PS3 uses PS2 Hardware for BC

[Kamalot]

It has long been reported that "PS3 won't come with complete PlayStation 2 or PlayStation processors bundled inside (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/711/711242p1.html)" and that playing PS1/2 games would be handled through emulation.

A new report has emerged (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/711/711242p1.html) contradicting the earlier statements by Sony Computer Entertainment's president Ken Kutaragi. This new report states that every consumer that buys a PS3 will also be buying a PS2.

PS3 hardware, in its current form, includes the core PlayStation 2 chipset. This presumably means that initial PS3 units will include the single Emotion Engine (the PS2 CPU) and Graphic Synthesizer (the PS2 graphics chip) combo chip that powers the slim model PS2.

Of course, including the extra hardware drives up costs. The magazine adds that Sony plans on removing the PS2 chipset from future revisions of the PS3 hardware once it has finished development of a proper software-based PS2 emulator. Such a removal would help bring down costs for the system.Sony sounds like they are having problems reliably emulating the PS1/2 system on the PS3. Is this inclusion of a PS2 inside every PS3 part of the reason the system costs so much?

[PantherModern]

I wouldn't think it affected the cost too much. They must have PS2 production costs down pretty low by now. But, this isn't too terribly surprising. Isn't it how it worked in the original PS2s? I can certainly see how they would have trouble emulating it though. The RSX chip is pretty different from the emotion engine, and I doubt they play well together without some coaxing.

[overdrivechao]

Cool. Backwards compatibility. Another reason I'm waiting for the PS3. People complain when it's hardware because of price, and complain when it's software because it's "fake"... whatever, because at least they aren't forcing you to trash all of the games you've bought from them and quickly ceasing production of all current gen games like Microsoft did.

[TrackZero]

Sony sounds like they are having problems reliably emulating the PS1/2 system on the PS3. Is this inclusion of a PS2 inside every PS3 part of the reason the system costs so much?

Well it's part of it, to be sure. How much the PS2 hardware actually costs Sony...well, who knows, $20, $40, $60?

[TrackZero]

Cool. Backwards compatibility. Another reason I'm waiting for the PS3. People complain when it's hardware because of price, and complain when it's software because it's "fake"... whatever, because at least they aren't forcing you to trash all of the games you've bought from them and quickly ceasing production of all current gen games like Microsoft did.

Yeah, I mean, remember the backlash at Nintendo for all it's non-backwards compatilbity in the past? Wait, no, because noone really cares that much. It'll only be a few years before we have all those games emulated on the new platforms by the community anyways. Non-issue for me.

[absolut taco]

Well it's part of it, to be sure. How much the PS2 hardware actually costs Sony...well, who knows, $20, $40, $60?
And since every living person already has a PS2 (except me) why didn't they axe that "feature" and make the PS3 cheaper?

[direwolf]

I would think that this would increase the time before the first price drop since they'll likely not charge more than they've already mentioned.

Wouldn't it have been smarter to leave the "gimped" system with only software BC and make their premium system have the BC? At least this would give people a choice up front instead of adding even more SKUs later on down the road and would make it easier to lower the cost for the cheap version later.

And yeah, I hate how Microsoft "forced me to trash all my games".. oh wait, no they didn't, I still have them all right there next to my Xbox. I have yet to play any original Xbox game on my 360 nor do I have an overwhelming desire to do so.

[EternalGamer]

Awesome! With the emotion chip in there this means the PS3 will be able to produce Toy Story like graphics! The 360 is doomed for sure!

[Norse]

A bit OT, but can I play GameCube games on Wii?

[sanatos]

Cool. Backwards compatibility. Another reason I'm waiting for the PS3. People complain when it's hardware because of price, and complain when it's software because it's "fake"... whatever, because at least they aren't forcing you to trash all of the games you've bought from them and quickly ceasing production of all current gen games like Microsoft did.

No one's making you get rid of all your old stuff. I mean, some people still have Ataris. And who wants a PS3 that doesn't already have a PS2?

[51|RandoM]

This is great news, for those openminded enough to look at it that way. I suppose it is bad news for the rabid xboxians, who I'm sure will spin this as negatively as they can.

It means the same level of backwards compatibility out of the box that we got with the ps2. If you're not positive about that, you're an idiot. Regardless of how you personally feel about BC, it was proven with the ps2 as a desirable and valued feature. All of the bitching and moaning at MS in the recent thread about under-promising and over-delivering proved that even xbox fans admit it when they're not toeing the corporate line.

The additional cost is trivial, it probably costs more in board real estate than it does for the two chips in question.

[Kelegacy]

Sell your PS2's while you can, PS3 buyers! It will give you some extra cash to use for the PS3, too.

[Worldcrafter]

And since every living person already has a PS2 (except me) why didn't they axe that "feature" and make the PS3 cheaper?
Probably because the bulk of the cost isn't coming from the PS2 chips with the well established production facilites, but from the brand new PS3 chips. I wouldn't be surprised if the PS2 chips are costing Sony next to nothing compared to the rest of the PS3's tech.

[Kamalot]

If you are into playing old games on your new console, this is great news.

If you are into paying less that $600 for your new console, this is bad news.

Will there be a difference between how this version of the PS3 plays PS2 games and future PS3's that use software emulation? Will one or the other provide a better solution?

[Kamalot]

Probably because the bulk of the cost isn't coming from the PS2 chips with the well established production facilites, but from the brand new PS3 chips. I wouldn't be surprised if the PS2 chips are costing Sony next to nothing compared to the rest of the PS3's tech.
If that's the case, then why bother worrying about software emulation at all? Why not continue to keep the PS2 chips in the PS3?

[Busted_Astromech]

A bit OT, but can I play GameCube games on Wii?
Yes. Backwards compatibility seems to have become a standard feature, to the consumer's benefit.

[51|RandoM]

If that's the case, then why bother worrying about software emulation at all? Why not continue to keep the PS2 chips in the PS3?

That is what will happen, but they're not going to come right out and admit they failed at successfully emulating a significant portion of the library.

They'll just quietly shelve emulation and run everything on the legacy hardware.

[EternalGamer]

You guys don't understand the real ramifications of this, apparently. Even if the PS3 graphics chip is a failure, they can still rely on the PS2 to program games, and since the PS2 is capable of rendering the Final Fantasy VIII ballroom dance scene in real time, it will stomp the Xbox 360 in terms of graphic capability.

[Worldcrafter]

If that's the case, then why bother worrying about software emulation at all? Why not continue to keep the PS2 chips in the PS3?

Cutting costs, even minimal ones, could help reduce the cost to Sony. But right now I imagine their engineers are more worried about getting the PS3 tech smoothed out, and the time it would take to emulate the PS2 with software is probably a higher cost than just producing and including the PS2's chips.

[Heretic Machine]

Well, this is good for those who are buying the PS3 I suppose. At least they'll have proper backwards compatability.

[Worldcrafter]

That is what will happen, but they're not going to come right out and admit they failed at successfully emulating a significant portion of the library.

They'll just quietly shelve emulation and run everything on the legacy hardware.
Ah, I've been interpreting this as the best Sony can do cost-wise, but you and Kamalot might be right. They could be against a wall in trying to make the PS3 BC through emulation, and they'd rather take the monetary hit that producing PS2 chips will cost then try to sell a console with broken features. They could just be out of time, and this was the quickest solution.

[Worldcrafter]

Well, this is good for those who are buying the PS3 I suppose. At least they'll have proper backwards compatability.

True. I think the PS2's BC was pretty impressive while the 360's leaves something to be desired. There are a lot of good games that work, but my friend is still waiting to play his copy of Soul Caliber II. If Sony provides BC that works out of the box, then that's a win for their PR, and they sure do need some wins in that area.

[Mason]

Awesome! With the emotion chip in there this means the PS3 will be able to produce Toy Story like graphics! The 360 is doomed for sure!
Ouch, dang.

I don't know that this matters too much, beyond Sony avoiding all the bitching MS is getting over their slow BC. This is a convenience feature, though, nothing more. And if you thought playing your old games on a new $400 console was goofy...

I wonder where this leaves PS1 stuff. Software, not supported, or did they nest the PS1 hardware inside the PS2 hardware inside the PS3 hardware like Russian dolls?

[Jack B]

Interesting. For some users, backwards compatibility doesn' matter because they still have their PS2. For others they sell their PS2 or it broke or they don't want two systems next to their TV... so they need it.

If you need it, the extra $30 or so (plus markup) is probably worth it, but if you don't it's more cost that you'd rather not see in the PS3.

For my 360, I didn't sell my Xbox and it is still hooked up. I'd rather have 100% backwards compatibility although, I spend about 1% of my time on the old Xbox. For me, it's worth about another $30 or so of cost. I would have paid $430-440, if that would have been the case.

If I were Sony, I would add the extra cost and the chip sets (assuming those costs aren't about $30 or so... It sounds like they are either confident they can get software emulation working for 15,000 titles or maybe they'll do hardware, then rip it out later even if they don't get all 15,000 titles working....

That would really tick off customers though. I'd put the chip set in if it's not above $30.

[EternalGamer]

Seriously, this is very, very good news. It puts Sony in a much better light, especially given Moore's recent statements about backwards compatibility "overdelivering" on the 360. Developers and consumers win here since the transition will be alot more smooth. Ironically, this is so far the thing that tempts me the most for the PS3. It may not be essential to the system, it's a very nice bonus. I don't have enough space in my entertainment system to have 10 different consoles hooked up to it. And being able to play PS2 games with the added comforts--wireless controllers (which I assume let you turn the console off), anti-aliasing, upscaled Hi-resolution, etc--is a very nice bonus.

[Norse]

Yes. Backwards compatibility seems to have become a standard feature, to the consumer's benefit.

Thx for the info. I was a bit unsure if GC's discs were compatible with Wii's dvd reader.

[Busted_Astromech]

I wonder where this leaves PS1 stuff. Software, not supported, or did they nest the PS1 hardware inside the PS2 hardware inside the PS3 hardware like Russian dolls?
I'd imagine the PS1 software emulation is essentially working. It's simpler hardware and easier to brute-force your way through, and they have it working the PSP so they can probably use some of that experience. And they don't say they're dropping PS2 emulation, they're going to continue working on it but since they can't make it for launch they'll put a hardware emulator in there.

I'd worry about them doing a hardware revision removing the PS2 chip before they've got a good enough list, to earn some more money after people've forgotten, but then I'm not in the market for a PS3 anyway.

Norse: It's a slot-loader so I'm not sure how it works standing up but it seems to only have one drive and Nintendo's repeatedly said it'll be backwards compatible with the GameCube; it's even got GameCube memory card slots and controller ports.

[EternalGamer]

Ouch, dang.

I don't know that this matters too much, beyond Sony avoiding all the bitching MS is getting over their slow BC. This is a convenience feature, though, nothing more. And if you thought playing your old games on a new $400 console was goofy...

I wonder where this leaves PS1 stuff. Software, not supported, or did they nest the PS1 hardware inside the PS2 hardware inside the PS3 hardware like Russian dolls?

Someone in a different thread claimed that the new model PS2s have gone complete emulation now and no longer contain the PS1 hardware. But, I'm not sure they gave support to back up this claim.

[Heretic Machine]

Interesting. For some users, backwards compatibility doesn' matter because they still have their PS2. For others they sell their PS2 or it broke or they don't want two systems next to their TV... so they need it.


For me and my 360, the fact that I still have an XBOX doesn't come into play when I think about how pissed off I am by Peter Moore's statement about backwards compatability. My 360's controller is blatanlty superior to my XBOX controller, I want to use it. Besides that, I was promised backwards compatability, with regular updates. This promise has been broken, as there hasn't been a real update since just before Christmas. So when I held off on getting games like Kingdom Under Fire: Heroes, not only was Microsoft taking money away from the developers, but they were robbing me of fun I might of had playing that game. I didn't want to buy it, and many others, because they weren't on the list, and I assumed they would be added sometime in the near future. Since there is no way to transfer saves between the XBOX and the 360, and Microsoft gives us no idea as to when updates might be, I could find that I get halfway through and suddenly my 360 can play it.

It was just a bad mess, and Microsoft shouldn't of attempted to have backwards compatability if they were going to half-ass it in this way. They should of just said on the box that it would work with Halo and Halo 2, and then moved on.

[bapenguin]

Sucks to be Microsoft. You had to be the guinea pig to show software emulation isn't the way to go.

[EternalGamer]

Also, more importantly, for cost, this just essentially knocked $60-$70 off the price of the PS3 making it only $430 since I could now sell my PS2 to upgrade. Of course, they still haven't given me a reason why I should given them four hundred and thirty dollars of my money, but that's beside the point.

[holysin]

Seriously, this is very, very good news. It puts Sony in a much better light, especially given Moore's recent statements about backwards compatibility "overdelivering" on the 360. Developers and consumers win here since the transition will be alot more smooth. Ironically, this is so far the thing that tempts me the most for the PS3. It may not be essential to the system, it's a very nice bonus. I don't have enough space in my entertainment system to have 10 different consoles hooked up to it. And being able to play PS2 games with the added comforts--wireless controllers (which I assume let you turn the console off), anti-aliasing, upscaled Hi-resolution, etc--is a very nice bonus.

So... The thing that tempts you the most to buy a new system is because it plays older games? then don´t buy it, keep the PS2.
Did sony even say anything about improving the older games? I dont see that hapenning if they put the ps2 hardware inside the ps3. It´ll still be the old 480i (with a handful of 480p) with lots of aliasing. Oh, and no rumble on the wireless controllers :)

Don´t get me wrong, I plan on buying a ps3, it´s just that.. well... I want a ps3 for ps3 games, I already have a ps2. No BC for me.

[EternalGamer]

Like I said, it' s a space thing. Not only do I not have room for half a dozen consoles sitting next to my TV, I don't want half a dozen consoles sitting next to my TV. The PS2 is definitely going to have some stuff I want to play for a while to come (Okami, God of War 2 etc.). I simply don't have room for a Satellite Reciever, a Xbox 360, a Wii, PS2 and a PS3.

I'll admit to being an impulse buy earlier adopter and for all our skepticsm, I think we all know the PS3 is going to have some great quality software (Rachet and Clank if nothing else). So right now, the fact that I have to add another console or get rid of one that is probably going to be used more often (PS2) would be one of the largest incentives not to buy.

[Wyrm]

If I buy a PS3, it will be for PS3 games. I have a ps2, and I know that I wont be buying a PS3 for a good long while, so I'll get all my PS2 gaming done long before the console ever reaches my pricerange. I do, however, still wish for more 360 BC. Because of their availability now, I would have bought one if all the games had been BC, but I'm not going to shell out a 200 dollar upgrade for something that cant even play my old games. I upgrade my PC all the time with new parts and I never have problems playing games that are ten years old. The xbox should be no different.

[Wonka]

Sucks to be Microsoft. You had to be the guinea pig to show software emulation isn't the way to go.

Well said sir. Well said.

I hope that Peter reads even SOME of the public resoponse to this and to his previous comments. Peter is not as obnoxious as Jay (aka "the pirate"), but he is so obviously NOT a gamer that it hurt to read what he says at times. Whether he is claiming that they "overdelivered" on backwards compatibility, or that arcades were a "misspent" youth, the guy just is NOT a gamer. Microsoft should hire a real gamer to follow him around with a cattle prod and zap him whenever he makes a comment like this. That at least it would be funnier to read about...

[agentgray]

I think they are just learning from the BC fiasco that is Microsoft.

Sony scores a bonus point for me today.

[SexualChoc]

Makes for a very interesting read. PS2 in the PS3? That would certainly drive up the cost. I mean you take away the cost of a PS2 from a PS3 and it's cheaper than a 360. So this not only confirms that they are working on new hardware that won't be released with the PS3, but that they are using old hardware. So could we see the PSthree with this new emulation technology? Maybe.....

[Jack B]

It was just a bad mess, and Microsoft shouldn't of attempted to have backwards compatability if they were going to half-ass it in this way. They should of just said on the box that it would work with Halo and Halo 2, and then moved on.

Perigon,

I agree. It's amazing to me, how often Phil, Peter, etc, make stupid broad generalizing statements that are just plain wrong and/or insulting.

In my list of "why would I buy a PS3 or 360", backwards compatibility was/is very low on my list, but I still don't want to be lied to...

Microsoft has definitely underdelivered on BC. I don't really care, but I don't like how Peter phrased it as "over delivered".

I do however agree, that's it's not extremely important for many gamers including myself.

[TRiLoGY]

This is great news! I was fearing that the BC might end up like the 360..

[Zanzibar]

No other way to spin this - it's a good move for Sony to do this. They've promised 100% BC, so this obviously is the way to go.

[torrefaction]

I kinda see this two ways. If you have a PS2, and don't really care about being rid of it, you're being forced to pay a higher price. I think that I don't like that so much, but I definitely see why their making the play they are.

The 360's BC is just fine to me, and quite honestly, I prefer my 360 games. But from some levels, this makes sense. It just seems like another reason I won't buy a PS3 for a while, if at all. That'll be more up to MS and how they ramp up their library than anything else.

[jacktion]

Seriously, this is very, very good news. It puts Sony in a much better light, especially given Moore's recent statements about backwards compatibility "overdelivering" on the 360.

How is this good news? You like paying for unnecessary hardware? You like high prices? I don't want to have to buy another PS2 along with my PS3. I just want to buy a PS3 for as little money as possible. Everyone else can have backwards compatibility without having to physically stuff an old console into the new console's shell. No wonder the PS3 is so huge.
Yes, it's good if this means 100% BC but the price is already so high, why do they have to stuff this extra junk in there?

And as for the people that don't want backwards compatibility, some of us don't want 12 consoles stacked up around their tvs. I don't want a rat's nest of wires collecting dust in the corners of my room. Yes, I have an old xbox and a ps2, but it would be nice to not need them.
Nintendo is doing it the right way. I will be able to put 6 systems away in storage and replace it with one small box. That is smart. NES, SNES, N64, Cube, Turbografx, genesis. The least that MS can do is let me put that huge honking xbox away and just have my 360. Is that asking too much?

[EvilBob46]

I think backwards compatibility on the Wii should work well. Nintendo is the only company that kept the same graphics munfacturer, and since the Wii is supposed to be a beefed up Gamecube, there shouldn't be too many issues. If it doesn't have all the issues that the 360's backwards compatiblity has, if it doesn't drive up the price of the console, it's a very nice feature to have IMO.

[Busted_Astromech]

How is this good news? You like paying for unnecessary hardware? You like high prices? I don't want to have to buy another PS2 along with my PS3. I just want to buy a PS3 for as little money as possible. Everyone else can have backwards compatibility without having to physically stuff an old console into the new console's shell. No wonder the PS3 is so huge.
Yes, it's good if this means 100% BC but the price is already so high, why do they have to stuff this extra junk in there?
I am going to make the assumption that Sony is eating the cost because I think they have only recently decided to use hardware emulation (note how it says the software isn't canned, just 'not ready yet'). They just had to have it by launch since they promised it and, amazingly, Sony seems bent on keeping this one. The need to put it at an even-100 price means it'd have to be a confluence of costly items to put the system up another hundred.

[holysin]

They´ll charge 499 and 599 no matter if its emulation or ps2 hardware inside.

The question is: did they decide on these prices before or after giving up on emulation?

If before, it´ll cost more for them to produce.
If after, then we´ll all be paying for BC.

[Kamalot]

I'm torn with this 'ps2 in a ps3' being a good thing or not.

On the one hand, including a PS2 chip is probably the only way they could have backed up their claim of being able to play all PS2/1 games on the PS3. I'm glad they didn't turn out to be total liars about that one (and possibly only) statement about the PS3.

On the other hand this does increase the cost, if not to consumers then to Sony itself. Increased and unexpected cost isn't good for anyone in the equation. If Sony is eating the cost, it will be that much longer before a price drop comes as they will need time to recover that expense. Also, I believe Sony promised that emulation would actually improve PS2 games when they are played on the PS3. That isn't likely to happen now. Also, you have to play old games with no rumble.

Does anyone know if the PS3 comes with the ability to read PS2/1 memory cards? I know only the $600 model comes with the 'card reader' but I'm not sure if this is Memory Stick only or if 'card reader' also applies to PS2/1 memory cards.

[Watership]

Perigon,
I agree. It's amazing to me, how often Phil, Peter, etc, make stupid broad generalizing statements that are just plain wrong and/or insulting.


To be fair, if you were quoted on everything you said, and it was your job to talk to the press constantly, can you be sure you wouldn't say something that would enrage million every once in awhile?

[51|RandoM]

It doesn't have to be more expensive, either, especially if you factor in the time Sony engineers would be spending on the emulation code and then QA for each and every ps2 title they choose to officially support via emulation.

Does it make the hardware itself more expensive to produce? Sure, by some unkown factor, one that is most like trivial---until you multiply it by a few million consoles. But offsetting that cost is the money they no longer have to spend on software emulation and support.

Then people pile another assumption upon the first one and assume it is automagically making the ps3 more expensive for them than it would have been with software emulation.

[Kamalot]

To be fair, if you were quoted on everything you said, and it was your job to talk to the press constantly, can you be sure you wouldn't say something that would enrage million every once in awhile?
Every once in a while, maybe. Seemingly every week? You'd have to try to do that. While people sometimes get upset at Microsoft PR (over delivered on backwards compatibility) and Nintendo PR (No HDTV, Wii) they seem to come much less frequently and are often not bald-faced lies like Sony's are.

[bapenguin]

I'm torn with this 'ps2 in a ps3' being a good thing or not.

On the one hand, including a PS2 chip is probably the only way they could have backed up their claim of being able to play all PS2/1 games on the PS3. I'm glad they didn't turn out to be total liars about that one (and possibly only) statement about the PS3.

Well didn't the PS2 include the PS1 chip? So really they'd have to include both the PS2 and PS1 chip for it right? Or maybe the PS1 is done through software now.

[Jack B]

It doesn't have to be more expensive, either, especially if you factor in the time Sony engineers would be spending on the emulation code and then QA for each and every ps2 title they choose to officially support via emulation.

51|RandoM,

Actually, it's not even close...

Say they put 15 developers on emulating code. 15 developers times $100k a year salary over 1 year = $1.5 million.

Now if they include chip sets.... $30 per PS3 times 50 million PS3's equals $1.5 billion dollars.... Ummm, $1.5 million for emulators compared to $1.5 billion is about 100 times more expensive to include the chipsets... Yikes :eek:

$1.5 Million = Labor costs to include Software Emulation
$1.5 BILLION = Cost over 50 million PS3's to include chip sets / Hardware Emulation...

Note: Ballpark estimates for discussion only... See above for math.

And I wonder if it's really just $30 for both the PS1 and PS2 chip sets. That may be low...

This is why 3 Ethernet ports became 1, 2 HDMI's became 1 etc. Even something that costs $1 per PS3 adds up to $50m +/- over the lifetime of the PS3... $30 is big money over the lifetime of the PS3.

[Flatpicker]

I think it's the first good move they have made since e3 05.
This hasn't redeemed them in my eyes, but it shows that they still want to be a player in the marketplace.
I was having my doubts as a gamer. It seems that they are looking too far ahead and are fighting the console war as if it's the HD format war.

[ChaosDent]

I think backwards compatibility on the Wii should work well. Nintendo is the only company that kept the same graphics munfacturer, and since the Wii is supposed to be a beefed up Gamecube, there shouldn't be too many issues. If it doesn't have all the issues that the 360's backwards compatiblity has, if it doesn't drive up the price of the console, it's a very nice feature to have IMO.

Based on IGN's account of the hardware, the Wii has been designed to run Gamecube software natively. It probably has a state switch comparable to the legacy modes in X86 processors that switches its clock speed, memory mapping and register assignments between the Gamecube mode and the expanded Wii mode. I think it's too zealous an approach, but Nintendo is committed to supporting all of their games from all generations, so complete Gamecube support is clearly a huge priority for them.

As a consumer, the method of backwards compatibility is irrelevant to me. It is a feature that clearly has value both to early adopters of new systems and publishers of late titles for the old systems. The fact that Sony has committed to backwards compatibility will help the PS3 in the short run and the PS2 in the long run, how they execute that is secondary. If I were to upgrade I would only want to be able to migrate my save files and use my Guitar Hero controller.

[Vandenh]

Good news for PS3 backwards compatibility. Maybe not so good news for Sony in the price wars but then again developing BC via software also costs money. The only thing that could be an issue, is that there will be no way to "enhance" old titles to HD easily using hardware (like Halo 2 for example). It is strange that this seems bolted on at the last minute. The emotion chip has never appeared on any PS3 spec sheets.

[Nessus]

I think I've used the backwards compatability in my PS2 once, for Silent Hill. And I didn't even own a PlayStation prior to geting a PS2.

[Opty]

To me the PS3 BC's completely worthless because of the same reason the 360's BC is worthless: You can't bring your saves over. The PS3 has no PS2/1 Memory Card slot. At least the Wii has GC controller slots as well as mem card slots so all the old stuff still works.

[Roc Ingersol]

This gets a great big: Who Cares?

There's no change in the promise of BC, it's no guarantee of compatibility (the PS2 is far from perfect), and this isn't the piece that's pushing the price up to five and six hundred bucks.

[Cool AN]

This is pretty good news to me, because I have been debating with my self if I should buy a PS 2 because of all the great games. But this means that I can save my money and use it on a PS 3 instead.

[Kelegacy]

This gets a great big: Who Cares?

There's no change in the promise of BC, it's no guarantee of compatibility (the PS2 is far from perfect), and this isn't the piece that's pushing the price up to five and six hundred bucks.
As you've seen from this thread, many care. Some of us replay games for the love of them. We don't want to forget completely. So, instead of unhooking a current console to hook up an old, we get all the same love in one big box. The PS3 can play 10+years of games right out of the box. That's awesome, and you can't spin it to a negative.

The price, yeah that sucks. Sell your PS2, knock the price down a bit.

[51|RandoM]

51|RandoM,

Actually, it's not even close...



Your numbers are silly. You're assuming 1 year of development vs. how many years it takes to sell 30 million PS3 consoles. You're also assuming $30/console to add the two chips. I'll tell you right now that 1 year of 15 developers isn't enough time to make every ps2 title run in emulation on ps3, not even close.

I believe you're exaggerating by orders of magnitude, in the wrong direction, on both sides of the equation.

[Syl]

This means there is even a chance my HDloader could possibly work with the PS3 if it's using the same chipset.

It also means we won't have the same fucking issue that we had with Xbox360 backwards compatibility. I like this, even though i thought they promised upgraded graphics on PS2 games? (Higher resolution and such)

[Roc Ingersol]

As you've seen from this thread, many care.
About what?

They already said the PS3 would be backwards compatible. All this story says is how they're doing backwards compatibility. Who cares how they do it?

[holysin]

Your numbers are silly. You're assuming 1 year of development vs. how many years it takes to sell 30 million PS3 consoles. You're also assuming $30/console to add the two chips. I'll tell you right now that 1 year of 15 developers isn't enough time to make every ps2 title run in emulation on ps3, not even close.

I believe you're exaggerating by orders of magnitude, in the wrong direction, on both sides of the equation.

We could do the numbers realy simple too.
Lets "underexaggerate"(is that a word?), a mere 10 bucks per console for the two chips, and the 6 million consoles sony will have in the market by the half of 2007 (I believe thats the number).
Based on my bullshit numbers and calculations, thats 60 million.
That´d pay for 600 developers for 1 year (assuming Jack B´s 100k a year).

[Jack B]

Your numbers are silly. You're assuming 1 year of development vs. how many years it takes to sell 30 million PS3 consoles. You're also assuming $30/console to add the two chips. I'll tell you right now that 1 year of 15 developers isn't enough time to make every ps2 title run in emulation on ps3, not even close.

I believe you're exaggerating by orders of magnitude, in the wrong direction, on both sides of the equation.

51|RandoM,

My numbers are silly???? What???? If you're going to call my numbers silly, then take the time to do the math to back up your flame. :mad:

So, if 15 developers isn't enough? How many then? Mass Effect has 115 developers and that's considered a huge project?

And yes, I'm using 1 year, because it's supposed to be ready at launch, not in 3 years from now.... Good grief, show me your math. :mad:

You say, they'll only include a chip for 6 million units? What? Those are launch numbers. If they do hardware instead of software, then it's likely (IMO) for the duration of the Generation. Try 30-100 million not 6 million. Additionally, where is your math on the cost of software emulation that get's it to over $60 million anyway?????

Maybe you're not a numbers, guy but come on... You obviously, don't work in Finance or Accounting.

How many do you think Microsoft has on their Emulation team? Let's say it was 10 times that amount and you had 150 developers working on the PS1/PS2 emulation...

Would 150 developers be enough for you? If so, that's still only $15 million in labor. Let's say it was 3 years, then it's $45 million. And you yourself said it would only be hardware for the launch units of 6 million, thus it couldn't take 3 years, because they wouldn't pull the hardware 'til it's done (or would they...). It the 150 developers completed the project in 1 year it's only 15 million in labor compared to $60 million. And you really believe they pull 150 developers from launch titles to work on emulation? What???

I don't care what math you do, it's way more expensive to include hardware even if just for the launch units.

Let's say it only costs $15 for both the PS2 and PS1 chip sets, which I would think is way too low. Sony is planning on way more than 30 million PS3's. They sold 200 million PS1 and PS2's, so how is 30 million a number that is too low???????

$15 a PS3 times 30 million is still $450 million in parts.... Microsoft bought an entire software company, Rare for less than that....

Compared to $45 (and that $45 million number is using crazy numbers of 3 years and 150 developers)..... You're embarrasing yourself. Just admit you didn't bother to do the math or any math and move on.

What kind of math are you using?????

This reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live routine for the "Change Bank of North Carolina". They did this whole bit about their business model was to give people change for their money... "If you want change for a $1 bill, we can give your 4 quarters, or 20 nickles or 2 quarters and 5 dimes... ect". :D

When pressed for how they made any money doing that, they responded, "We make it up in volume".... Do the math. :D

[theguido]

I don't see how people can see this as bad news....it's nice not to have to keep out all your old systems at once, so providing proper backwards compatibility is a very good thing.

Granted, still not buying one for a while, but it'd be nice to know I could still play my old games on it.

[torrefaction]

I don't see how people can see this as bad news....it's nice not to have to keep out all your old systems at once, so providing proper backwards compatibility is a very good thing.

Granted, still not buying one for a while, but it'd be nice to know I could still play my old games on it.

Read the thread. Lot's of people are upset by the PS3's price. This affects that in one of two way's
A.)This was planned to begin with, and factored in to the price of the PS3. This makes it a side effect of the very high price of the PS3.
B.)This wasn't plan, and they've had to react. This means that they have to eat the cost of the hardware. This means the price of the PS3 is unlikely to drop, because they won't hit the "Black Zone" for a good deal longer.

[Demo_Boy]

question is: how many developers will use the ps2 chipset for ps3 games?
Electronic Arts 4 teh win!

[Jack B]

question is: how many developers will use the ps2 chipset for ps3 games?
Electronic Arts 4 teh win!

No kidding! Selfishly, I'll be glad when the PS2/Xbox ports to the PS3/360 are over...

[Rafer]

I think this is pretty positive too, Sony has sold over a hundred million PS2s (and they're probably still going to be making them for a few years) so I doubt the chips cost them a lot to make at this point, most of the cost to them would have been the billion or so dollars it cost to make the factory that makes the chips.

Microsoft had to go with a software emulator because they were purchasing the chips from another company, which I guess was one of those trade offs (I'm making a wild guess here, but do you spend a billion on a factory that makes chips for $10 each, or buy them for $50 each? depends on how many units you need, right).

As for Sony making a software emulator, that makes sense (even if the chips are cheap for them to make you would think writing an emulator would be cheaper even if it takes a while) but if Microsoft can't get a software emulator working (didn't they actually give up?) I doubt Sony will pull it off anytime soon, and doesn't the PS2 have 4-5 times as many games to emulate than the Xbox?

[Jack B]

I think this is pretty positive too, Sony has sold over a hundred million PS2s (and they're probably still going to be making them for a few years) so I doubt the chips cost them a lot to make at this point, most of the cost to them would have been the billion or so dollars it cost to make the factory that makes the chips.

Microsoft had to go with a software emulator because they were purchasing the chips from another company, which I guess was one of those trade offs (I'm making a wild guess here, but do you spend a billion on a factory that makes chips for $10 each, or buy them for $50 each? depends on how many units you need, right).

As for Sony making a software emulator, that makes sense (even if the chips are cheap for them to make you would think writing an emulator would be cheaper even if it takes a while) but if Microsoft can't get a software emulator working (didn't they actually give up?) I doubt Sony will pull it off anytime soon, and doesn't the PS2 have 4-5 times as many games to emulate than the Xbox?

Rafer,

Yes, Sony has 15,000 games to emulate. If they can't get it right and need to include a PS2 and PS1 chip sets for 6 million launch units, that's $60 million in extra cost. If it's for the duration of the Generation it's 100 million units times assuming $10 per PS3, which would be $1 BILLION. And yes, Microsoft went with software emulation, because they would have been looking at an even bigger number than $1 BILLION due to their higher costs for chip sets.

I would guess Microsoft has no more than 30 people on their emulation team, which would cost them about $3 million a year. Peanuts compared to hardware chips sets.

You are correct, it's MUCH cheaper to do emulation, IF you can pull it off. Microsoft is struggling to do 220 games... Even if it's easier for Sony, we're still talking 15,000 games.

To put it into context. Microsoft bought an entire company, Rare (Golden Eye, Perfect Dark, Kameo etc.) for less than that... Microsoft paid $375 million in cash for the independent British games developer.... Rare.

No way, Sony would pay $1 BILLION to get software emulation working. If they have to include the chip sets, even at $10 for both, it adds up to about the cost of 3 large software companies.

Software emulation is the cheap way to go. If Sony is contemplating a hardware solution, then they are really struggling with software emulation... I'd say, if they can't get the software emulation working 100%, they might include hardware chipsets for a while, but then pull it to save money later and go with whatever they come up with.... pissed off fans an all.

It may end up being much more than Microsoft's 220 games, but it could be a far cry from 15,000 as well.

[Dariath]

In a few years the PS1/PS2 chipsets will cost 10 bucks as the prices go down. I'd rather have good BC than buggy emulation that won't be done for years. I'll gladly pay the extra money. But it's the rest of the software inside that is jacking the price up. I think it was factored in long ago. I say just enjoy it.

[Phhhh]

I wonder if it will be possible for developers to use the packed in PS2 hardware for some extra oomph in some games.

I remember reading somewhere that Rockstar used the PS1 chip in the PS2 for the radio in GTA3. But I guess that can't be true if it's done with emulation on the PStwo.

[Murat]

I can say for sure that the ps3 will see a revamp next year making it much cheaper for the company to make it and hopefully that savings will filter down to us. Should also be a lot smaller according one of my friends. They are working on a part on the new model of ps3 for next year. Should see less power consumption and less heat as well accroding to my friend. They mentioned it would be quieter too. Not having seen the first ps3 in person yet im not sure how much of an issue any of this is except price.
I guess that could be due to not have two sets of hardware in it.

[Kamalot]

I can say for sure that the ps3 will see a revamp next year making it much cheaper for the company to make it and hopefully that savings will filter down to us. Should also be a lot smaller according one of my friends. They are working on a part on the new model of ps3 for next year. Should see less power consumption and less heat as well accroding to my friend. They mentioned it would be quieter too. Not having seen the first ps3 in person yet im not sure how much of an issue any of this is except price.
This post floats on an ocean of speculation.
Can we please have some links?

[Vanthar]

I'd say the plan was to do software emulation for all games to cut the cost. PSX games should be easily emulated because there are emulators that run nearly the full library already available on the internet with updated graphics. They may be using hardware for the ps2 library atm because they have had troubles gettin the huge library to be compatible. I don't think this is a bad thing as it ensures reliabilty in the BC. I don't see why they still couldn't upscale the resolution and add some AA with the RSX, but I'm not a developer so I don't really know.

[overdrivechao]

Yeah, I mean, remember the backlash at Nintendo for all it's non-backwards compatilbity in the past? Wait, no, because noone really cares that much. It'll only be a few years before we have all those games emulated on the new platforms by the community anyways. Non-issue for me.

Well, to be fair, Nintendo manages to get its customers to buy the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over.... happily.

Plays GBA Games
GameboyAdvance
GameboyAdvance SP
GameboyAdvance SP (Brighter!!)
GameboyMicro
Nintendo DS
Nintendo DS Lite
Gameboy Player for NGC

Thats no less than 7 systems that play the same cartridges. And to the emulation point, of course I can emulate PS1 and soon PS2 on PC, but it's far more difficult and buggy than official BC is. Not important to you, important to me. ^^

[overdrivechao]

there are emulators that run nearly the full library already available on the internet with updated graphics.

Really. Where? Oh, and Tetris PSX doesn't count. Is there a Valkyrie Profile, Final Fantasy, Crono Cross, Resident Evil, Suikoden, or any major PSX game available for internet play...anywhere? Nearly the full library? Please post links!

[Kamalot]

Having a PS1/Ps2 chipset is great for the PS3 if:


You care about 100% emulation of all PS1/2 games, exactly as they played on the PS1/2.
You don't mind giving up rumble.


Having a PS3 emulator solution to play PS1/2 games is great if:

You want to play the games in an enhanced fashion such as anti-aliasing, higher resolution such as HD.
You want the cost to come down sooner, rather than later.
You don't mind giving up rumble.

[Kamalot]

Really. Where? Oh, and Tetris PSX doesn't count. Is there a Valkyrie Profile, Final Fantasy, Crono Cross, Resident Evil, Suikoden, or any major PSX game available for internet play...anywhere? Nearly the full library? Please post links!
Are you trying to say emulators don't exist?
I have a PS1 (PSX) Emulator for my Xbox. Don't you? :eek:

[overdrivechao]

there are emulators that run nearly the full library already available on the internet with updated graphics.

This is what I was responding to. Of course I've run Vagrant Story in 1280 with 16x antialiasing and anisyntropic filtering... this guy is talking about running PSX games off the internet explorer I think...

[absolut taco]

Really. Where? Oh, and Tetris PSX doesn't count. Is there a Valkyrie Profile, Final Fantasy, Crono Cross, Resident Evil, Suikoden, or any major PSX game available for internet play...anywhere? Nearly the full library? Please post links!
Um... he never said that you could play on the internet, just that the emulator was available on the internet. Like here: http://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/psx/

[Roc Ingersol]

Having a PS1/Ps2 chipset is great for the PS3 if:

You care about 100% emulation of all PS1/2 games, exactly as they played on the PS1/2.

Having the old chips inside is no 100% guarantee.