PS3 Backwards Compatability Coming Along Nicely

[fitbabits]

According to Computer & Video Games (http://www.computerandvideogames.com), work on the PS3's backwards compatability with PS2 and PlayStation games is going really well so far.

You can read the full article here (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=142708&skip=yes).

The PlayStation 3 could be backwardly compatible with pretty much every original PS2 and PSone game according to IBM's Tom Reeves, the man who's in charge of semiconductor and technology services at IBM.

Speaking to Electronic News, Reeves, who was discussing the intricacies of PS3 chip design and manufacture, said, "Sony are very concerned about quality and backward compatibility. They want to get this right. They tested game after game after game. When there were about 40 Playstation One games that didn't work properly, that didn't pass their criteria for quality."

So we could be in for a massive list of back 'pat titles on PS3 encompassing pretty much every original release, providing Sony of course wants to go that route. Recent indications are that a mass of original PSone games may be heading for the PSP, a more likely and indeed suitable platform for the now rather aged PSone catalogue. By comparison, Microsoft's Xbox 360 emulates original Xbox titles, with just over 200 currently available for play on your 360.
Editor's Note - There's also a mention in the article of the remote possibility of a 'dumbed down' PS3 in the future. Very unlikely, but I'll bet that some people focus more on that potential negative than the positive aspects of the article.

It seems to me like Sony have been listening to the backlash Microsoft have received for over-promising and under-delivering where BC is concerned are are using a lot of resources to make sure this is one area the PS3 beats the Xbox 360 at, hands down.

[Zechs01]

Ya i was reading about this earlier its a good thing because i have alot of PS2 games that i want to be able to play If & When My PS2 goes out(had it 4 years hasnt failed me yet).

[torrefaction]

Heh. What a lame area to focus on for a next-generation console if you ask me. I still don't entirely understand the hooplah over the 360's BC. I get the arguments, they just don't resonate with me.

That being said, at least Sony appears to be paying attention to consumer's wants in some areas of their console development.

[Morangie]

The PlayStation 3 COULD be backwardly compatible with pretty much every original PS2 and PSone game according to IBM's Tom Reeves, the man who's in charge of semiconductor and technology services at IBM.

The 360 COULD be backwards compatible with pretty much every xbox game but it isn't. If they do it, great. I'll believe it when its available. Until then, remember Microsoft said pretty much the same things before the 360 came out.

[fitbabits]

The 360 COULD be backwards compatible with pretty much every xbox game but it isn't. If they do it, great. I'll believe it when its available. Until then, remember Microsoft said pretty much the same things before the 360 came out.
Difference being Sony have a remarkably good track record when it comes to BC. Granted, this is Microsoft's first effort, but look at the difference between the PS2's BC and the Xbox 360's. I know about the emulation versus hardware debate as well, so let's not go there.

[TrackZero]

Great, so when my PS2 dies 5 years from now and I finally go to buy a PS3 I can use it instead. (I'm being serious, not sarcastic.) It's good to know.

[torrefaction]

Difference being Sony have a remarkably good track record when it comes to BC. Granted, this is Microsoft's first effort, but look at the difference between the PS2's BC and the Xbox 360's. I know about the emulation versus hardware debate as well, so let's not go there.

Unfortunately, Sony's truthiness is highly suspect across the board ;)

[Zechs01]

Unfortunately, Sony's truthiness is highly suspect across the board ;)
But this isant from Sony its from IBM.

[absolut taco]

Not to rain on Sony's parade, but couldn't this potentially bite them in the ass? As in, instead of buying new games, people will play their old games. And instead of buying Madden 2007 for PS3 (if it sucks as bad as Madden 2006 did for the 360) they'll buy it for PS2 for half the price.

[fitbabits]

Unfortunately, Sony's truthiness is highly suspect across the board ;)
See, I'm trying to paint this news in a positive light as it is a genuinely positive development, but it appears that Sony have a lot of burned bridges to repair.

[fitbabits]

Not to rain on Sony's parade, but couldn't this potentially bite them in the ass? As in, instead of buying new games, people will play their old games. And instead of buying Madden 2007 for PS3 (if it sucks as bad as Madden 2006 did for the 360) they'll buy it for PS2 for half the price.
It didn't hurt the PS2, though, so I'm not sure it's that much of an issue. To minimize any potential for this happening, Sony need to work their asses off to make sure that their first party games are far greater than anything that's available on the PS2.

[Salesmunn]

I'd rather them spend the money on developing some quality titles for the system instead. I want to be convinced to leave my old games in the past.

[torrefaction]

It didn't hurt the PS2, though, so I'm not sure it's that much of an issue. To minimize any potential for this happening, Sony need to work their asses off to make sure that their first party games are far greater than anything that's available on the PS2.

And here...we have this giant crab ;)

No...I think that maybe I've been a little harsh overall on the PS3. I really wanted them to come through, and so far, they really haven't. But Sony has been treating it's customers like crap for ages, so it's not surprising this is creeping into their console business.

This certainly won't hurt them. While it COULD be good for them, I think they have bigger fish to fry personally. BC is at the back of my list for concerns about the PS3.

But again, good for them for responding to Microsoft's customer backlash in advance.

[Knite]

Not to rain on Sony's parade, but couldn't this potentially bite them in the ass? As in, instead of buying new games, people will play their old games. And instead of buying Madden 2007 for PS3 (if it sucks as bad as Madden 2006 did for the 360) they'll buy it for PS2 for half the price.

True, but then again, Sony doesn't make all of the games. They get licensing fees and it really depends on how much they get in those fees per game. If it's the same, what does Sony care?

[fitbabits]

And here...we have this giant crab ;)
Heck, that's just too damn funny for words. Each time I see that and the Ridge Racer footage, I want to run as fast as possible to the nearest hiding place. :)

[Shodan2020]

While backwards compatability is indeed something I look for in a system, I think it won't even come close to justifying the price tag of a PS3.

I'm probably gonna by a 360 in a year or so once there's more backwards compatable games and the price drops a bit more.

Patience is indeed a wonderful thing.

[EvilBob46]

Heh. What a lame area to focus on for a next-generation console if you ask me.

Backwards Compatibility is an integral part of the Playstation brand. If people were to buy the PS3 and not have their old games work they'd be disappointed. And I assure: a lot of people would be disappointed if that were to happen, given that Sony's BC track record has made consumers absolutely expect that feature from them. Imagine if Nintendo hadn't made the GBA backwards compatible with GB and GBC games. People would've been pissed off.

Not to rain on Sony's parade, but couldn't this potentially bite them in the ass? As in, instead of buying new games, people will play their old games. And instead of buying Madden 2007 for PS3 (if it sucks as bad as Madden 2006 did for the 360) they'll buy it for PS2 for half the price.

People who have the money to buy a $599 console will buy next-generation games for it, not old PS2 stuff.

[torrefaction]

Backwards Compatibility is an integral part of the Playstation brand. If people were to buy the PS3 and not have their old games work they'd be disappointed. And I assure: a lot of people would be disappointed if that were to happen, given that Sony's BC track record has made consumers absolutely expect that feature from them. Imagine if Nintendo hadn't made the GBA backwards compatible with GB and GBC games. People would've been pissed off.



People who have the money to buy a $599 console will buy next-generation games for it, not old PS2 stuff.

GBA is way different. They release new hardware every 6 months. In my opinion, consumers should NOT saddle companies with BC expecatations, if they really want next-gen hardware. It's either emulation, and hard work and expensive, or it's hardware...which can drag down the rest of it's design with it.

I want you to keep in mind that ALL of Window's major problems are inherited from it's legacy code and the fact that they have to remain backwards compatible.

I just look at this stuff from an engineer's point of view. If I'm shelling out for a next-gen console, I want the best experience I can have. I'm personally very happy Microsoft didn't go the hardware route, and I probably would've rathered they spent the manhours on video streaming from XP, rather than BC (probably wouldn't have done this anyway. Would've killed their Media Center push), but regardless....
It's all about tradeoffs.

[DeadScreenSky]

When exactly did MS overpromise when it came to BC? They certainly haven't done an amazing job overall - though on a micro level the emulator is an extremely impressive achievement - but they also didn't promise much to begin with. They said they would do the top titles, and they've done a pretty good job with that (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/15/27-of-top-300-xbox-games-are-back-compatible/). I don't understand why so many people seem to be under the impression that a majority (or even a third!) of Xbox1 titles were going to work by now.

[SexualChoc]

While backwards compatibility would be nice, I would of thought focusing on the next gen would be better. At the moment, it seems like Sony are trying to deliver on that one area. I doubt many people see £415 as a good investment just for a PS2 and PS1 in a new shell.

[51|RandoM]

Three non-negative Sony stories in one day? Reanimated must be running around pulling out his hair and speaking in tongues.

[fitbabits]

When exactly did MS overpromise when it came to BC? They certainly haven't done an amazing job overall - though on a micro level the emulator is an extremely impressive achievement - but they also didn't promise much to begin with. They said they would do the top titles, and they've done a pretty good job with that (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/15/27-of-top-300-xbox-games-are-back-compatible/). I don't understand why so many people seem to be under the impression that a majority (or even a third!) of Xbox1 titles were going to work by now.
I'm going to go ahead and assume your reply was aimed at me and answer it accordingly.

My comment of over-promising and under-delivering was a play on a now infamous statement made by Peter Moore some time ago:

"Nobody is concerned anymore about backwards compatibility. We under promised and over delivered on that. It's a very complicated thing... very complex work. I'm just stunned that we have hundreds of games that are backwards compatible," he said.

That doesn't mean we won't get more backwards-compatible games - indeed, "more are coming" - but "at some point, you just go, there's enough, let's move on, or people aren't as worried about a game being backwards compatible - and I like to think we've upheld our end of the bargain in making at least two or maybe three hundred games backwards compat."
The thing is, when you promise that all Xbox games will eventually be playable on the 360, you'd better deliver on that promise.

[torrefaction]

I'm going to go ahead and assume your reply was aimed at me and answer it accordingly.

My comment of over-promising and under-delivering was a play on a now infamous statement made by Peter Moore some time ago:


The thing is, when you promise that all Xbox games will eventually be playable on the 360, you'd better deliver on that promise.

When did they promise ALL Xbox games? I'm confused about this myself. I never remember this being promised, but I see it bandied about quite a bit.

[Norse]

But the important question is: Will the PS3 upscale PS1/PS2 games to 4D? If yes; count me in...

[51|RandoM]

But the important question is: Will the PS3 upscale PS1/PS2 games to 4D? If yes; count me in...

Of course it will. That is a trivial side effect of aging your movies like fine wine.

Ridge Racer!!!

[DeadScreenSky]

I'm going to go ahead and assume your reply was aimed at me and answer it accordingly.
Correct sir.

My comment of over-promising and under-delivering was a play on a now infamous statement made by Peter Moore some time ago:

The thing is, when you promise that all Xbox games will eventually be playable on the 360, you'd better deliver on that promise.
I'm aware of Moore's "infamous" statement, but I still don't see how it applies. They said that they would shoot for alternately the top or top-selling games being backwards compatible, and that's absolutely the case (unless you unfairly expected they literally meant 100% of them). This was how they announced it at E3 2005, and this is how they phrased it in pre-launch interviews. They accomplished that in spades, also supporting a huge portion of non-top titles.

They also occasionally mentioned that the ultimate goal was full compatibility (duh! :D), but they didn't promise this or set any kind of time table. Anybody with any emulator experience knows truly 100% compatibility is probably an impossibility, especially on a fixed platform like the X360.

I'd love for more games to be BC than there are now and I'd love for there to be more frequent updates, but I think some people had some very unreasonable expectations. I remember how shocking it was that the initial list even had freaking 200+ titles on it when most people expected basically Halo and maybe 10-20 other titles, but now you have people pretending it should have 800+ titles on it only eight months after launch!

[fitbabits]

When did they promise ALL Xbox games? I'm confused about this myself. I never remember this being promised, but I see it bandied about quite a bit.
Here (http://news.com.com/2100-1043_3-5709353.html).

At Monday's event, Microsoft also announced plans to make all games from its previous console compatible with the upcoming Xbox 360. However, few details were given regarding how, or when, updated support for Xbox titles would be achieved. Microsoft representatives did say they would start with more popular titles such as "Halo," then move down the line.
That's just one article, but there are more out there if you search for them.

[torrefaction]

Here (http://news.com.com/2100-1043_3-5709353.html).


That's just one article, but there are more out there if you search for them.

I think there's two key things that should be noted when reading that article.

1.) It stated they'd start at Halo and move down, not really promising full BC at launch
2.)They backed off these promises closer to launch, realizing they overstated what they could do. They didn't lie to the consumer at launch, although they admittedly backpedaled a bit.

[fitbabits]

I think there's two key things that should be noted when reading that article.

1.) It stated they'd start at Halo and move down, not really promising full BC at launch
2.)They backed off these promises closer to launch, realizing they overstated what they could do. They didn't lie to the consumer at launch, although they admittedly backpedaled a bit.
Right, but the promise of BC was still made. Likewise the promise of every 360 having a hard drive, and we all know how that one went.

Anyway, where were we? :confused:

[DeadScreenSky]

I think there's two key things that should be noted when reading that article.

1.) It stated they'd start at Halo and move down, not really promising full BC at launch
2.)They backed off these promises closer to launch, realizing they overstated what they could do. They didn't lie to the consumer at launch, although they admittedly backpedaled a bit.
I don't see any promises at all, I see a mention of their ultimate goal. Maybe that's semantics, but I think there's a big difference between telling your customers "We're going to have all games backwards compatible" and "We're going to try to get everything backwards compatible".

It doesn't help that the CNET article is lying (or at least misleading), either. Here's a transcript of what was actually said at the Monday event (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/rbach/05-16-05E3.mspx), where you can see they didn't announce anything but the top-selling games. It sounds like CNET got further clarification from them later on their goals, but it wasn't announced and without CNET mentioning the question it's hard to know what kind of context it was said in. I maintain there was never any promise made.

But yeah, this is obviously offtopic enough already...

[Opty]

The problem of BC with the 360 is that a lot of people didn't have Xboxes and would have bought a 360 if it supported all of the Xbox games they wanted to play. That's the market BC is targeted to when launching a new console. With the PS3 it's not as important because everyone already has a PS2. In that case though, the BC of the PS3 would be used to replace the PS2 so you can play your old games on it, except that there's no PS2/1 memory card slots so using it in that manner is impossible. So Sony's making their BC in the way that Microsoft did (attract new customers who have no old saves) for no good reason. As such I'd say Sony's addition of BC is only there as a show of good faith, that they understand that people want BC and they're providing it to us, so it ends up as a cry to please look at Sony as good guys even though the BC will be worthless in the grand scheme of things.

[Mike Jones]

Heh. What a lame area to focus on for a next-generation console if you ask me. I still don't entirely understand the hooplah over the 360's BC. I get the arguments, they just don't resonate with me.

.

Well considering the XBOX is already dead in the water and the library of games is a joke. Of course it doesn't matter to an Xbox owner.

[torrefaction]

Well considering the XBOX is already dead in the water and the library of games is a joke. Of course it doesn't matter to an Xbox owner.

1.) I hate you.
2.) There a lot of damn good games for the Xbox. A lot of them are also on the BC list.
3.)Really, I hate you.
4.)I own every console, plus a PC. You're point doesn't make sense when the person respond to owns all the current-gen (and the only next gen released) consoles. Oh, and dollar for dollar (I had to buy 2 PS2's, because Sony never owns up to their hardware design faults...*coughlasercough*.) I've enjoyed my Xbox significantly more than my PS2. Could be because of Xbox Live mostly, it's not really a tangible thing for me.

[TheHulk]

BC would be very important if I was going to spend the amount of money that would get me a low end computer. I'm sure it's important to parents who will think about buying this 2 years from now when it's affordable.

[Mike Jones]

1.) I hate you.
2.) There a lot of damn good games for the Xbox. A lot of them are also on the BC list.
3.)Really, I hate you.


1) :D
2) Negative :D
3) :D

[rezzinator]

This is a feature, not the main selling point of the ps3. Why people are calling foul on it and ridiculous statements like "BC isn't worth a 600 dollar pricetag" is beyond me. It's a good feature, and (not a jab, a fact) with the number of good games that came out for the ps2/ps1 compared to the extremely lackluster showing of most xbox titles, it is an important feature for people who wish to condense their systems instead of having to keep multiples to play previous games. And believe it or not, most people buy games so they can play them, wait awhile then play em again, or beat them and then play them a couple years down the line. Backwards compatability ties directly in with that. It's a great feature, but don't confuse it with a primary selling point.

[51|RandoM]

I have to agree with Mike. :-) Backwards compatibility is a hell of alot more important for the ps1/ps2 library than it is for the xbox library.

Not only is the ps1/ps2 library much larger, it also a higher percentage of the types of games you'll revisit even if they have dated graphics: jRPGs, puzzle games, strategy games, etc.

It also has more keepers imho, but that could just be because of how big the library itself is.

[Zechs01]

I have about 60 Xbox games about 6 were BC with the 360 (Halo, Halo2, Splinter Cell (1,2, and 3), and Rainbow Six 3), so i never bought a 360 my xbox doesnt work and they dont make the orignal Xbox and i wont buy a 360 until they get 75% of my Xbox games BC.

[Kelegacy]

Heh. What a lame area to focus on for a next-generation console if you ask me.
Kind of like the focus on simple arcade titles on XBLA and the PS3? That's not next-gen, either. I have a DS for simple pick up and play games.

While BC isn't truly next-gen, it IS a bridge from one generation to another. It's amazing that you can play, if you so choose, games from over 10 years ago on your PS3, from the PS1 era. Hell, you can't even do that with a large portion of PC games, not without a new OS giving you problems.

BC is important, and I'm glad Sony set the standard with the PS2. Sony gave us BC, Microsoft gave us mandatory online capabilities for consoles. I like how they are setting precedents for one another.

[Adam Blue]

I think Sony needs this BC thing 100%. People will feel satisfied playing their old games on their PS3, because there won't be many good new games.

For me, I only own a few games. The games I would play are Gradius V, Syphon Filter(if you can still go online), and Castlevaina SotN. So yes, the PS2 offered me nothing. I need to see a brighter library of PS3 games.

Also the difference with PS2's BC, is that it had a PS1 in it.

[Evil Avnovice]

Backwards Compatibility isn't a huge concern for me (a few PS2/PSOne titles here and there, and probably little else), but here's hoping that Sony doesn't muck it up like the PS2.

Just as Sony admitted that the last couple of PS2 revisions wouldn't play certain PS2 games (Tekken 5 was one of them, I think), nothing screams "Next-Gen Backwards Compatibility" like the one solitary person out there in the world loading up his/her favorite PS2 title on their PS3 and seeing the classic "Disc Read Error" message.

[OrangePulp]

I think Sony needs this BC thing 100%. People will feel satisfied playing their old games on their PS3, because there won't be many good new games.

For me, I only own a few games. The games I would play are Gradius V, Syphon Filter(if you can still go online), and Castlevaina SotN. So yes, the PS2 offered me nothing. I need to see a brighter library of PS3 games.

Also the difference with PS2's BC, is that it had a PS1 in it.

If that's all you got worth playing again for PS2, and thought the rest of the library wasn't worth it, do you really think there will be much of anything on PS3 for you?

For me, PS2 has the biggest library of my current gen consoles, and probably the most games that I'll want to play down the road.

[bean19]

I really wish they'd make a PS3 sans Blu-Ray player and sell it for $300-$400 like the X360.

[absolut taco]

I really wish they'd make a PS3 sans Blu-Ray player and sell it for $300-$400 like the X360.
I don't. I want the X360 to be the dominant machine of this generation, so that the most games will be released for it.

[torrefaction]

Kind of like the focus on simple arcade titles on XBLA and the PS3? That's not next-gen, either. I have a DS for simple pick up and play games.

While BC isn't truly next-gen, it IS a bridge from one generation to another. It's amazing that you can play, if you so choose, games from over 10 years ago on your PS3, from the PS1 era. Hell, you can't even do that with a large portion of PC games, not without a new OS giving you problems.

BC is important, and I'm glad Sony set the standard with the PS2. Sony gave us BC, Microsoft gave us mandatory online capabilities for consoles. I like how they are setting precedents for one another.

Right, but price is the huge factor for me with the PS3. This is just one (maybe small) portion of it, but it has to be affecting the price. Combined with the lack of quality titles, it holds me back. That's all I really mean about focusing on BC. If I had seen stellar things from Sony as far as games or graphics goes, I wouldn't be saying anything about BC.

As far as the pickup games, I'd argue that the feature itself is next-gen. Sure, you can play them on your DS. But you can't pop on your DS, download a demo, like it, and then buy it easily. It's a next-gen software delivery model (maybe current-gen compared to Steam/PC's...but it's not fair to compare consoles to PC's as far as software delivery.)

[rahvii]

lol @ ...
Editor's Note - There's also a mention in the article of the remote possibility of a 'dumbed down' PS3 in the future. Very unlikely, but I'll bet that some people focus more on that potential negative than the positive aspects of the article.

Even ignoring that, most of the post are negative (by the way i WAS going to comment on that quote :P)

Anyway, is good to know that Sony is getting this right, i do value the BC, i do play old games and i dont want to change the console every time i do that... and remeber you get better experience playing it on PS3, added resoluton, compatibility with new and future TVs, and the confort of wireless Controllers.

Is cool to know that the companys are offering a way to play all this games on their new consoles with the conforts of new tech, all but Microsoft, they went as far as actually say that nobody cares about BC and they will drop support eventually.