is easier, but still a touch out of whack. Anyone encounter incompatibility issues with this generation yet?

[Blanka]

And that VENN is not even complete! It should mention SACD compatibility as well.

[DaveMMR]

Again, if they make their money on software, why would be the benefit of no longer supporting a HUGE chunk of it?

They only make sales off of new copies.  If they don't plan on putting out very many more PS2 games then it is effectively a dead revenue stream for them.

That's true.

Because there are too ---smurfing--- many models.

The multiple-SKUs are way too complicated for the average consumer.  The easiest console to purchase is also the one currently in the lead.  Coincidence?   Yeah, probably.

[patrickl]

It's simple economics. The PS3 differences are only relevant for a minority (less than 5% or 10%) of people who want to buy a console. No point for Sony to lose customers in the other 90% to 95% because their console is needlessly expensive due to features that practically noone uses anyway.

Look at how Xbox 360 is selling at a record pace all of a sudden after they lowered prices dramatically.

[RyoriNoTetsujin]

Let me preface what I'm about to write here with the knowledge that I am really just asking a question here; I want to know what you think.  No smarmy judgement, just curious, and I think this could be interesting conversation:

What do you expect from a new console?  Do you think that all consoles should be backward compatible with previous iterations from the same company?  Do you really think it's worth it to do so?

I know we're all here on a nostalgia-fueled board, but really?  Speaking for myself, is it really so bad that newer systems are not directly backward compatible (especially with the influx of digital distribution methods like Nintendo's Virtual Console?)  I have a PS1,2, and now 3.  On the rare occasion that I get the urge to bust out a PS2 or PS1 game, I just bust out the system it was intended to play on...

Okay, so what if you don't have one of those older systems, such as Kangum?  Part of me wants to say; obviously you haven't missed it too much.  Then again, what's to stop you from getting an older system if you want to play those games?  It's not like the systems have magically disappeared (with perhaps the exception of the Dreamcast GD-Rom drive...) and one look in the GameCrazy/Stop "Used Games" bins will net you any number of great games.  That generation of gaming can be done very much "on the cheap" now.

A smaller arguement here is; why would you bother?  Particularly with the PlayStation, most games (GENERALLY, save some of the really outstanding rare games like Shadow of the Colossus, and the RPGs) have had updates/improvements released on PS3. Why would I want to play Tekken 4 or 5, when I can play T5:Dark Resurrection on PS3... in 720p... AND only pay $20 for the game? 

I might even make the arguement that removing BC from the PS3 is a good thing precisely BECAUSE it limits the number of possible SKUs!  Without the confusing BC features or lack thereof, SKUs become solely about hard drive size and occasional combo packaging (which are both easily navigated and changed, if need be.) 

Would anyone be concerned about this if BC had never been a feature... or was not a launch feature, but was added via software at a later date?

Anyway, I'm sure there are holes to my arguement here...  Just some thoughts...

edited for spelling errors

[ChadTower]

Do you think that all consoles should be backward compatible with previous iterations from the same company?  Do you really think it's worth it to do so?

I expect the console to at least retain its original functionality.  Don't ever unilaterally remove a large chunk of functionality.

[RyoriNoTetsujin]

I expect the console to at least retain its original functionality.  Don't ever unilaterally remove a large chunk of functionality.

See, now that makes total sense!  If it came with certain features on launch, you're right, it should retain those features! 

[Ginsu Victim]

So what was the point of that long-winded post, when you wound up refuting what you said?

[RyoriNoTetsujin]

So what was the point of that long-winded post, when you wound up refuting what you said?

In my first post I wasn't arguing against anything Chad said. In fact, I was just throwing discussion material out there, full well realizing I wasn't covering the ground completely.  He made a good point, I was acknowledging it, that's all. 

[patrickl]

Yet, if they can cut $50 off the price of the machine by losing BC and a card slot and interviews show that hardly anyone uses these anyway. Then what? Why should all people pay more for something only a few want.

[ChadTower]

Yet, if they can cut $50 off the price of the machine by losing BC and a card slot and interviews show that hardly anyone uses these anyway. Then what? Why should all people pay more for something only a few want.

Fine, but problem is, it's getting damn near impossible to get one with that feature.  If they kept a slightly higher priced model with it, cool, it just costs a little more.  That's not what they're doing, though.

[patrickl]

They don't HAVE to supply both. If Sony thinks they might lose 5% in sales from a few PS2 fans yet gain 50% in sales from other buyers, what do you think they choose? Well I guess that's easy because the choice they made is pretty clear.

[Grasshopper]

Yet, if they can cut $50 off the price of the machine by losing BC and a card slot and interviews show that hardly anyone uses these anyway. Then what? Why should all people pay more for something only a few want.

I seriously doubt that they are saving that much. Most of the cost associated with electronics devices is with development. They've already spent a lot of money developing the hardware and software that provided backward compatibility. Simply removing the chips at this point only saves them a pittance. Indeed, given that it involves a significant redesign of the whole machine, it could actually end up costing them more.

[patrickl]

Yet, if they can cut $50 off the price of the machine by losing BC and a card slot and interviews show that hardly anyone uses these anyway. Then what? Why should all people pay more for something only a few want.

I seriously doubt that they are saving that much.

Well I'm saying they were able to lower the sales price and create a 100 euro cheaper starter package (since it contained less than the expesive version, I sort of guesstimated that they lowered the price by $50 for the loss of BC and card slot). Result was that PS3 sales tripled.

[ChadTower]

They don't HAVE to supply both. If Sony thinks they might lose 5% in sales from a few PS2 fans yet gain 50% in sales from other buyers, what do you think they choose? Well I guess that's easy because the choice they made is pretty clear.

50% in a very, very short window.  Just the people who were waiting for the price drop.  It won't stay at that rate.  And it cost them a lot of goodwill with their existing userbase.  Way to do business - chop the nose off your existing face to get a smile from a couple new ones.

[patrickl]

They asked people and the vast majority told Sony that they don't care for BC.

[ark_ader]

And that VENN is not even complete! It should mention SACD compatibility as well.

Wow the PS3 plays Space Ace CDROMS too?

I gotta get me a PS3.   

[DaveMMR]

It's simple economics. The PS3 differences are only relevant for a minority (less than 5% or 10%) of people who want to buy a console. No point for Sony to lose customers in the other 90% to 95% because their console is needlessly expensive due to features that practically noone uses anyway.

Well you could also argue that too many choices turn off the consumer.  Some people don't want to have to make decisions, especially those who don't know anything about technology and just want to play video games (or watch a BluRay). 

Imagine you know nothing about the system and you see two different SKUs with a radical price difference.  Do you risk buying the cheaper one and worry about what you're missing or do you buy the more expensive one and worry that you spent money on features you don't need?     

The Playstation brand built its success by appealing to everyday people (not just hardcore gamers) but by creating mutiple system configurations for the PS3 it's like saying, "thanks for your money but we're only talking to the hardcore gamers now so the rest of you can go and choke for all we care."  Maybe not as harsh but...

What do you expect from a new console?  Do you think that all consoles should be backward compatible with previous iterations from the same company?  Do you really think it's worth it to do so?

It's nice but it's not necessary.   But at the same time, it's kind of a bummer to offer it and then take it away.  That's neither here nor there though...

I know we're all here on a nostalgia-fueled board, but really?  Speaking for myself, is it really so bad that newer systems are not directly backward compatible (especially with the influx of digital distribution methods like Nintendo's Virtual Console?)  I have a PS1,2, and now 3.  On the rare occasion that I get the urge to bust out a PS2 or PS1 game, I just bust out the system it was intended to play on...

Not everyone owns all three Playstations and even if they did they do not last forever. 

A smaller arguement here is; why would you bother?  Particularly with the PlayStation, most games (GENERALLY, save some of the really outstanding rare games like Shadow of the Colossus, and the RPGs) have had updates/improvements released on PS3. Why would I want to play Tekken 4 or 5, when I can play T5:Dark Resurrection on PS3... in 720p... AND only pay $20 for the game? 

Yeah, if I the time I could give you a list as long as my arm of PS1 games that were not updated or improved with PS2 (Parappa The Rappa for PS1 = Good; Parappa The Rappa 2 for the PS2 = Not So Good - that's just one example).   Same goes for PS2 games that are not or will not be updated or improved for the PS3. 

[ChadTower]

They asked people and the vast majority told Sony that they don't care for BC.

And yet who is their most loyal customer base?  What do you think the hardcore gamers want?  There is a concept in business based on keeping your best customers happy even if it isn't what is always perfect for the casual customers.  The casual customers will leave easily - but your hardcore are the meat in your steak sandwich.

[Edgedamage]

I think they are tossing BC, to start selling them on the PSN store.

[The Seventh Taylor]

And that VENN is not even complete! It should mention SACD compatibility as well.

Exactly. There is such an overview however in the PS3 SACD FAQ.

[shmokes]

I'm pretty disappointed about it.  For a VERY long time I've been planning to get a PS3 over a 360.  BC was one of the biggest selling points for me, as I never owned a PS2.  If there are no BC models available when I finally get a next-gen system, and the 360 is $100 cheaper, I think I'll have a hard time justifying the PS3. 

Sony should never have had multiple skus.  They should have taken a bigger loss on the systems, or cut features to begin with.  The $599 sku at launch was ---smurfing--- retarded.  But I agree with Chad.  Including BC at launch, and then cutting it out later is a bad move.  You can't remove major features like that.  It's a slap in the face, and for someone who doesn't follow the industry (read: the vast majority of people), you're going to end up with quite a few customers who buy a PS3 under the mistaken, but reasonable belief that it is backwards compatible.  What are those people going to think when someone says, "Oh, yeah, Sony pulled that feature from the new ones.  Only the customers who bought it last year get that feature."  That's bad will.  That's the sort of thing that takes your brand-whore fanboy customers and makes them consider the other guy next time around.

[ChadTower]

That's the sort of thing that takes your brand-whore fanboy customers and makes them consider the other guy next time around.

...and to those people who say it can't happen, I say Sega Saturn.

[HaRuMaN]

I have the 60 gig PS3 with PS2 / PSX backwards compatibility.   

[RyoriNoTetsujin]

I think they are tossing BC, to start selling them on the PSN store.

Old games seem, to me, to go one of two ways.  They either end up in the hands of a subset of fans to maintain (for example, the more obscure stuff covered in MAME) or they become "retro classics," in other words, still marketable on some level.  Time has shown that there's money still to be made on some old games.  Why would they (the content providers) not try to make more money on those games?  Which is why I think BC is really going bye-bye.  Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, they're all going to do what they can to get you to pay for something --almost anything-- as often as possible.  For example, if they don't want to update a game that had a good base on one system (like PaRappa) they have the option of re-releasing it, under their control, and for another chunk of profit, somewhere else (the PSP, DS, and digital distribution methods.)  They don't have to give us BC.  We don't have to buy their system.

I'm not saying I like it, but I think digital distribution of old games is as close to BC as we're going to get from here on out, from any of the major companies.  That is, until that "subset of fans" I mentioned before develops the inevitable homebrew solution...

[Samstag]

I think they are tossing BC, to start selling them on the PSN store.

Old games seem, to me, to go one of two ways.  They either end up in the hands of a subset of fans to maintain (for example, the more obscure stuff covered in MAME) or they become "retro classics," in other words, still marketable on some level.  Time has shown that there's money still to be made on some old games.  Why would they (the content providers) not try to make more money on those games?  Which is why I think BC is really going bye-bye.  Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, they're all going to do what they can to get you to pay for something --almost anything-- as often as possible.  For example, if they don't want to update a game that had a good base on one system (like PaRappa) they have the option of re-releasing it, under their control, and for another chunk of profit, somewhere else (the PSP, DS, and digital distribution methods.)  They don't have to give us BC.  We don't have to buy their system.

I'm not saying I like it, but I think digital distribution of old games is as close to BC as we're going to get from here on out, from any of the major companies.  That is, until that "subset of fans" I mentioned before develops the inevitable homebrew solution...

That would make sense if there weren't tons of new games being released for the PS2 every month.  Sony is redefining "retro gaming" to mean buying old-school 20/60 gig PS3s to play brand new games.

[Ginsu Victim]

I'm not saying I like it, but I think digital distribution of old games is as close to BC as we're going to get from here on out, from any of the major companies.  That is, until that "subset of fans" I mentioned before develops the inevitable homebrew solution...

So what about all the games that aren't considered the top tier games, or the quality ones that the mass public didn't accept (Ico, for instance)?  They won't re-release those on the new platforms. Without BC, we have to rely on the original console surviving long enough for the emulators to catch up.

[RyoriNoTetsujin]

That would make sense if there weren't tons of new games being released for the PS2 every month.  Sony is redefining "retro gaming" to mean buying old-school 20/60 gig PS3s to play brand new games.

I do have to gently disagree there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_in_video_gaming

Granted, it's Wikipedia, so the list is probably incomplete, but I don't see a lot of PS2 games listed there, and certainly a very small amount of PS2 exclusives. 

Like I said, from here on out, I think they're telling us digital and controlled portable distribution is the way things are going to go, unless someone gathered a massive amount of gamers together to tell them otherwise... by doing the only thing a large company will understand; not buying.

[DaveMMR]

Which is why I think BC is really going bye-bye.  Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, they're all going to do what they can to get you to pay for something --almost anything-- as often as possible. 

You seem to forget that the Wii is fully backwards-compatible with all GC software (though you have to buy the controllers/mem cards) and the Xbox 360 supports a large number of original Xbox titles through emulation and updates (hard drive required however since the original Xbox had one).  So even if they are trying to get rid of it, Sony just gave itself a black eye by being the only current gen system with a big, fat minus in the BC column.  

Also, people don't take kindly to having to "re-buy" their media.  They'll do it, but only if there's a significant reason to do so (CD's instead of vinyl, DVDs instead of VHS).  We're not talking ten to twenty year old games here (like with Virtual Console titles which were on cartridge).  We're talking about games that came out a few years ago.  Yes, Sony could go the way of re-selling these games online, but again Microsoft and Nintendo is letting you play recent titles (for their last-gen systems) that you already own without repurchasing it.  

[RyoriNoTetsujin]

So what about all the games that aren't considered the top tier games, or the quality ones that the mass public didn't accept (Ico, for instance)?  They won't re-release those on the new platforms. Without BC, we have to rely on the original console surviving long enough for the emulators to catch up.

Yeah, that seems to be the case.  (Again, I'm not saying I like it.)  But, as a sidebar; is it just me, or are y'all systems really that fragile?  I mean, cart based systems are for the most part still pretty robust.  Disc-based systems, sure, I can understand they're a little tougher to maintain, but my original PS1 (bought on the day of launch) still works fine, and it's been through 2 cross-country moves and, for it's public lifespan, pretty regular use.

You seem to forget that the Wii is fully backwards-compatible with all GC software (though you have to buy the controllers/mem cards) and the Xbox 360 supports a large number of original Xbox titles through emulation and updates (hard drive required however since the original Xbox had one).  So even if they are trying to get rid of it, Sony just gave itself a black eye by being the only current gen system with a big, fat minus in the BC column.  

Also, people don't take kindly to having to "re-buy" their media.  They'll do it, but only if there's a significant reason to do so (CD's instead of vinyl, DVDs instead of VHS).  We're not talking ten to twenty year old games here (like with Virtual Console titles which were on cartridge).  We're talking about games that came out a few years ago.  Yes, Sony could go the way of re-selling these games online, but again Microsoft and Nintendo is letting you play recent titles (for their last-gen systems) that you already own without repurchasing it.  

That's a good point, but I think the key there is "last-gen."  I just don't think we're going to see BC anymore, this is the last gen we're going to see that happen.  They're not going to give us a choice.  Sony is "leading the charge," so to speak... not that it's a good one, especially for long-time, hardcore purchasers.

All in all, I think a potentially more important issue to discuss is not the loss of BC, but the potential loss of control we will have on "ownership" of our games in general, thanks to this ever-increasing era of digital distribution.

[Ginsu Victim]

is it just me, or are y'all systems really that fragile?

All of mine still work great, but when the day comes that my PS1 stops, I'm glad I have a PS2....until it dies. At least there's pSX, but I don't have a decent emulator option for PS2 currently.

Dreamcast emulation is so much better than it was, but there's still plenty of kinks that need worked out. Luckily I have a second DC as a backup.

I also own three Genesis/Megadrive systems, and still have a working Sega CD and Saturn. With the exception of the JVC X'Eye, all of my disc based systems still work, though I have replaced my original PSX twice.

[DaveMMR]

Yeah, that seems to be the case.  (Again, I'm not saying I like it.)  But, as a sidebar; is it just me, or are y'all systems really that fragile? 

Biggest failure point for the last two Playstations was the laser drive mechanism.  It can be fixed, but it's a mechanical problem that will never be completely free from failure. 

Sony is "leading the charge," so to speak... not that it's a good one, especially for long-time, hardcore purchasers.

Since when do companies follow each other?   If Sony announces the PS4 without BC, it's a safe bet that Nintendo or Microsoft will underline and emphasize that feature when they counter with their next systems.

And after this generation of consoles, I doubt Nintendo or Microsoft will be looking to Sony for advice on selling systems.   

No matter what Sony is "trying to do", backwards-compatability is always a strong selling-point.  One reason (out of many) for the Atari 5200's failure was parents concerns that it couldn't play the old 2600 software.  Well, that and the whole crash thing...  Similar concerns (albeit not as consequential) were raised about the SNES.  People don't like to feel that they're money has gone to waste and many casual consumers are not keen on stacking up their shelves with three hundred consoles.  

[Ginsu Victim]

One reason (out of many) for the Atari 5200's failure was parents concerns that it couldn't play the old 2600 software.

And notice the 7800 had it. They weren't going to make that mistake twice. Only problem was they had to compete with Nintendo and Sega at that point.

[RyoriNoTetsujin]

Since when do companies follow each other?   If Sony announces the PS4 without BC, it's a safe bet that Nintendo or Microsoft will underline and emphasize that feature when they counter with their next systems.

And after this generation of consoles, I doubt Nintendo or Microsoft will be looking to Sony for advice on selling systems.  

LOL!    Hey, I never said it was a good idea, or that it would necessarily work!    That said, I still wouldn't be so sure that Microsoft and Ninty are going to go the opposite way and make BC happen on the next-gen of consoles.

No matter what Sony is "trying to do", backwards-compatability is always a strong selling-point.  One reason (out of many) for the Atari 5200's failure was parents concerns that it couldn't play the old 2600 software.  Well, that and the whole crash thing...  Similar concerns (albeit not as consequential) were raised about the SNES.  People don't like to feel that they're money has gone to waste and many casual consumers are not keen on stacking up their shelves with three hundred consoles.  

Personally, I don't know about how strong a selling point BC is, to be honest.  If BC was that important, or that heavily utilized by the "casual" gamer, wouldn't great old games continue to sell?  I see a lot of $7.99 GTA:SAs at GameCrazy.  And wouldn't games continue to be released for those older systems (say by smaller, independant developers who can't afford to develop for current-gen?)  Not stating this as fact, I'm just questioning... 

Sure it's really important to us, but I doubt the "casual gamer" is really that concerned. 

There's a question for folks; how many Wii buyers that consider themselves "casual" gamers have actually purchased GC games if they didn't already have a GC?  Anybody know? 

[SithMaster]

I don't get it.  If sony is trying to sell to casual gamers then wouldn't they want said casual gamers to be able to play games from the prior incarnation.  If I was a casual gamer I'd look at the PS3 and say "Oh man it can play both ps2 and ps3 games.  Thats like getting three things in one making this purchase worth it."  That of course implies I'd use the blu ray player but someday I will.  Of course being a casual gamer means I wouldn't know how poorly sony builds their systems so having three eggs in one basket (the basket being made of toothpicks and the eggs being balls of fire) means when it goes bad in a month you going to be out 600 dollars until sony gets sued by everyone to get them repaired/replaced.

Yes backwards compatibility is a good thing.  My pc is backwards compatible with games released in 1995 so the same should be said of a console (if the people making them were smart).

[DaveMMR]

Personally, I don't know about how strong a selling point BC is, to be honest.  If BC was that important, or that heavily utilized by the "casual" gamer, wouldn't great old games continue to sell? 

It's not about selling copies of old games so much.  

The casual gamers who already have a large collection of software for the old system and don't want their libraries to become worthless are the ones who benefit the most from BC.  Casual gamers are LEAST likely to have multiple systems hooked up to their TV's.  So they could (a) buy a new system and get rid of all they old software or, more likely (b) hold onto the old system with an established library and forgo the new and improved update.    

It's much easier to get people to buy your new and improved box when you promise them they can take their old friends with them.

[Ginsu Victim]

It's much easier to get people to buy your new and improved box when you promise them they can take their old friends with them.

I have no interest in the PS3. The main selling point for me on getting a Wii or 360 is that I never owned a Gamecube or XBOX, and if I buy one of the newer systems, I can pick up the old games cheap. When the PS3 debuted at $600, I decided I wouldn't own one until the next gen comes along....when I can get it cheap.

I have no desire to have the newest toy on the block. I decided I'd get one console when the PS2, GCN, and XBOX were competing, so I got the PS2 because of my 400+ PSX collection (I also didn't buy a PS2 until it had been out for three years). BC made the difference to me.

[RyoriNoTetsujin]

Just because I feel I need to say it, I hope everybody gets that I'm just enjoying the discourse in all this-- nothing malicious here.  This conversation is keeping me awake at work.  I think BC is a wonderful thing, and companies that care about their customers, all of their customers, should implement it. 

That said, I think maybe we need a stronger definition of "casual gamer."  I don't think of casual gamers as having a particularly large software library (DaveMMR) and certainly not 400+ games, as in Ginzu's case. 

I'd throw out there (and this is purely conjecture) that casual gamers have, say, 10 to 30 games for a system over the course of it's life (except perhaps if they are casual sports gamers who buy upgrades for their games every year.)  And I highly doubt that they keep all the games they buy; I think they trade them in when the "next game" comes along (I'll come back to that.)  I don't think casual gamers spend that much money on gaming (how many Wii buyers are STILL playing WiiSports? a lot, I'd guess... my roommate is...) -- which is why I absolutely agree that most casual gamers only have one system hooked up at a time...

...but that's just it, there's always the "next game."  This is why I don't think real casual gamers think about BC.  I think they sell the "old junk" to GameStop, or post it on eBay or CL, and then they go out and get the "next game/system" once they can afford it or it has the next "must have" game. 

So, going back to what I was saying about digital distribution: the big 3 don't really care what you buy, but they do want to control how you buy it, so they continue to make money.  How convenient would it be, especially for our "casual" gamer, if entire libraries of NEW and old games were available for download, at their fingertips, without having to go to the store?  That's why the Virtual Console is popular.  That's why X-Box Live Marketplace is successful, and even the PSNetwork is beginning to bloom.  Continuous, but controlled, content.  Rock Band DLC is, and will continue to be, a CASH COW for Harmonix (once they've convinced users to put up the buy-in cost.)

With digital distribution (which is actually just another way of saying "subscription model") becoming the norm on the consoles, the squeeze is on, separating you from your money little by little.  BC, and control of what you "own," is on it's way to extinction.

</long winded post> 

[Ginsu Victim]

certainly not 400+ games, as in Ginzu's case. 

That's just PSX, and to be fair, 99% of them are burned.

As for downloading on the new consoles, I would never pay for a game that I can't backup to physical media. I've only paid for games on my phone twice and that was because it's BREW and I was stuck in a waiting room with no games for four hours.

[SavannahLion]

And wouldn't games continue to be released for those older systems (say by smaller, independant developers who can't afford to develop for current-gen?)  Not stating this as fact, I'm just questioning... 

Isn't that exactly how Pa-rappa hit the market? You didn't notice the strange flurry of new sub $20 PSX games filling the shelves after PS2's release? Most of those $20 games weren't older titles with a lowered price point. Sony lowered their licensing for the PSX, for whatever reason, and it brought a lot of the cottage developers out from the woodwork.

RyoriNoTetsujin, I think you raise a perfectly valid (albeit scary) point. When it comes to DRM, Sony makes absolutely no bones about staying in control over their consumers. Despite Sony's support of time delay recording TV programs over twenty years ago, they've since forced consumers to bend over and proceeded to ass rape them. In my eyes, every move they've ever made in the market in the last ten or so years was squarely targeted on consumer foreheads and their right to leverage media as they see fit (within legal limits of course ).

Removing BC in the context you're describing makes perfect sense.

However, I think the point DaveMMR still stands. it's one thing to remove "features" that are grossly underutilized. Such as the firewire port on the PS2. It's quite another to remove a rather large chunk of the functionality of a game system entirely. It doesn't strike anyone a little odd to discard PS2 BC but keep PS1 BC? Where the is anyone going to buy PS1 games that doesn't consist of sports, craptastic Barbie or Fleabay? And if any gamer has any selection of PS1 games, as to require BC, chances are pretty good they're going to have PS2 games as well. I don't know why, but that kind of thinking brings to mind the gun rack scene in Wayne's World.

[ahofle]

It's simple economics. The PS3 differences are only relevant for a minority (less than 5% or 10%) of people who want to buy a console. No point for Sony to lose customers in the other 90% to 95% because their console is needlessly expensive due to features that practically noone uses anyway.

Just curious, where are you pulling these 5-10% numbers from?  The PS2 is the most successful selling consoles of all time and there is a boatload of PS2 software out there.  5-10% who care about playing those games on the PS3 seems way low to me.  Also, let's not forget that the PS2 console is still selling at close to PS3 levels!

Personally, I think the only reason Sony is getting away with this is because of the deliberate confusion in which models support which BC (and the fact that the original 60GB model fully supported it).  

[SithMaster]

If casual gamers do indeed sell old games to buy new ones they are going to hit a brick wall when they have to download games.  There is no plan in place to allow me to transfer my downloaded castle crashers to a friend for 5 dollars after I've outplayed it.  It makes sense from a business model since I'm recognizing all possible sales (effectively killing the secondary/used market).  Of course the secondary market will have a really bad niche were people sell the console or harddrive the games are on.  I can see problems with that when people don't want to pay for a system that comes with games that you don't want but will be forced to get unless you find someone else with the setup you want.  At least now you can ask a seller to breakup a lot, but when everything is built in there is no where to go.

[RyoriNoTetsujin]

However, I think the point DaveMMR still stands. it's one thing to remove "features" that are grossly underutilized. Such as the firewire port on the PS2. It's quite another to remove a rather large chunk of the functionality of a game system entirely. It doesn't strike anyone a little odd to discard PS2 BC but keep PS1 BC? Where the is anyone going to buy PS1 games that doesn't consist of sports, craptastic Barbie or Fleabay? And if any gamer has any selection of PS1 games, as to require BC, chances are pretty good they're going to have PS2 games as well. I don't know why, but that kind of thinking brings to mind the gun rack scene in Wayne's World.

Supposedly the PS1 BC is purely software... but seriously, you have no arguement from me on this. (Don't tell me the PS3 can't handle PS2 software emulation... from Sony's own programmers!?)  Like I said, I think losing BC is a bad idea, and definitely doesn't serve the customer... but like you said, when have they ever?

If casual gamers do indeed sell old games to buy new ones they are going to hit a brick wall when they have to download games.  There is no plan in place to allow me to transfer my downloaded castle crashers to a friend for 5 dollars after I've outplayed it.  It makes sense from a business model since I'm recognizing all possible sales (effectively killing the secondary/used market).  Of course the secondary market will have a really bad niche were people sell the console or harddrive the games are on.  I can see problems with that when people don't want to pay for a system that comes with games that you don't want but will be forced to get unless you find someone else with the setup you want.  At least now you can ask a seller to breakup a lot, but when everything is built in there is no where to go.

Now in this case, I'm going to go way out there and say that I don't think they'll hit a brick wall at all-- the "secondary market" will just be an extention of the first.  Digital content is now tied to "gamertags" and Wii numbers, and PSN names... and if not that, then certainly the credit card numbers that made the purchases.  It's kept track of.  Microsoft already has their DRM transfer tool (for bricked 360s, I believe) how would it be any different to transfer data to a new system... for a "nominal" fee?   

Harmonix (well, EA really...) has already shown a way to do this with the transition between Rock Band 1 and 2, and they've managed to make money in the process (I've already spent $5 on the rip-- I'm sorry, re-licensing tool -- and I won't even see RB2 until mid-october!

Companies could even be "generous" and offer a discount on "re-licensing" or trading up, based on the number or "value" of the games you have.  If they were really smart it would come in the form of "discounts" on further purchases! 

The good news is, in a way, you'd be getting your BC back!  ... you just gotta pay for it. 

[RyoriNoTetsujin]

Isn't that exactly how Pa-rappa hit the market? You didn't notice the strange flurry of new sub $20 PSX games filling the shelves after PS2's release? Most of those $20 games weren't older titles with a lowered price point. Sony lowered their licensing for the PSX, for whatever reason, and it brought a lot of the cottage developers out from the woodwork.

Just for the record (not to argue minutae,) no, PaRappa was released in 1997, and was published by Sony themselves.  I paid full retail for it.  It's one of the few games I now regret trading in... damn UmJammer Lammy. 

Anyway, that's a good point, I didn't remember those until you reminded me.  The only thing I can ask in reply is; was there a game released in that period that actually was intended to be a quality title, and not just leeching the late-upgraders out of their money?    (f'ing Agetec... I remember them!)

[shmokes]

Time has shown that there's money still to be made on some old games.  Why would they (the content providers) not try to make more money on those games?  Which is why I think BC is really going bye-bye.  Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, they're all going to do what they can to get you to pay for something --almost anything-- as often as possible. 

The funny thing is that in your defense of Sony's move (if even only for playing Devil's Advocate), you have illustrated exactly what is the most ---smurfy--- thing about their behavior.  It would be one thing to recognize the goldmine classic games can be over digital distribution and make a strategic move to not include backward compatibility in PS4.  But to include it in PS3 for free, so to speak, and then say, "Wait, what?  You guys are willing to pay for all these games again?" and then pull the feature mid-cycle is beyond insulting.  People describe it as a slap in the face, because even if they can't articulate why, it feels like a slap in the face.  Well, that's one reason why (and there are others that have already been mentioned).

[ChadTower]

If you have 400 games, and 99% of them are burned, then you really have 4 games.

[shmokes]

Yeah, I would think that BC would require original discs, i.e., that your backups would only function in your original modded PSX.

[ChadTower]

Yeah, I would think that BC would require original discs, i.e., that your backups would only function in your original modded PSX.

It doesn't on most platforms that support it.  I can't verify on the PS3.

[Ginsu Victim]

Yeah, I would think that BC would require original discs, i.e., that your backups would only function in your original modded PSX.

I was talking about PS2, which is EASY to play PSX and PS2 (about 500) backups on.

[Ginsu Victim]

If you have 400 games, and 99% of them are burned, then you really have 4 games.

Funny thing is, I really do only have 4 retail PSX games.

[ChadTower]

If you have 400 games, and 99% of them are burned, then you really have 4 games.

Funny thing is, I really do only have 4 retail PSX games.

Then it's probably safe to say not only do they not give a crap what you feel about it... they'd also like to see you in court.   

[Ginsu Victim]

Hey, I can have an opinion.

Just not valid in 48 states.

Also, there's no doubling of opinions and it has no cash value.

[ChadTower]

To paraphrase Douglas Adams...


'Sony,' Ginsu Victim said to the company, 'I exist.' 'That,' said the company, 'creates no sense of obligation in me whatsoever.'

[SavannahLion]

Supposedly the PS1 BC is purely software... but seriously, you have no arguement from me on this. (Don't tell me the PS3 can't handle PS2 software emulation... from Sony's own programmers!?)  Like I said, I think losing BC is a bad idea, and definitely doesn't serve the customer... but like you said, when have they ever?

I wouldn't even think of suggesting or posing an argument about PS3's PS2 emulation capabilities. Software, hardware, whatever. PS3's BC could be accomplished by a NOAC for all I care.

[hypernova]

Look at this as an opportunity...

Maybe now, since it won't be compatible with the newer systems, they'll finally REMAKE FINAL FANTASY VII!

[SithMaster]

Look at this as an opportunity...

Maybe now, since it won't be compatible with the newer systems, they'll finally REMAKE FINAL FANTASY VII!

Was that the good one?

[SavannahLion]

Look at this as an opportunity...

Maybe now, since it won't be compatible with the newer systems, they'll finally REMAKE FINAL FANTASY VII!

Was that the good one?

I think so. Is that the one that came with its own hard drive for the PS2?

[HaRuMaN]

FFVII was for the PSX

[Kangum]

i ordered a 60 gig online today.  total was 429.00.  29 dollars more then a new 80 gig with no backwards compatibility. id rather have the version  with 99% backwards compatibility so whatever. if somethin happens to it i will have it repaired. no biggie.

[ChadTower]

Of course, the question remains... since backwards compatibility is supposedly "only in the software" and thus should be doable on all versions of the console and they're just not...

...who says they won't just take it out of software with an update?

[shmokes]

It's not.  They had two versions originally.  The 60 GB one had the PS2's CPU and GPU in it.  The 40 or 20 (I forget) ditched the CPU (done in software) but still retained the GPU.  So PS3 has never been able to do all-software PS2 emulation (PS1 is all-software).

That isn't to say that PS3 couldn't do it.  The technically inferior ATI/Power PC-based Xbox 360 manages all-software emulation of the technically superior NVidia/Intel-based Xbox (superior to PS2 I mean).  But PS2 backward compatibility has always had a hardware component.

I took exactly the same position a while back and was corrected by patrickl.

[ChadTower]

Ah... two sides of the same coin, I suppose.  Partial hardware emulation costs less to develop but more to manufacture.  Full software emulation is expensive to develop but all the costs are upfront.  I imagine that was a measure to keep launch retail costs down or perhaps just to spread overall cost over a longer period of time.  Either way I hope Sony is learning their lessons now as both of their competitors are smooth in this regard and they are a total mess.

[shmokes]

It's disappointing.  I really wanted to go with PS3 this time around.  I've been holding out for PS3 to surge ahead (of Xbox), and I really thought it would (I still think it might).  But Sony just seems to be deliberately refusing to pick up the ball and run.  It's like they're just kind of kicking it around and staring at it, wishing they had never fumbled in the first place.  Considering that I'm probably at least a year away from getting a new system it's looking more and more like when the time comes I won't be able to (and maybe won't even want to) justify purchasing a PS3 over the less expensive 360.

[shmokes]

the less expensive 360.

Speaking of which, do y'all realize that the Xbox 360 is the least expensive console on the market right now?  A brand new Xbox 360 costs less than a Nintendo Wii!

[SavannahLion]

the less expensive 360.

Speaking of which, do y'all realize that the Xbox 360 is the least expensive console on the market right now?  A brand new Xbox 360 costs less than a Nintendo Wii!

You mean that crappy "Arcade" edition or whatever it is? I still haven't encountered anyone that has actually purchased that model. Most I know purchase the mid-range model which still puts it above the Wii.

[Ginsu Victim]

As someone who hasn't kept up with the newer hardware, what's so crappy about the Arcade edition?

[Hoopz]

I work for a teenage boys group and bought the arcade edition for my office.  It doesn't have the hard drive, but I can't think of any other thing that makes it crappy.  But, I can definitely see the benefit/need for a hard drive in a home setting.

The $199 price point does make it easy for a family to get the 360 and purchase the hard drive at a later date.

[Edgedamage]

I work for a teenage boys group and bought the arcade edition for my office.  It doesn't have the hard drive, but I can't think of any other thing that makes it crappy.  But, I can definitely see the benefit/need for a hard drive in a home setting.

The $199 price point does make it easy for a family to get the 360 and purchase the hard drive at a later date.

Where's the deal in paying $149.99 for a 2.5" SATA HDD?
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8267751&type=product&id=1170290207575

When you can buy a 320gig HDD for $110.00.
http://www.pcvonline.com/productDetails.aspx?prodID=7434

Yah let's be fooled into thinking $199 is a great price for a gimped console.
Gimped= 99% of XBL demos which are free to download are rendered useless without a HDD & also some games need the HDD as stated on the box.

[shmokes]

Hmm . . . I wonder if there are any other, more expensive consoles that also don't have a hard drive . . .





*Hint: it starts with an N and ends with an intendo Wii

[DaveMMR]

But Sony just seems to be deliberately refusing to pick up the ball and run.  It's like they're just kind of kicking it around and staring at it, wishing they had never fumbled in the first place. 

That's a perfect analogy.  It is frustrating that I have no idea what Sony is trying to accomplish with their approach towards marketing the PS3.  It's almost like someone is trying to bring them down from the inside. ("Let's sell it for $600 even though the competition is hundreds cheaper.  Down the road we'll knock a few bucks off but cripple the features people would actually use"). 

In the past, video game companies have made grievous errors that were at least somewhat understandable (e.g. Nintendo worried about piracy and load times with CDs so they stuck with cartridges. Atari didn't realize people weren't going to put up with a bad game despite the E.T. license. etc.)  But I can't wrap my head around Sony's MO here. 

Hmm . . . I wonder if there are any other, more expensive consoles that also don't have a hard drive . . .

*Hint: it starts with an N and ends with an intendo Wii

The comparison's a little off because the $250 price tag is not for a trimmed down version of it.  But, yeah, to compare the two on their own, it would seem the Arcade version of XBox 360 is a better deal.  Funny thing is, any other generation, Nintendo would have dropped prices on the Wii.   They don't have to this time around. 

I would guess most consumers are either in the market for one or the other.  I can't imagine half the people I know who bought a Wii would have gotten a 360 in it's place.  Likewise for 360 owners.  However, I can see a 360 owner buying a PS3 instead, which is why Sony should have priced it competitively from the get-go (like they had twice before). 

[shmokes]

The comparison's a little off because the $250 price tag is not for a trimmed down version of it. 

Honestly, I don't think the comparison is a little off.  Prior to the introduction of the Arcade model if I said, "The Wii is cheaper than the Xbox 360," nobody would have said, "No it isn't.  The Xbox 360 comes with a hard drive, and the Wii doesn't.  So if you factor in what you're paying for the hard drive, 360 is actually less expensive."  That would just be crazy.  The fact is, every (or almost every) game on the shelves for Xbox 360 is 100% playable without a hard drive.  In fact, with a memory card you can play all the XBLA stuff too (you just can't accumulate a lot of it).

And it's not like the Wii isn't gimped by its own lack of a hard drive.  Nintendo has Virtual Console and WiiWare, and all that stuff has to be stored on the internal 512 MB of memory.  You can't even run it from an SD card, for crying out loud.  And look at Rock Band.  Seriously, look at Rock Band and tell me that the Wii's lack of a hard drive isn't an enormous handicap compared to the other systems.  No downloadable content for the Wii version of Rock Band!  That's huge.  The Wii needs a hard drive just as much as the other guys.

Nintendo is about to release an add-on hard drive to finally address the fact that the system has been gimped all along.  The "gimped" Xbox 360 Arcade has had an add-on hard drive available all along.  The comparison seems totally fair to me.  Shipping without a hard drive doesn't gimp Xbox in any way that the Wii isn't also gimped.  The Wii's lack of a hard drive is important in all the same ways that the Xbox 360 Arcade's lack of a hard drive is important.

Xbox 360 is simply the least expensive of the three consoles right now.  Period.  No qualifications or asterisks required.

[DaveMMR]

Xbox 360 is simply the least expensive of the three consoles right now.  Period.  No qualifications or asterisks required.

 

"A little off" doe not mean "wrong".  I still agreed with you in the end based solely on the numbers.  If your goal is to buy ANY game console and play ANY game without additional cost, then the 360 AE wins hands down (better bundled software too, IMO).

But the reason for the "little off"?   Because anyone can highlight or discount features that justify the price tags.  Just as an example:  Wii has BC out of the box (assuming you have the controllers already) with old GC software while you need to buy a Hard Drive for the 360 Arcade Edition in order to play old Xbox titles.  So, if supporting old software is an important feature, suddenly the 360 is no longer the cheaper option.  Plus, someone who wants to play Nintendo games won't look to save $50 and lose that ability. 

When it comes to purchasing a large ticket item, there's always an "asterisk".  Otherwise, we'd all just buy the cheapest stuff and be satisfied with it. 

[HaRuMaN]

Not to mention that the Wii has wireless networking built in, while the Xbox 360 requires a $99 adapter.   

[ChadTower]

Not to mention that the Wii has wireless networking built in, while the Xbox 360 requires a $99 adapter.   

Which annoyed the piss out of me because I wanted an on board ethernet port and had to buy a USB->ethernet adapter for the Wii. 

[shmokes]

Sure . . . I don't disagree with you.  What I mean to say about no asterisk required is that there are always feature differences between competing consoles.  The Nintendo 64 had no load times, the PSX had way more storage space.  But you still wouldn't turn any heads by saying, "N64 is cheaper than PSX."  The Xbox 360 hard drive is a feature, and prior to the release of the 360 Arcade SKU you wouldn't turn any heads by saying, "Wii is cheaper than the Xbox 360."  Nobody would say, "No it isn't, you have to factor in what you're paying for the hard drive and the superior processors.  In that sense the 360 is cheaper."  It's not that there isn't any validity to that, but it's just not the way typical people talk.

But it's even stranger for my comparison to turn heads, cos the missing feature on the 360 is also missing on the Wii.  Stripping out the hard drive actually makes the comparison closer to apples and apples, not further away.

So if you didn't need an asterisk before to say that the Wii was the least expensive, I simply can't see why you would need one now to say the 360 is the least expensive.  

[DaveMMR]

But it's even stranger for my comparison to turn heads, cos the missing feature on the 360 is also missing on the Wii.  

The Wii was never designed with a hard drive in mind, just storage via an SD card.  It was an design oversight, sure, since now they're realizing the need for one with large WiiWare titles and the profit potential in DLC for games like Rock Band.   But no game or feature on Wii technically requires a hard drive, which is not true of the 360.

Also, Nintendo never said they were releasing a hard drive, just a "better storage solution".  It may be a hard drive, it may not.

So if you didn't need an asterisk before to say that the Wii was the least expensive

I personally never thought that.  Again, there's always an asterisk.  If we were to go back to the beginning, we'd say "The Wii is least expensive but it's also the most underpowered and lacks adequate online play".   Yeah, both are still true, but some people are satisfied with it nontheless.

[ChadTower]

Kotaku is now reporting that the company does indeed have a storage solution on the way, but it won't come in the form a physical hard drive. Nintendo executive Reggie Fils-Aime tells Club Nintendo magazine that we'll see something even better than a hard drive for the Wii.

We pretty much have two viable options:  hard drives and solid state memory.  If it ain't a hard drive...


EDIT: 

Wii finally has a storage solution: Load from the SD slot

[shmokes]

Again, there's always an asterisk. 

But that's exactly why there isn't one.  Because the asterisk is already implied and understood by everyone.  When you say that the Xbox 360 is cheaper than the PS3 you don't have to say, "The PS3 has a more powerful processor.  But the 360 has more RAM.  But the PS3 has a BluRay drive.  But the 360 has an awesome online component.  But the PS3's online component is free.  But the 360's controller has a sensibly placed analog stick.  But the PS3 has built-in Bluetooth.  But the 360 has rumbling controllers (I know PS3 has them too finally).  But the PS3 isn't ---smurfing--- ugly.  But the 360 has changeable faceplates so can be potentially less ugly."

That's all true, but people already know that these differences exist and the differences are too small to reasonably take issue with the general statement, "Xbox 360 is cheaper than the PS3."  Of course you can get into a feature comparison and talk about which is the better value, but making a point of qualifying the objective price statement is totally unnecessary.

The same goes here.  The 360 Arcade is missing the hard drive feature that its siblings ship with.  But it's neither a feature that is required for 99% of what the 360 can do, nor is it a feature that someone considering a Wii could really complain about it not having.  I'm not saying that the hard drive isn't important.  And I'm not saying that its exclusion from the Arcade SKU doesn't potentially make it a poor value compared to a 360 that comes with a hard drive.  But its relative importance isn't nearly so great that you need an explicit asterisk in order to say that it's cheaper than a Wii, where you didn't need one in order to say that the Wii was cheaper than the 360 before.  It's just a feature difference like any other.  The asterisk is ALWAYS there, which is exactly why it doesn't need to be there. 

[Ginsu Victim]

When the X360 Arcade came out, I asked what was different about it at Wal-mart, and the guy said, "Oh, it only comes with a 20 GB instead of the larger ones." So I'd had the wrong idea about the Arcade until this thread.

Thanks for hiring incompetent employees, Wal-mart! (He's actually a friend of mine, though I'm going to rip him a new one next time I talk to him)

[DaveMMR]

I think we're way over complicating this.   My bad.  

My point was that price is not always the only consideration in informed purchases, and we've both pretty much proven that.   The starting price of any console can escalate depending on what add-ons are wanted/needed.

[ChadTower]

...and no one ever bothers to count in controllers.  Who buys a system without buying extra controllers?  How much are those for each system and how many do you need for practical use on each?  How about memory cards?  That can add as little as 10% or as much as 100%.

[shmokes]

I thought of mentioning that, but my posts are always so long as it is.  Since a Wii controller is $20 more than a 360 controller, even at launch a Wii with four controllers cost slightly more than a 360 with four controllers.  It's nit picky, though.  I think it was still fair to say that the Wii was less expensive.

[ChadTower]

An $80 difference is far from nitpicky.  We're talking a substantial cost difference there.

I don't consider 4 controllers necessary, though.  Nice to have, yes, but really only two are necessary.

[SavannahLion]

An $80 difference is far from nitpicky.  We're talking a substantial cost difference there.

I don't consider 4 controllers necessary, though.  Nice to have, yes, but really only two are necessary.

Very few people ever seem to look at controller costs though. I've seen people throw back a really good $50 game, but not even blink twice when grabbing two extra controllers.

Shmokes, are you counting the Wiimote w/ Nunchuk or has the prices changed? A Wii controller (by itself) is about $10 cheaper than the 360's controller. In any case, the whole Wii controller marketing scheme is pretty damn successful. A Wiimote is $40... except most of the really good games need a Nunchuk controller too. Damn, throw on another $20 on top of that. Whoops, that's $60 now. Hell, since we're spending money, might as well toss on the Classic controller for another $20. How much is that new dongle to fix the Wiimote positional drawbacks going to cost? Another $20? For a "complete" set, a person is looking at shelling out $100 for each person.

That's not even counting the nutty accessories. Official stuff like the Zelda "crossbow", $20. The steering wheel for another $20-$25. Then there's the third party stuff like pistol grips, sports "adapters", swords, etc. Obtaining a complete set for two people alone could easily exceed the cost of the console itself! 

genius from a marketing standpoint.

[ChadTower]

Very few people ever seem to look at controller costs though. I've seen people throw back a really good $50 game, but not even blink twice when grabbing two extra controllers.

Those people are bad at math.  I know what you mean, though.  When I was trying to justify buying the Wii I was calculating cost around $400 and I had to explain it every time I mentioned that to someone.  Not so hard to do... Wii + Wiimote + nunchuk + SD card + 1 game.

[shmokes]

An $80 difference is far from nitpicky.  We're talking a substantial cost difference there.

I don't consider 4 controllers necessary, though.  Nice to have, yes, but really only two are necessary.

$60.  The system comes with one complete set so you've only gotta buy 3.  When the Wii launched a 360 was $299 for the one with the smaller hard drive.  A Wii was $250.  So a person who bought a Wii and three more controllers is in for $10 more than a person who bought a person who bought a 360 and 3 more controllers.

But I don't think that's enough to say the Wii was more expensive.  First, plenty of people don't buy all the controllers cos they don't have that many friends.  Or they figure they'll buy more controllers later or get them as gifts.  Or they can do like me . . . I've got three remotes, but only two nunchucks.  I never got a fourth remote cos my next door neighbor (who's door was about four feet from mine) had a Wii so we'd just borrow each other's controllers if we needed four.  As for the nunchucks, the only four-player game I have is Wii Sports and the only sport that uses a nunchuck is boxing which is only two-player.  So for a lot of people, if they're not Madden fans, they only need two nunchucks.

So it's kinda sloppy, but I think it's fair to say that at launch the Wii was cheaper than the 360 even though there was a way to look at it and say it wasn't the case.

Shmokes, are you counting the Wiimote w/ Nunchuk or has the prices changed?

I'm talking remote + nunchuck.  $60 for the lot.  An Xbox 360 controller is $40.

[ahofle]

Wii finally has a storage solution: Load from the SD slot

WTF, 2GB max?  Useless!

[SavannahLion]

Wii finally has a storage solution: Load from the SD slot

WTF, 2GB max?  Useless!

For capabilities we should have had on launch.

I doubt it matters. I noticed one of my game manuals stated you cannot move the saved game to the SD card. On a whim, I checked a few random games on the Wii and I located three or four that could not be copied to an SD card.

A 2GB limit is going to mean jack ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- if you can't even move a majority of the saved games to the SD card anyways.

[ChadTower]

For capabilities we should have had on launch.

Yeah, I never got not being able to run software off the SD card.

[shmokes]

Why not?  Making the SD slot useful doesn't cost any money.  They had to program there system not to run software directly from SD cards, which was probably exactly the same as much work as it would have been to allow software to run directly from SD cards.  It's always been incredibly absurd that Virtual Console games couldn't be run from the SD slot.  I mean absolutely, positively absurd.  Seriously . . . they put it there for archival purposes only?   

Still they ought to just allow external hard drives.  There are two USB slots.  If you ask me Nintendo has one thing in mind, "Okay . . . we need to get DLC working for games like Rock Band.  But if we create a hard drive peripheral someone's going to figure out how to rip games to it and run them from there.  Let's just open up the SD card slot.  At least then only virtual console games will get pirated.  Who cares if 2 GB it's nowhere near enough and Rock Band players have to constantly swap SD cards?  We're making money faster than we can count it!"

[DaveMMR]

A 2GB limit is going to mean jack ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- if you can't even move a majority of the saved games to the SD card anyways.

The game saves are really not the problem.  It's WiiWare/VC games and DLC for the upcoming Rock Band 2 and new Guitar Hero that eat up a ton of space.

And yeah, 2 GB is pretty paltry, but it's better than nothing I suppose.  And why exactly do we have to wait until April 2009?  

As for the extra Wii controllers:   Consider also that many people pick up a copy of WiiPlay (despite it's mediocrity) for the bonus Wiimote.  And honestly, a lot of the popular multiplayer games outside Madden, et. al. do not require a nunchuk.   And two of my favorites (SSB: Brawl and Mario Kart Wii), you can use GC controllers.   I only have two nunchucks and I've never had to use more than one at a time thus far.  

What you DO need to factor into the cost is one (or two) of those nifty recharging stations.  Well worth the cost.  

[shmokes]

Funny too that one of the two games you mentioned as needing a nunchuck doesn't even need one -- it's optional (Mario Kart).  I have two nunchucks.  I've played lots of games that require two nunchucks, but none that require four.  I know they're out there, but I'm not a madden fan, so . . .

[Edgedamage]

Don't take my knocks against the 360 as me being a 360 hater. I loved the 360 but sold it because I don't trust the hardware. I got the PS3 because I got tired of hearing all my co-workers talk about it and I got the 40gig and am happy with it. As for playing PS2 games I really don't care much for any game to warrant BC. Now if I could only trade my wii for a CRT HDTV I would be happy.

[shmokes]

BTW, I think there may be some confusion about what Nintendo announced.  Some sites are reporting that software will be able to be run directly from the SD card.  Others are reporting that you will merely be able to download directly to your SD card from the WiiWare and VC stores if your internal memory is full.  And supposedly transferring from the SD card to main memory will be made easier and more straight forward.  If that is Nintendo's solution it's no solution at all. 

God . . . people talk about Sony not giving a crap about their customers.  Look at Nintendo!  They deliberately gimp the SD card slot.  They give you the wonderful world of friend codes even after they are universally panned and hated on the DS.  They are the only company that doesn't subsidize its hardware with software royalties (hell . . . they didn't even release at a break even point; it was profit on hardware since day one).  They have the audacity to maintain an artificial hardware shortage for two years and running.  It's been two years and we still haven't seen the price drop by a single cent, despite the VASTLY superior and more expensive to build Xbox 360 costing less than the Wii now.  The controllers are so broken that Nintendo is releasing a peripheral next year that does nothing but fix it. 

It's easy to point out Sony's failures because they've translated into financial difficulties, while Nintendo couldn't print its own money as fast as it's coming in.  But when it comes to listening to customers, responding to customers . . . Nintendo's doing a horrible horrible job.  They're going to end up doing the same thing to their success that they did with it the last time.

[Kangum]

this is off topic but based on the past few posts. it irritates the crap out of me that my complaint about the short storage of the wii has been ignored for so long. i purchased my wii over a year ago and i filled my vc titles quick. it doesnt take long at all especially if you get the n64 games. all people did was was give me crap back then and say things like you can delete and redownload titles you paid for so more space is not needed. just shuffle them. add another 200 posts how its "not needed" now its really starting to affect people and people are all upset about it. i dont know wether to sit back and laugh or just shake my head.

[shmokes]

Did you type that post on your phone?

[DaveMMR]

God . . . people talk about Sony not giving a crap about their customers.  Look at Nintendo!...

I'm inclined to agree. 

I think gamers are giving Sony more crap because:

a) We are used to Nintendo being out of touch with the direction of gaming.
b) We're not used to Sony being so out of touch with their customers.

Nintendo's list of questionable design and marketing decisions is a mile long and goes back to the late 80's:  Nintendo's censorship policy, Nintendo's slow processor in the SNES, Nintendo sticking to cartridges, The GBA only has two face buttons, Friend Codes, etc. 

Sony, meanwhile, struck while the iron was hot, twice, and seemed unstoppable.  But they made that big misstep by overpricing their anticipated hardware and then saying, in not so many words, that everyone can just shut up and like it.   

The problem with Nintendo is that they only learn when they get bitten in their wallet's ass by their ways (Genesis version of MK outsold SNES, for example, which led to that relaxation in censorship).   But they might not learn much from this go-around since everyone's eating what they're serving. 

Also, and I'm guessing here, I would say more than half of the Wii owners (e.g. the extremely casual) don't even care about the hardware deficiencies we talk about.  If they don't, why should Nintendo, right?   

[SavannahLion]

God . . . people talk about Sony not giving a crap about their customers.  Look at Nintendo!...

I'm inclined to agree. 

I think gamers are giving Sony more crap because:

a) We are used to Nintendo being out of touch with the direction of gaming.
b) We're not used to Sony being so out of touch with their customers.

Nintendo's list of questionable design and marketing decisions is a mile long and goes back to the late 80's:  Nintendo's censorship policy, Nintendo's slow processor in the SNES, Nintendo sticking to cartridges, The GBA only has two face buttons, Friend Codes, etc. 

Ahh... But there's a difference between what Nintendo is doing/has done and what Sony is doing. In the past, Nintendo didn't have a tendency to offer a carrot, snatch the carrot away then say, "too bad, so sad." The examples you give are blunders from the get go that Nintendo either corrected (relaxation of censorship) or dealt with (every other example) until the next generation. From the top of my head, it's fairly rare for Nintendo to out and out remove features (not accessories) from any of their consoles.

Sony, on the other hand, flat out removes major features from their consoles. The loss of the HDD in the slim PS2 is one example. BCC in the PS3 is another.

Sony made fewer changes between the 15 or so revisions of the PS2 than they did in seven revisions of the PS3. Nintendo may be out of touch with their market, but Sony is so far out in left field they're during surveys with penguins.

[DaveMMR]

God . . . people talk about Sony not giving a crap about their customers.  Look at Nintendo!...

I'm inclined to agree. 

I think gamers are giving Sony more crap because:

a) We are used to Nintendo being out of touch with the direction of gaming.
b) We're not used to Sony being so out of touch with their customers.

Nintendo's list of questionable design and marketing decisions is a mile long and goes back to the late 80's:  Nintendo's censorship policy, Nintendo's slow processor in the SNES, Nintendo sticking to cartridges, The GBA only has two face buttons, Friend Codes, etc. 

Ahh... But there's a difference between what Nintendo is doing/has done and what Sony is doing. In the past, Nintendo didn't have a tendency to offer a carrot, snatch the carrot away then say, "too bad, so sad." The examples you give are blunders from the get go that Nintendo either corrected (relaxation of censorship) or dealt with (every other example) until the next generation. From the top of my head, it's fairly rare for Nintendo to out and out remove features (not accessories) from any of their consoles.

Sony, on the other hand, flat out removes major features from their consoles. The loss of the HDD in the slim PS2 is one example. BCC in the PS3 is another.

Sony made fewer changes between the 15 or so revisions of the PS2 than they did in seven revisions of the PS3. Nintendo may be out of touch with their market, but Sony is so far out in left field they're during surveys with penguins.

Sony was taking away features seldom used (much like Nintendo removed the headphone jack and required an adapter with the GBA SP).  They were probably thinking the same thing removing the BC (ahh, no one needs it), but now they're making their system a worse deal.

[shmokes]

Nintendo removed the broadband adapter port on the Gamecube, if I'm not mistaken.  That's not a huge deal since I think maybe only one game ever supported it.  But they also removed the ability to use component out (and hence 480p) which is pretty huge, IMO.  Most importantly, however, is Nintendo's indifference (disdain?) to its aging fanbase.  More gamers are adults than minors.  The fact that console after console, generation after generation, Nintendo refuses to take more than cursory steps to address this fact is far more egregious than pulling a feature from a console.  Or, maybe it's not.  I don't know.  I don't mean to get in a pissing match.  But this is the first time I have ever wished that I had another console instead of the Nintendo console.  I eventually supplemented my N64 with a PS One.  I eventually supplemented my Gamecube with an Xbox.  I have ALWAYS gone with Nintendo first.  For the first time I wish I hadn't. 

[SavannahLion]

Nintendo removed the broadband adapter port on the Gamecube, if I'm not mistaken.  That's not a huge deal since I think maybe only one game ever supported it.  But they also removed the ability to use component out (and hence 480p) which is pretty huge, IMO.  Most importantly, however, is Nintendo's indifference (disdain?) to its aging fanbase.

It's the Serial 2 port, not the Serial 1 port. Serial 1 is what is used for the network adapter. After searching for some time, the only major discussion (or confirmation or otherwise) I can find about its removal is on an old thread at afterdawn. As an aside, I recall a grand total of four games with network support. Kirby's Air Ride and Phantasy Star being at least two. Losing the S2 port was not a loss as I can't recall a single peripheral that ever used it.

Losing the DAV is a loss that pissed me off. At one point, Nintendo even offered to replace my old console with the, "improived," version during a phone call about it. However, I really have to admit that in the long run, this loss affected me in no great way. At the time, I did have intentions to purchasing an entertainment system that required the use of GCN's DAV. That was seven years ago and I still have the same ---smurfing--- TV I had back then.

[ChadTower]

At the time there weren't all that many TVs that supported 480p.  Looking back with today's eyes makes that a bigger deal than it was.  It wasn't even 480p yet - it was just "component out".  There was no outcry over it when it happened.

[shmokes]

It was 480p.  I played lots of games in 480p when it happened.  It never affected me personally since I already had a Gamecube since shortly after launch, but I'd have been pissed if I was buying a Gamecube after it happened -- not just for 480p but for the vastly superior color separation when using component vs. composite or S-video too.  And, seriously, I bet a lot more people use component connections than backward compatibility.  Most people stop playing their old system once a new system comes out.  Backward compatibility is nice to have on the few occasions that you might use it, but most people never or hardly ever use it.

Regardless, this is a giant digression.  I don't mean to say that removing the digital video out port is more or less bad than removing backward compatibility.  In the balance I'd probably lean toward the loss of backward compatibility being a bigger deal since it kills the ability to play certain games altogether while Nintendo's move just made it so games didn't look quite as nice.  I was just responding to the contention that Nintendo doesn't start out with certain features and then pull them away in future revisions. 

[ChadTower]

Losing backwards compatibility is a much bigger deal than component out.  Losing component out didn't change the functionality at all.  It just changed the display a little bit and even then for only a minority of users (not many component capable displays back then).

We have to separate features from functions in this discussion.  They aren't the same thing.

[shmokes]

Chad, who are you arguing with?  My last paragraph says that I think losing backward compatibility is a bigger deal than component out because one kills your ability to play games while the other just makes them not look as nice.  Isn't that EXACTLY what you mean by features vs. functions?  Are you seriously going to parse all my posts to make sure that in every instance I make the absolute best possible word choice?

Let me fix that last line for you:

"I was just responding to the contention that Nintendo doesn't start out with certain features carrots and then pull them away in future revisions."

The word used in the post I was replying to was neither features nor function.  It was carrot.  I'm pretty sure that "carrot" can cover both features and functions.

[ChadTower]

Chad, who are you arguing with?  My last paragraph says that I think losing backward compatibility is a bigger deal than component out because one kills your ability to play games while the other just makes them not look as nice.  Isn't that EXACTLY what you mean by features vs. functions?  Are you seriously going to parse all my posts to make sure that in every instance I make the absolute best possible word choice?

You don't have to consider every post as a countering viewpoint, you know.  Sometimes people agree on the internet.     Stop making arguments out of things that aren't.  Or at least take out the caffeine IV this morning.  That wasn't a response aimed at you in particular.  It was a general contribution to the discussion. 

[shmokes]

The features bit, and the timing of the post, made it look like it was aimed at me (in particular to my comment about pulling features).  And it's worth noting that we are simultaneously in a semantics argument in another thread in which my words are being parsed in exactly the manner that it seemed you were doing here.  Regardless, you can't exactly play the injured bird when someone assumes you are arguing with them.  You are ChadTower.  I think you know what that means.   

[Dartful Dodger]

I've mentioned this before, I haven't bought a console since PS1, and then I only bought it because a guy I knew who had a friend at Best Buy found it by the dumpster.

I bought the PS3 because of the threat that backward compatibility was going to be removed. I bought it and bought a handful of ps2 games.  I played those games a few times, but once I started buying a few PS3 games I stopped playing/buying PS2 games.

Compared to the PS3, PS2 games suck.  Having backward compatibility is useless and I felt the same way the current BC whiners are feeling.

The people complaining about Sony dropping BC, have no intention of buying a PS3.  If they are/were they won't until the price drops.  Removing BC will allow Sony to drop the price enough so they can afford it.

Unlike these complainers I'm using my dollars to tell Sony what to do.  If the other ps3 owners are not buying PS2 games, the choice for Sony is obvious.  Move forward and forget about the backward compatibility.

[RetroGreg]

I think it's a big deal Nintendo dropped the component out on the GameCube. Not to mention that I had to order my component cables THROUGH Nintendo to use that functionality to begin with.

As for the main topic, I would only want a PS3 with the backwards compatibility because all my other Sony hardware has been shoddy and I fully expect it all to break at some point. Backwards compatibility would protect my investment in my games.

[Dartful Dodger]

For the amount of time you're going to play those PS2 games you'd be better off trading them in for credit towards Guitar Hero World Tour.

If you really are still playing those games even after you've bought a few PS3 games and your PS2 dies on you, a new PS2 is pretty cheap.

The more people that buy a PS3 without backward compatibility, the more the demand for new PS3 games will be.

[Ginsu Victim]

Compared to the PS3, PS2 games suck.

You're gonna have to elaborate, because there are FAR more games I'd rather play on PS2 than the PS3.

[SavannahLion]

I think it's a big deal Nintendo dropped the component out on the GameCube. Not to mention that I had to order my component cables THROUGH Nintendo to use that functionality to begin with.

I never really understood the reasoning behind that. According to Nintendo, less than 1% of their total user base ever used the DAV. Not having the cables readily available in stores played a really big role with the rest of the user base not utilizing the DAV. Classic chicken and egg problem.

My comment about Nintendo not in the habit of offering carrots and then taking them away still stands. I never said that Nintendo never offers, then removes, features from their consoles. I said that Nintendo does not have the tendency to offer, then remove, features from their consoles.

[Dartful Dodger]

Compared to the PS3, PS2 games suck.

You're gonna have to elaborate, because there are FAR more games I'd rather play on PS2 than the PS3.

The last PS2 game you bought new sucks compared to the last PS3 game you bought new.

[Ginsu Victim]

Compared to the PS3, PS2 games suck.

You're gonna have to elaborate, because there are FAR more games I'd rather play on PS2 than the PS3.

The last PS2 game you bought new sucks compared to the last PS3 game you bought new.

Thank you for clarifying, because the blanket statement of "Compared to the PS3, PS2 games suck" is untrue when you look at the libraries for each.

However, the last game I bought new for PS2 was Shadow of the Colossus and I haven't bought anything for the PS3.

[DaveMMR]

Compared to the PS3, PS2 games suck.

You're gonna have to elaborate, because there are FAR more games I'd rather play on PS2 than the PS3.

Ginsu beat me to it.  I was going to say you're probably playing the wrong games.  There are like a hundred (educated guess, that) bona fide classics that are (or were - in GTA III's case) PS2 exclusives.   

I fired up the PS2 the other day and got sucked back into Bombastic (the exploding dice puzzle game).

[hypernova]

This is a retrogaming forum, right?

I want BC for every console I ever buy-unless I can emulate faithfully on a PC or another device for little or no cost.  I play my old GC games and PS2 games at least a few months out of the year.

[patrickl]

I like retrogaming (as in playing games from the eighties), but I don't consider playing a PS2 game on a PS3 console retro gaming.

I gave my PS2 away because the PS2 games were too pathetic compared to PC games and I didn't play them anymore. Then the Xbox 360 and PS3 came along and they give a console experience almost equal to playing on a PC.

[DaveMMR]

I like retrogaming (as in playing games from the eighties), but I don't consider playing a PS2 game on a PS3 console retro gaming.

I gave my PS2 away because the PS2 games were too pathetic compared to PC games and I didn't play them anymore. Then the Xbox 360 and PS3 came along and they give a console experience almost equal to playing on a PC.

I assume you mean graphically, correct? 

[shmokes]

Dartful is right.  What he means is that Shadow of the Colossus on the PS3 is better than Shadow of the Colossus on PS2.  Obviously there is not PS3 version, but if there was it would be better.  And there are games coming out constantly.  And there are too many for you to play them all.  For most of us there are too many to play even all the good ones.  That's why backward compatibility is great in theory, but not so important in practice.  Because if you're going to invest a bunch of time in a game, and there's a PS3 game and a PS2 game that interests you, you'll probably pick the PS3 game because it is objectively superior.

PS2 has far more good games, but PS3 has enough that almost all people will virtually give up playing PS2 when they get a PS3 regardless of whether playing PS2 games is still an option.

With all that said, Shadow of the Colossus, Ico and God of War were three of the top reasons I wanted a PS3 over an Xbox 360.  I never owned a PS2.

[patrickl]

I like retrogaming (as in playing games from the eighties), but I don't consider playing a PS2 game on a PS3 console retro gaming.

I gave my PS2 away because the PS2 games were too pathetic compared to PC games and I didn't play them anymore. Then the Xbox 360 and PS3 came along and they give a console experience almost equal to playing on a PC.

I assume you mean graphically, correct? 

Sigh. Do you seriously think that newer games only add better graphics?

[AtomSmasher]

I like retrogaming (as in playing games from the eighties), but I don't consider playing a PS2 game on a PS3 console retro gaming.

I gave my PS2 away because the PS2 games were too pathetic compared to PC games and I didn't play them anymore. Then the Xbox 360 and PS3 came along and they give a console experience almost equal to playing on a PC.

I assume you mean graphically, correct? 

Sigh. Do you seriously think that newer games only add better graphics?

Why didn't you try playing some of the new (at the time) PS2 games instead of giving away your PS2?  And why would anyone assume you were comparing old ps2 games to new pc games when at the time (before the 360 and ps3 came out) several new ps2 games were released which were at least as good (in terms of gameplay, not graphics) as anything on the pc (at the time)?

[patrickl]

several new ps2 games were released which were at least as good (in terms of gameplay, not graphics) as anything on the pc (at the time)?

Well I didn't think so. Actually, it was more the shallow gameplay that started putting me off. But sure the dated graphics also started taking away from the immersion and meant it lacked the power to draw me in.

[DaveMMR]

I like retrogaming (as in playing games from the eighties), but I don't consider playing a PS2 game on a PS3 console retro gaming.

I gave my PS2 away because the PS2 games were too pathetic compared to PC games and I didn't play them anymore. Then the Xbox 360 and PS3 came along and they give a console experience almost equal to playing on a PC.

I assume you mean graphically, correct? 

Sigh. Do you seriously think that newer games only add better graphics?

Yeah, pretty much.  I mean, maybe they implemented new features but outside of six-axis control, perhaps, I don't see some "leaps and bounds" difference between games on PS2 (or PS1, Dreamcast, et al for that matter) and PS3 that would make PS2 games play worse than PC games while PS3 games are comparable or better.

I don't see the gameplay offerings on PS3 and XBox360 being any more or less shallow than those of the previous generation.  (ex. I saw footage of GTA IV and it looked great but I remember that I grew bored of GTA III and VC so I never got excited for it.)

[patrickl]

I don't see the gameplay offerings on PS3 and XBox360 being any more or less shallow than those of the previous generation.  (ex. I saw footage of GTA IV and it looked great but I remember that I grew bored of GTA III and VC so I never got excited for it.)

Which is exactly an example where the difference is huge. GTA IV is lightyears better than GTA III. Really, you have got to be kidding me (or trolling).

If you think the Xbox and PS2 offer the same (or even better) quality of games as the Xbox 360 and PS3 then fine, stick with your old console. At least accept that you are an exception though. Especially among the people who actually OWN a PS3

[DaveMMR]

I don't see the gameplay offerings on PS3 and XBox360 being any more or less shallow than those of the previous generation.  (ex. I saw footage of GTA IV and it looked great but I remember that I grew bored of GTA III and VC so I never got excited for it.)

Which is exactly an example where the difference is huge. GTA IV is lightyears better than GTA III. Really, you have got to be kidding me (or trolling).

If you think the Xbox and PS2 offer the same (or even better) quality of games as the Xbox 360 and PS3 then fine, stick with your old console. At least accept that you are an exception though. Especially among the people who actually OWN a PS3

No, I'm not trolling.  I'm asking you to explain your assertions.

You're saying "PS2 < PC <= PS3".  But you're not really convincing me as to why this is so.  "GTA IV is lightyears better than GTA III".  Okay, fine.  How, other than graphically, is it light years better?  What features can't be done on previous generations (besides the graphics).  That's not disagreement. I haven't played it so I honestly do not know.  Sell it to me.

From what I've seen and read, the game play of new releases looks to have not changed dramatically from last generation to this generation.  That's why I'm confused.  It's not like the switch from 2D to 3D.  You're not convincing me with "Immersion" as it sounds like some corporate buzzword with vague definitions. 

Not that there's anything wrong with wanting better graphics.  But you scoffed at that notion so I'm asking for a little elaboration. 

At least accept that you are an exception though.

Yeah, not really.  Part of Nintendo's success this go around is that they did offer a new way to play.  Whether it's actually better is open to much debate, but that's besides the point.   

Viewing what Sony and Microsoft had to offer left many consumers with the impression that it's the same types of games with better graphics.   If there is more to it than that, they were unwise to not highlight those next-gen features.   Granted they're still great systems, but for myriad reasons, they didn't do as well as they should have.

And I posted this silly, but thought-provoking article before, but allow me to quote it:

It's true, the PS3 launch games seem to be able to simulate some phat-ass cloth and fluid... but how much difference was there in the actual gaming experience? Gears of War for the 360 is beautiful to look at but nobody is claiming it's a truly different - or novel - experience than other shooters on the market; it's more a refinement of the genre than a reinvention of it. And history says in the world of gaming, that isn't enough.

[AtomSmasher]

several new ps2 games were released which were at least as good (in terms of gameplay, not graphics) as anything on the pc (at the time)?

Well I didn't think so. Actually, it was more the shallow gameplay that started putting me off. But sure the dated graphics also started taking away from the immersion and meant it lacked the power to draw me in.

Just to name a few later releases on the ps2:  Okami, Bully, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War 2, Final Fantasy XII (the only FF I've enjoyed).  I don't think anyone who played them when they came out would say they have shallow gameplay.  I'm mainly a PC gamer myself, but each of these games drew me away from the pc for a while.

And I'm curious, since you're a pc gamer, do you only buy PC games that have really high minimum requirements because you feel those will be the only games that are worth playing?  If you do, then you missed out on some great games such as Sins of the Solar Empire and Darwinia, both of which had extremely low requirements when they were released.

[HaRuMaN]

...Final Fantasy XII (the only FF I've enjoyed)...

Blasphemy!

[patrickl]

No, I'm not trolling.  I'm asking you to explain your assertions.

OK fair enough.

You're saying "PS2 < PC <= PS3".  But you're not really convincing me as to why this is so.  "GTA IV is lightyears better than GTA III".  Okay, fine.  How, other than graphically, is it light years better?  What features can't be done on previous generations (besides the graphics).  That's not disagreement. I haven't played it so I honestly do not know.  Sell it to me.

GTA III is a driving/fps type game with some simple extra features added. GTA IV offers you a living city where 24 hours a day something is happening all over town. To me GTA IV really gives the feeling of going on a city trip and driving through a big city in a foreign country (although for New Yorkers it probably looks more like a drive around the block). I love just driving around when the sun is setting. My girlfriend actually likes to watch me drive around town (she doesn't like me shooting people though).

I'd actually say the graphics could (should) be a bit better than they are now, but I understand that the game shows so many elements that more detail per element is impossible (I mean the cars in a typical racing game look a lot better). Overall the city scapes are breathtaking.

You might frown at wanting better graphics, but the graphics do help a lot in the immersion effect. These games are supposed to be a simulation of life as a gangster. GTA IV goes a lot further in actually drawing you in. When they look as realistic as possible and offer as much as possible freedom in and interaction with the environment, then it works best.

In the end it's not the advances in graphics, but it's the massive depth of a game like GTA IV that puts it lightyears ahead of a simple game like GTA III. It's like comparing the original Wolfenstein to Doom, or actually more like Wolfenstein to Quake. I guess you could say it's the same game and has the same gameplay, but it has much more than just better graphics.

At least accept that you are an exception though.

Yeah, not really.  Part of Nintendo's success this go around is that they did offer a new way to play.  Whether it's actually better is open to much debate, but that's besides the point.   

You left out the bit where I said "especially among people who OWN a PS3". Because you are claiming to be talking for them. People who own a PS3 obviously do see the need to play the new games. At first (when the PS3 was just out and hardly any games were available) they might have wanted to play some old games, but once they buy a few new games I doubt they ever look back. By now there are enough good PS3 games out that you don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway.

[DaveMMR]

Thank you. 

You left out the bit where I said "especially among people who OWN a PS3". Because you are claiming to be talking for them. People who own a PS3 obviously do see the need to play the new games. At first (when the PS3 was just out and hardly any games were available) they might have wanted to play some old games, but once they buy a few new games I doubt they ever look back. By now there are enough good PS3 games out that you don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway.

I wasn't intending to speak for PS3 owners, as I don't own one.  I was being inquisitive as a consumer. I'm not seeing the justification in buying a new system that's creating a pile of obsolete software on my shelve.  And you explained your reasoning so now I see you're point.

But if you are accusing me of speaking on behalf of PS3 owners, keep in mind that you're doing the same thing by saying that "[they] don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway."  Who's to say that some PS3 owner might, heaven forfend, want to play a PS2 game?  Granted, PS3's library has gotten considerably better but it's not so special that it's going to suddenly render every video game since the 70's moot. 

And heck, some of my favorite PS1 games (Crash Bandicoot 3, Metal Gear Solid - nevermind the GC or PC version -, Parappa the Rappa) were never improved upon for the PS2.   Sure glad they had BC, because my original PSX broke. 

[Dartful Dodger]

You left out the bit where I said "especially among people who OWN a PS3". Because you are claiming to be talking for them. People who own a PS3 obviously do see the need to play the new games. At first (when the PS3 was just out and hardly any games were available) they might have wanted to play some old games, but once they buy a few new games I doubt they ever look back. By now there are enough good PS3 games out that you don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway.

This was my point.  I assumed PS3 was dropping the BC months ago, I was going to get a PS3/Blu-ray eventually, so I figured I'd get one before they removed PS2.  At the time PS3 games were over 60 bucks, so I bought the PS3, RockBand and a handful of PS2 games.

It's funny that patrickl mentioned GTA IV, because that's the game that killed all the PS2 games I bought.  There's no point in playing any PS2 fps when you have GTA IV, even racing around the city in GTA IV is more entertaining than a PS2 racing game.  I bought GTA IV a month after it was released and I’m still playing it.

I did buy Karaoke Revolution 3 for the PS2 two weeks ago, but I got it for 20 bucks used and as soon as Guitar Hero World Tour is released that game will be shelved.

A lot of PS3 games are now under 30 bucks, plus you can rent all the games at Block Busters, BC will just confuse new buyers into buying a PS2 game they’ll regret.

[patrickl]

But if you are accusing me of speaking on behalf of PS3 owners, keep in mind that you're doing the same thing by saying that "[they] don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway."  Who's to say that some PS3 owner might, heaven forfend, want to play a PS2 game?  Granted, PS3's library has gotten considerably better but it's not so special that it's going to suddenly render every video game since the 70's moot. 

Well sure there might be "some" people who would like to play their PS2 games, but Sony interviewed people and found out that people really don't care about BC. Do you really think Sony would just take out the functionality if droves of people would have a problem with it?

Besides, I don't feel console games don't compare to classics. Playing a classic arcade game is a completely different experience from playing a modern game. Modern games are more like a movie. You  play it till the end and you're done. Maybe you'll do that a few times, but the surprise is gone and the game loses appeal. Especially when a better version comes along. Or it's a simulation game where better hardware lends itself to a better experience and the going back to the old is just weird. Like watching black and white movies with audio sound instead of a Blu-Ray movie with surround sound.

[patrickl]

It's funny that patrickl mentioned GTA IV, because that's the game that killed all the PS2 games I bought.  There's no point in playing any PS2 fps when you have GTA IV, even racing around the city in GTA IV is more entertaining than a PS2 racing game.  I bought GTA IV a month after it was released and I’m still playing it.

Yeah same here. For my true racing kicks I load up GRID, but GTA IV can keep me entertained all the time. There is always something to do.

Indeed amazingly even just buzzing through the streets never seems to get boring.

[DaveMMR]

But if you are accusing me of speaking on behalf of PS3 owners, keep in mind that you're doing the same thing by saying that "[they] don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway."  Who's to say that some PS3 owner might, heaven forfend, want to play a PS2 game?  Granted, PS3's library has gotten considerably better but it's not so special that it's going to suddenly render every video game since the 70's moot. 

Well sure there might be "some" people who would like to play their PS2 games, but Sony interviewed people and found out that people really don't care about BC. Do you really think Sony would just take out the functionality if droves of people would have a problem with it?

Be careful with those focus group interviews.  They were responsible for the dreaded original Xbox controller.   

But I do see what you mean.  There were probably a lot of games that were hard to go back to when I played the next gen offerings (pick any of them).  But I'm also one who likes to see preservation efforts made for old games - which is why I'm not so keen on Sony's back turning towards it's old back catalog.

[Dartful Dodger]

Indeed amazingly even just buzzing through the streets never seems to get boring.

I'd have finished the game by now if I actually played it.
When I find that I don't have time to actually play out a scenario I tell myself just 15 minutes of mayhem.

I just drive up and down the sidewalks staining the hood of the car red until it eventually catches on fire.  Then I jump out of it at top speed so it'll coast into a group of cars at a busy intersection or a police barricade.  After I die depending on which hospital I start from I'll either go in to the hospital and shoot it up, or go down the street to the strip club and shoot that up.  They’ll keep restarting me at the same hospital so I’ll just keep doing shooting up the same building.

I'll do this for about two hours a night and I never get tired of it.

[patrickl]

Indeed amazingly even just buzzing through the streets never seems to get boring.

I'd have finished the game by now if I actually played it.
When I find that I don't have time to actually play out a scenario I tell myself just 15 minutes of mayhem.

I just drive up and down the sidewalks staining the hood of the car red until it eventually catches on fire.  Then I jump out of it at top speed so it'll coast into a group of cars at a busy intersection or a police barricade.  After I die depending on which hospital I start from I'll either go in to the hospital and shoot it up, or go down the street to the strip club and shoot that up.  They’ll keep restarting me at the same hospital so I’ll just keep doing shooting up the same building.

I'll do this for about two hours a night and I never get tired of it.

Ha, ha, ha, I do the same. I think I'm only one third through the story. I spend most of my time racing/flying/sailing through town and fighting off the cops that inevitably try to take me down.

I also like to climb up a construction crane with a lot of ammo. Taking down the choppers and shooting everything down below. Throwing handgrenades is a lot of fun too. Nice way to block an intersection with smoking cars wrecks.

[shmokes]

I'm pretty sure that Dartful isn't actually serious, but regardless, that's pretty ---smurfing--- funny.

[hypernova]

Indeed amazingly even just buzzing through the streets never seems to get boring.

I'd have finished the game by now if I actually played it.
When I find that I don't have time to actually play out a scenario I tell myself just 15 minutes of mayhem.

I just drive up and down the sidewalks staining the hood of the car red until it eventually catches on fire.  Then I jump out of it at top speed so it'll coast into a group of cars at a busy intersection or a police barricade.  After I die depending on which hospital I start from I'll either go in to the hospital and shoot it up, or go down the street to the strip club and shoot that up.  They’ll keep restarting me at the same hospital so I’ll just keep doing shooting up the same building.

I'll do this for about two hours a night and I never get tired of it.

I would assume that means there's no shortage of doctors and nurses in the game then.

[SithMaster]

Indeed amazingly even just buzzing through the streets never seems to get boring.

I'd have finished the game by now if I actually played it.
When I find that I don't have time to actually play out a scenario I tell myself just 15 minutes of mayhem.

I just drive up and down the sidewalks staining the hood of the car red until it eventually catches on fire.  Then I jump out of it at top speed so it'll coast into a group of cars at a busy intersection or a police barricade.  After I die depending on which hospital I start from I'll either go in to the hospital and shoot it up, or go down the street to the strip club and shoot that up.  They’ll keep restarting me at the same hospital so I’ll just keep doing shooting up the same building.

I'll do this for about two hours a night and I never get tired of it.

Ha, ha, ha, I do the same. I think I'm only one third through the story. I spend most of my time racing/flying/sailing through town and fighting off the cops that inevitably try to take me down.

There's a story?

In FPS games I enjoy replaying the old stuff for the classic maps/missions.  I still play doom for a reason and will continue to do so.

As for gears of war, well they revolutionized FPS genre by taking away "circle strafing dances" and jumping.  You only play that game for the chainsaw anyway (hoping doom 4 does something similar).

But if you are accusing me of speaking on behalf of PS3 owners, keep in mind that you're doing the same thing by saying that "[they] don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway."  Who's to say that some PS3 owner might, heaven forfend, want to play a PS2 game?  Granted, PS3's library has gotten considerably better but it's not so special that it's going to suddenly render every video game since the 70's moot. 

Well sure there might be "some" people who would like to play their PS2 games, but Sony interviewed people and found out that people really don't care about BC. Do you really think Sony would just take out the functionality if droves of people would have a problem with it?

Besides, I don't feel console games don't compare to classics. Playing a classic arcade game is a completely different experience from playing a modern game. Modern games are more like a movie. You  play it till the end and you're done. Maybe you'll do that a few times, but the surprise is gone and the game loses appeal. Especially when a better version comes along. Or it's a simulation game where better hardware lends itself to a better experience and the going back to the old is just weird. Like watching black and white movies with audio sound instead of a Blu-Ray movie with surround sound.

The term classic is relative here.  See I consider anything not current gen classic though a more narrow view would be anything that uses sprites or something.  With modern games I play again to live that experience repeatedly.  Another Halo example being when I play through countless times just for the Maw, Truth and Reconciliation, and the Silent Cartographer.  Sure I expect similar events to happen but I don't need surprise to be entertained.  I just need a challenge.

Aren't all games like a movie then?  Look at any of the 8 bit platformers.  Once you beat Mario Bros 3 are you really going to go back since you know where the turtle spawns and where the mushrooms are?

[patrickl]

There's a story?

Yeah, I actually like the story too. In GTA III I tried a few of the missions and they were boring/simplistic. in GTA IV it's really more like a movie where you actively take part. I even remember all the characters if I haven't played for a while (I played Godfather on the Wii and the trouble was that I could never keep track of who was who and thus lost interest quickly).

But if you are accusing me of speaking on behalf of PS3 owners, keep in mind that you're doing the same thing by saying that "[they] don't need (or have the time) to play the old stuff anyway."  Who's to say that some PS3 owner might, heaven forfend, want to play a PS2 game?  Granted, PS3's library has gotten considerably better but it's not so special that it's going to suddenly render every video game since the 70's moot. 

Well sure there might be "some" people who would like to play their PS2 games, but Sony interviewed people and found out that people really don't care about BC. Do you really think Sony would just take out the functionality if droves of people would have a problem with it?

Besides, I don't feel console games don't compare to classics. Playing a classic arcade game is a completely different experience from playing a modern game. Modern games are more like a movie. You  play it till the end and you're done. Maybe you'll do that a few times, but the surprise is gone and the game loses appeal. Especially when a better version comes along. Or it's a simulation game where better hardware lends itself to a better experience and the going back to the old is just weird. Like watching black and white movies with audio sound instead of a Blu-Ray movie with surround sound.

The term classic is relative here.  See I consider anything not current gen classic though a more narrow view would be anything that uses sprites or something.  With modern games I play again to live that experience repeatedly.  Another Halo example being when I play through countless times just for the Maw, Truth and Reconciliation, and the Silent Cartographer.  Sure I expect similar events to happen but I don't need surprise to be entertained.  I just need a challenge.

Well that's why I made the distinction. In the modern (shooter/sandbox type) games, a big part of the attraction is the movie aspect. If it's just shooting then you might as well keep playing Doom.

I guess you can find a challenge in them still though. Just like some people see it as a challenge how many movies they can watch in succession.

Aren't all games like a movie then?  Look at any of the 8 bit platformers.  Once you beat Mario Bros 3 are you really going to go back since you know where the turtle spawns and where the mushrooms are?

That's not really the same now is it. Seriously, have you played any modern games?

[DaveMMR]

Once you beat Mario Bros 3 are you really going to go back since you know where the turtle spawns and where the mushrooms are?

Hells ya!  I used to play SMB3 constantly as a kid and would often spend my summer months staying up all night to try and beat it without warping.  Recently, we downloaded it for the Wii's VC and the girlfriend and I tried to get through all the levels.  It's a lot tougher than I remember, having been coddled by the easier Super Mario World, et al. 

[Dartful Dodger]

I'm pretty sure that Dartful isn't actually serious, but regardless, that's pretty ---smurfing--- funny.

Unfortunately I’m serious. I can spend hours repeating these scenarios.  When I do have to turn the game off I'm pist at myself because the whole point of playing like this was to 'kill' a few minutes before going to bed, because I thought it was too late at night to start/finish a mission.

I don't want to save a mission with a cheat activated so I wait until after I've failed a mission before dialing a cheat.  I don't know my best friends' phone numbers, but I know the cheats for weapons, a motorcycle, and the helicopter by heart.  I have to refer to a print out for the boat and FIB car cheats, so I can still tell myself I don't have a problem.

[hypernova]

I don't know my best friends' phone numbers, but I know the cheats for weapons, a motorcycle, and the helicopter by heart.

Sure...you don't "know" your friends' numbers...

You need friends first.

Another Halo example being when I play through countless times just for the Maw, Truth and Reconciliation, and the Silent Cartographer.

What about AOTCR?  Those are all some sweet ass levels

[Dartful Dodger]

I don't know my best friends' phone numbers, but I know the cheats for weapons, a motorcycle, and the helicopter by heart.

Sure...you don't "know" your friends' numbers...

You need friends first.

What's even scarier is I had to visualize that fake cell phone in the corner, because I didn't even know the numbers.  I had memorized the pattern of up, down, left, right on the d pad.

[shmokes]

There's a story?

I haven't played GTA IV, but San Andreas had one of the most compelling stories of any video game I've ever played.  The writing is some of the best you'll see anywhere short of a Tim Schafer game (Psychonaughts, Grim Fandango, Full Throttle, etc.).  9 times out of 10 it is the people who do nothing in a GTA game but commit random acts of violence who claim that it is shallow and boring.  Start into the story and it will suck you in like few other videogames can. 

BTW, Vice City was also brilliantly written, I just think it wasn't quite as good as San Andreas.  I never really played GTA III so I can't really comment on it.

From the reviews that I've read, though, GTA IV apparently has by far the most sophisticated story of the lot and maintains the high quality of writing the series is known for. 

[SithMaster]

That's not really the same now is it. Seriously, have you played any modern games?

No I haven't actually.

What's your definition of modern exactly?  The last games I played were Halo 3 and FEAR.  I can't say I'll definitely play FEAR more than once, but I can play Halo games everyday for a year and still have fun.  Yes it gets repetitive but then again so does going through the same maze, avoiding the same ghosts, getting the same pellet, using the same movement pattern to get the high score.

I guess you can find a challenge in them still though. Just like some people see it as a challenge how many movies they can watch in succession.

Are these people paying attention to the movie or just staring at the screen?

I don't know my best friends' phone numbers, but I know the cheats for weapons, a motorcycle, and the helicopter by heart.

Sure...you don't "know" your friends' numbers...

You need friends first.

Another Halo example being when I play through countless times just for the Maw, Truth and Reconciliation, and the Silent Cartographer.

What about AOTCR?  Those are all some sweet ass levels

It was epic.  I should play through again this weekend or something.

[NipRing]

Phew! This was a long thread to read. I'm surprised no one mentioned the "Super 160GB" PS3.....that also will not have backward compatibility. FAIL
And as for the person who was talking about that last game i bought for my ps2 isnt as good as the last game i bought for my ps3...God of War II > Heavenly Sword.

M$ hasnt exactly been overflowing their BC list in the last year either. In fact i've heard plenty of rumors that the last update (nov 07) was indeed the last update. Sad really. But because they didnt include BC as built in hardware they wont be chastised for dropping their support of it (but they're Xbox Originals list just keeps growing though  )

[SithMaster]

Phew! This was a long thread to read. I'm surprised no one mentioned the "Super 160GB" PS3.....that also will not have backward compatibility. FAIL
And as for the person who was talking about that last game i bought for my ps2 isnt as good as the last game i bought for my ps3...God of War II > Heavenly Sword.

M$ hasnt exactly been overflowing their BC list in the last year either. In fact i've heard plenty of rumors that the last update (nov 07) was indeed the last update. Sad really. But because they didnt include BC as built in hardware they wont be chastised for dropping their support of it (but they're Xbox Originals list just keeps growing though  )

M$ only gave us a 20gb hard drive though and that was pretty bad in their grand scheme of downloading Xbox originals.  Then they were charging 100 dollars for a 20gb if you bought it separately.

I haven't looked at the backwards compatibility list but I'm guessing they built support for the titles they though would do well and stopped there.

[shmokes]

because they didnt include BC as built in hardware they wont be chastised for dropping their support of it 

Dropping backward compatibility is dropping backward compatibility, I don't care how you were delivering it.  Whether you drop it in software or drop it in hardware, you're dropping it either way.

The difference between Xbox 360 and PS3 is that future purchasers of the Xbox 360 will still get the same partial (but still fairly comprehensive, from what I understand) backward compatibility that everyone else has.  New PS3 owners get zero backward compatibility.  That's what's effed up. 

[patrickl]

You can still play those PS1 classics on it though 

[DaveMMR]

You can still play those PS1 classics on it though 

Woo-Hoo!  Crash Bandicoot: Warped!!

[NipRing]

because they didnt include BC as built in hardware they wont be chastised for dropping their support of it 

Dropping backward compatibility is dropping backward compatibility, I don't care how you were delivering it.  Whether you drop it in software or drop it in hardware, you're dropping it either way.

The difference between Xbox 360 and PS3 is that future purchasers of the Xbox 360 will still get the same partial (but still fairly comprehensive, from what I understand) backward compatibility that everyone else has.  New PS3 owners get zero backward compatibility.  That's what's effed up. 

I agree completely. But with MS, they conveniently never put out a statement about whether or not they are still supporting the BC  list or if they're done with it all together. This way they avoid any bad press. I'm glad they did what they did, but i still have a few games i'd like to see on that list. As far as sony pulling their BC, if it is (was) software enabled I dont see how they are losing out.

Slightly off topic, I wonder if people have fully grasped the bigger picture of digital downloads. For example,  in the very near future it seems games, full games, will be going the route of digital download. I'm betting its going to be marketed as cheaper (less cost to physically produce),  more convenient, and if you delete it by accident you can just DL it again. But what about when you're tired of it? Plenty of people like to buy-conquer-resell-buy new game. Not with digital, its your forever. What about 2 console cycles from now? Will the xbox 1440 play my megaman 9? Dam well better.  I own 2 360s, one for me, one for my wife. We play rockband on her xbox. We have downloaded lots and lots of tracks for RB and RB2. But when she wants to play Viva Pinata and i want to take RB upstairs to play on my 360...no DLC for me. Even though we own both xbox's, live in the same house, we're married, and the money that paid for ALL the DLC came from our checking account, the same account that bought both 360 brand new and pays our Xbox Live account. Remember when you could take your favorite game over to a friends house? Cant do that with Digital DLs, your friend better have his own copy if you want to play there (even if that friend is your own wife). At the rate people are buying the DL content, when most realise it, its gonna be too late. 

  OK, i'm done.

I need a Whopper 

[shmokes]

As far as sony pulling their BC, if it is (was) software enabled I dont see how they are losing out.

Well, FWIW, PS2 compatibility on a PS3 requires actual PS2 hardware.  Under no circumstances has it ever been done 100% in software on the PS3's cell processor and graphics chip.  It has always been a hardware solution.

[Loafmeister]

because they didnt include BC as built in hardware they wont be chastised for dropping their support of it 

Dropping backward compatibility is dropping backward compatibility, I don't care how you were delivering it.  Whether you drop it in software or drop it in hardware, you're dropping it either way.

The difference between Xbox 360 and PS3 is that future purchasers of the Xbox 360 will still get the same partial (but still fairly comprehensive, from what I understand) backward compatibility that everyone else has.  New PS3 owners get zero backward compatibility.  That's what's effed up. 

I agree completely. But with MS, they conveniently never put out a statement about whether or not they are still supporting the BC  list or if they're done with it all together. This way they avoid any bad press. I'm glad they did what they did, but i still have a few games i'd like to see on that list. As far as sony pulling their BC, if it is (was) software enabled I dont see how they are losing out.

Slightly off topic, I wonder if people have fully grasped the bigger picture of digital downloads. For example,  in the very near future it seems games, full games, will be going the route of digital download. I'm betting its going to be marketed as cheaper (less cost to physically produce),  more convenient, and if you delete it by accident you can just DL it again. But what about when you're tired of it? Plenty of people like to buy-conquer-resell-buy new game. Not with digital, its your forever. What about 2 console cycles from now? Will the xbox 1440 play my megaman 9? Dam well better.  I own 2 360s, one for me, one for my wife. We play rockband on her xbox. We have downloaded lots and lots of tracks for RB and RB2. But when she wants to play Viva Pinata and i want to take RB upstairs to play on my 360...no DLC for me. Even though we own both xbox's, live in the same house, we're married, and the money that paid for ALL the DLC came from our checking account, the same account that bought both 360 brand new and pays our Xbox Live account. Remember when you could take your favorite game over to a friends house? Cant do that with Digital DLs, your friend better have his own copy if you want to play there (even if that friend is your own wife). At the rate people are buying the DL content, when most realise it, its gonna be too late. 

  OK, i'm done.

I need a Whopper 

Pardon my ignorance if I'm wrong but you can (I think) if the RB tracks work the same as other DLC's.  My friend does it all the time with xbox live arcade games. You need to recover your account on the other console and redownload the tracks (again, if it applies the same) and then it should work.  This does mean the 2nd console does need to be connected to Xbox live though, a hassle for some, but there is a workaround.  The big ugly non-fun experience though is when you go back to your other console, you again have to recover your account, a good 10 minute process.

It's not a fun solution, but again it works for xblive arcade stuff so hopefully it will work for RB tracks too. Let me know if it works, I plan on buying a second 360 in the future for the upstairs living room.

[NipRing]

As far as sony pulling their BC, if it is (was) software enabled I dont see how they are losing out.

Well, FWIW, PS2 compatibility on a PS3 requires actual PS2 hardware.  Under no circumstances has it ever been done 100% in software on the PS3's cell processor and graphics chip.  It has always been a hardware solution.

I did some research and found out that  the 20 and 60 model's BC was enabled solely by hardware (Emotion Engine + Grapics Synthesizer GPU) while the 80's BC was emulation the EE with software accompanied by the GS GPU. It was the removal of the GPU that completely shut the door on the backward compatibility option. Apparently that gpu cost $100?

[NipRing]

Pardon my ignorance if I'm wrong but you can (I think) if the RB tracks work the same as other DLC's.  My friend does it all the time with xbox live arcade games. You need to recover your account on the other console and redownload the tracks (again, if it applies the same) and then it should work.  This does mean the 2nd console does need to be connected to Xbox live though, a hassle for some, but there is a workaround.  The big ugly non-fun experience though is when you go back to your other console, you again have to recover your account, a good 10 minute process.

It's not a fun solution, but again it works for xblive arcade stuff so hopefully it will work for RB tracks too. Let me know if it works, I plan on buying a second 360 in the future for the upstairs living room.

That will only work if you arent using both accounts at the same time. I guess part of what i was trying to say was that we both paid for it but i cant use it on my account. Technically only she owns the  DLC but according to WI state marriage law, i'm entitled to half that!

[shmokes]

You probably own your cars jointly, too, but that doesn't mean you can drive one to one location while she simultaneously drives it to another.   

I agree that there are some seriously lame drawbacks to DLC, but I don't think you'll get any help from the law here.  If you divorce your wife, though, you get half those tracks, though!  Take solace in that.   

[Dartful Dodger]

Pardon my ignorance if I'm wrong but you can (I think) if the RB tracks work the same as other DLC's.

That will only work if you arent using both accounts at the same time.

Another problem is you can only download an RB song you've bought 3 times.

Even if you only intend on owning one PS3 you could lose the download eventually because if they update or fix a song after you downloaded it you have to re-download it, at the cost of another download.  I had to do this with the Police set, but what really pist me off is that was one of the first sets I downloaded and I didn't know what I doing so I ended up downloaded it twice the first time.  By getting the update I ended up using all the downloads for it.

I use to check on the RB site every week to see what new songs were released and since they were so cheap if I vaguely liked the song I'd get it.   I'm now bored of the game and I have at least 60 dollars of DLC taking up space on my PS3. I have an 80 gig PS3, but the frequency these games and the systems have updates I’m guessing it won’t be long before I'll need to start deleting files.

[patrickl]

As far as sony pulling their BC, if it is (was) software enabled I dont see how they are losing out.

Well, FWIW, PS2 compatibility on a PS3 requires actual PS2 hardware.  Under no circumstances has it ever been done 100% in software on the PS3's cell processor and graphics chip.  It has always been a hardware solution.

I did some research and found out that  the 20 and 60 model's BC was enabled solely by hardware (Emotion Engine + Grapics Synthesizer GPU) while the 80's BC was emulation the EE with software accompanied by the GS GPU. It was the removal of the GPU that completely shut the door on the backward compatibility option. Apparently that gpu cost $100?

IIRC they dropped the price by $50 for slashing the GPU, memory card reader and a few of the USB ports.

[shmokes]

Not to mention that prices on other components in the system had probably come down too, helping them make that price cut.

[RyoriNoTetsujin]

An interesting wrinkle to further fuel the coversation:

http://xboxevolved.e-mpire.com/article/3rd_generation_Xbox/4902.html

And just because I like him:    LOL.

[shmokes]

That's interesting, and definitely cool.  But in many ways I see it as similar to backward compatibility.  I think most people don't want to revisit games they've already got bored with.  I think if I upgraded from a 360 to a 720 or whatever, I'd probably pop my games in to satisfy my curiosity, but it would probably not reignite my original passion for the game.

[DaveMMR]

That's interesting, and definitely cool.  But in many ways I see it as similar to backward compatibility.  I think most people don't want to revisit games they've already got bored with.  I think if I upgraded from a 360 to a 720 or whatever, I'd probably pop my games in to satisfy my curiosity, but it would probably not reignite my original passion for the game.

Agreed.  I installed a High-Res patch for Duke Nukem 3D the other day, played it for 10 minutes and when the novelty wore off, I realized that it's the same Duke Nukem 3D with a paint job.  But at the same time, I'll play Super Mario Bros. without the need for enhanced graphics to make it enjoyable. 

It's still a cool idea, nontheless, but wouldn't that add needless turnaround time to production?   

[AtomSmasher]

It's still a cool idea, nontheless, but wouldn't that add needless turnaround time to production?   

Not necessarily, or at least not by much.  They unified the programming for the 360 with DirectX 10, so it makes sense that they'll keep the code the same for the next version of the xbox, with the exception of adding a few new commands to speed up certain functions (it should include whatever commands get added to DX11, but the point is DX 10 will still be able to run on DX 11 systems).  This means there is no extra time added for making the code compatible with the new xbox.

Since the code is the same, then all they would have to do is change a few variables (such as depth of field, number of light sources to render, etc.), models, and textures to be higher resolution.  When developing models and textures for games, they often create them at a much higher resolution then the game system can handle and downgrade them to what they need, so this means including the higher resolution models and textures should be fairly simple for most games.  It's similar to how PC games are currently made, they'll just include a higher graphics setting for the new system.

[DaveMMR]

Good and interesting point. Thanks Atom!

[shmokes]

Atom's PC analogy is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  How many of us revisit all our old games when we upgrade to a newer computer so we can play through at a higher resolution with 4x anti-aliasing and bump mapping turned on?  I mean, there may be the occasional exception -- maybe some favorite that you obsess over.  But for the most part it just doesn't really happen.  I'm all about MS doing this.  I really think it's cool.  But for the most part . . . I just don't think it's a feature that many people will use much.  It's good for marketing, like backwards compatibility, actually.  But not much else.