Sony Ps3 to loose backwards compatability completely

[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.