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.