CES 2009: This is Why Your PS3 Doesn't Have Backwards Compatibility

Gamecyte writes:

"'m sure enough time has passed that I should really just let this go, but I suppose I'm just a hopelessly bitter individual. I can't help it; whenever I look over at my giant shelf full of fantastic PS2 titles, or read about a great title like Persona 4 coming out for the lingering system, I look under my television at the shiny PS3 that won't play any of them, and it makes me grumble."

[Sony PlayStation 3]

I had no idea that backwards compatibility required so much space/technology! I figured it was just the "Emotion Engine" chip and nothing else. I guess since the motherboard is already lot smaller without backwards compatibility a "PS3 Slim" shouldn't be too hard.

[Bnet343]

PS3 will be set. The games for 2009 look very good.

[Sony PlayStation 3]

I see you stealth edited Kigmal ;)

Nice try but it didn't help you too much. At first you had 0 agrees and 3 disagrees and since your stealth edit you're 5-5

[Sarcasm]

The PS2 was a great console and had many classic hits.

But with Killzone 2, God of War 3, Gran Turismo 5, etc. etc. *usual list of PS3 exclusives*

Moving onto the PS3 isn't so painful. Infact it's an absolute entertainment overload.

[C_SoL]

I got my 60GB early. Smart decision on my part.

[Bnet343]

I love my Playstation 3 ;)

[Highatus]

Glad i forked over the cash for my 20gig at launch, got it off ebay.
the little town i live in only got 5 at the wal-mart, the rest were all pre-orders only from the other stores which i missed out on due to being at work (out of town >.<)

So i miss out on the wifi and the card reader but i get to play PS1 and PS2 games so i feel i still win :) have a 320gig in her now, and an 80 gig sleeve external!

[Rhythmattic]

I Reckon the day the PS2 is Discontinued will be the day ALL PS3 users can download a Firmware upgrade for PS2 emulation.

[IdleLeeSiuLung]

If there is one feature that I feel is missing from my "top of the line" piece of hardware, it is backwards compatiblity with PS2. There are so many games I would like to play from the PS2 era, but can't and I refuse to pay $130 for a PS2.

I shouldn't have to! I already paid $600+ to Sony.

[QuackPot]

@IdleLeeSiuLung

you are a troll in a bad disguise. Ranting about BC again.....old school troll bait. Pathetic.

We all bought a Ps3 not a Ps2 and got exactly what we wanted.

However....

** YOU ** bought a $600 ps3 that didn't have BC and ** YOU ** knew it. Now, ** YOU ** are complaining that it hasn't any BC. WTF.

Summary: ** You ** are either a troll or a real idiot. Wait a minute. Is there any difference?

[SL1M DADDY]

To all of those who pitch a fit about there being no BC in the new PS3's, perhaps you should have bought an early model thus helping the PS3's state on the market and perhaps insuring that Sony would have been able to afford to keep the EE in the PS3... Sorry, but the whole "I'll wait 'till the price drops" attitude is what lost you the Emotion Engine. Fortunately for me and many others, we were those that bought the launch consoles and have been playing PS2 games on them since.

[Silellak]

Are you serious? Come on. We're talking about a video game system, not a war. People are customers, not soldiers. No one "should" have paid $500 or $600 for a PS3 on release just to "help out" Sony. Sony is not a poor, unemployed bum on the street. They are a big boy company and, if they make a reasonably-priced product that people want, people will buy it. For a majority of gamers, the $600 PS3 on release day was not a reasonably-priced product they wanted. The "I'll wait 'till the price drops" attitude is just common sense.

[EXCLUSIVEGAMER]

wow, kigmal hated the ps3 last week, now all of a sudden he LOVES it?

this is proof that killzone 2 WILL own all FANBOYS

[jadenkorri]

you guys complained and said it wasn't nessary, that you all said you still had your ps2, why would you need BC, well guess what, sony listened, cut costs, lowered price and BC is gone, yet there is a high demand for BC on the internet now...

[lordgodalming]

Yeah, look at the size of that thing! Anyway, I have the 40GB PS3 and I have no complaints. It doesn't play PS2 games, which is why I have my PS2 set up next to it. And BOTH of my systems play PS1 games. :) I would download a backwards-compatible patch if Sony made one, but until then, I'm enjoying games on both of my consoles. No big deal.

Edit @ 1.13: I agree completely. Some people are never happy.

[LoVeRSaMa]

"This is Why Your PS3 Doesn’t Have Backwards Compatibility"

MY PlayStation 3 does.

[=

[Rhythmattic]

I Hate to do this, But I have an original PS3 60G (Now with 160 HD) aus lanch model, and dont care for B/C.

There, I Said it.

WyTF would I want to play PS2 games when I'm enjoying this Gen ?

[nycredude]

Glad I bought the earlier 60 gb model.

[FrankenLife]

And knowing is half the battle. Yoooooooo Joe!!!

[IdleLeeSiuLung]

You are indeed a quack. Because I knew about, doesn't mean I can't be displeased by it. Are you pleased with every item you buy even though you knew about it certain issues?

I can accept it, but I don't have to blindy agree, but hey if that is what you want to do then good for you....

** Summary: You are an idiot, calling others an idiot!

[sloth4urluv]

Hmm, you could add an old chip on there and add a bunch of cost, or you can do it right and just write an emulator for the PS3.

The wii can play gamecube,N64,SNES,NES,sega It dosnt have seperate processors for each system.

Xbox360 is able to emulate xbox games aswell.

[athlon770]

IF and I do mean IF, you purchased your PS3 for $600, then you would have one of the original 60gb PS3's which, oh I don't know, includes the emotion chip and backwards compatibility. So the question is, why are you trying to make stuff up? Do you actualy own a PS3? Quackpot is right in questioning you!

Just to help your memory,

At release in 2006,
PS3 - 20gig = $499.00, no media adapter and 2 usb
PS3 - 60gig = $599.00, full B/C, built in media adapter and 4 usb

Mid year of 2007,
20gig is discontinued and the 60gig drops to $499.00 and includs 5 BD movies (this is when Sony got my money)

[IdleLeeSiuLung]

I'm glad at least you ask instead of assuming. I bought the Special Edition MGS4 PS3, that retailed a mighty $600 before taxes and shipping straight from Konami:

http://www.engadget.com/200...

It didn't sell too well and at one point was sold by Amazon for $400. That is how I paid almost $700 for it. Money was no objection, I wanted my MGS4 fix!

My brother got the 60GB PS3 from Amazon at $500 with 5 free movies via mail in rebate, remote and another instant free BD movie. This was in the summer of 2007 I believe... I bought mine almost a year later.

Hopefully that helps your memory!!!

[ahnonamis]

Interesting. I didn't realize so much was required on the board for the PS2 games to play.

[TapiocaMilkTea]

The board certainly got smaller on the newer models, what did they do with those extra space?

[Sarcasm]

It needs to get smaller and smaller, so the PS3 Slim will be released.

[IdleLeeSiuLung]

It wasn't just the PS2 parts that were removed, but many PS3 parts were merged into one. In addition, the smaller manufacturing process going from 90nm to 65nm also makes the GPU and CPU significantly smaller.

[deeznuts]

What I find more interesting is someone who writes for a gaming website who doesn't have a BC PS3. Those things were out for quite a while. I'll be ignoring that website!

[ahnonamis]

Yeah, because everyone who writes on a video game blog should have been able to spend $600 bucks on a launch PS3. How dare people wait for a more reasonable price!

[MONOLITHICIDE]

you should of bought the ps3 back when it released like i did, 60 gig best PS3 ever until the slim comes out!! buying that awesomeness

[sloth4urluv]

Moving to a smaller process may make the die smaller, but dosnt necessarily mean the package size of the chip gets smaller.

You still need the same number of balls under the package, adjusting the pitch and making them smaller just opens a new can of worms, especially if its a lead free part. Tin wiskers :S (crystals that grow off of the solder that can short to other pins/balls)

[thereapersson]

60gb FTW! I'm glad I bought mine early, despite paying 600 dollars for it. I can enjoy all my favorite classic titles on one system, instead of having to use two.

Though to be fair, the PS2 has better PS1 backwards compatibility than the PS3. It also has better texture smoothing abilities as well. I also have to use my PS2 if I want to play the original Silent Hill, because it bugs out on my PS3. A small price to pay, I guess...

[Raoh]

LOL i hate you, i miss my BC ps3's :(

i think people are missing a bigger picture though..

this works for sony. in the long run. the square enix issue is proof.. its not that they couldnt make ffxi for the ps3 its that they didnt want to do the work.

square is making ffxiii versus on a ps3 only engine, just like mgs4 was, etc

very similar to early ps2 days..

i think sony is smart if i'm right to not announce ps2 games on new ps3's just yet.. even they are just figuring it out...

the rambus is not a BC killer its a hindrance/obstacle

my last example of how it pays off later is how linux was gimped early on, on the ps3.. now with YLD 6.1 its actually better cause it uses the rambus to its advantage, opening possibilities. same goes for BC..

[thereapersson]

I didn't know that RAMBUS helps out the latest version of Yellow Dog. I might have to start learning Linux, so I can mess around with it on my PS3. Does YD have access to the PS3's GPU yet (RSX)?

[INehalemEXI]

mine 2 , 60gb. Soon to upgrade the HDD its getting full.

[thereapersson]

I have a 200gb HDD in mine. I stripped one of the screws on the HDD cradle, but I just used a pair of needlenose pliers to get it out.

BTW Raoh, you can still find brand new 60gb models, but they're still going for the original price they were at launch (599). Amazon has a few sellers who are still offering the original models:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/of...

[morganfell]

Picked up my 60GB at the start, dropped a 320GB drive in and I love it. Cheap people like the writer helped create the problem about which he is complaining.

[Death]

It's Square's Multiplatform Crystal Tools (White Engine). http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

"Along with Final Fantasy XIII, the game utilizes the Crystal Tools engine - an engine specifically designed by Square Enix for the seventh generation of video game consoles. However; in early 2007, Square Enix had announced they had licensed Epic Games' Unreal Engine 3 for use in their future next generation titles, like The Last Remnant. Some speculated that Versus XIII would be developed using the Unreal Engine 3, however, Square Enix has stressed the White Engine - later renamed Crystal Tools would be used in Final Fantasy XIII and Final Fantasy Versus XIII in the Fabula Nova Crystallis compilation"

-Death

[thereapersson]

agreed. If people hadn't've complained so much, we probably would still have BC today. Oh well, that's what happens I guess. I'm just glad Sony managed to bring the price down to boost sales. I'm thinking in a few months they probably will announce another price cut, maybe after the start of the new fiscal year.

[cmrbe]

mine is an original 60giger as well. Will not trade it for anything.

[Dark General]

I'm not a launch Ps3 guy buy i'am a Ps3 60 gig owner. Got mines after the e3 07 price drop before they fazed them out for good. Best gaming decision i ever made. I had a $100 circuit city gift card that i still had left over from christmas and got my 60 giger for $400. More than a steal.

[Kushan]

Cheap People? Try POOR people! Try people with only a moderate income that simply could not justify spending $600 on a Console.

I'm sorry, but blaming "cheap" people for the removal of BC stuff in the PS3 is just daft, that's like saying that people who bought a Ford Focus are CHEAP because they should have got a Ferrari and if Ferrari's sales are down, it's entirely the cheap person's fault.

If you want to blame anyone, blame Sony for making a silly business decision in the first place. Yes, I said it - it was a silly decision to ONLY offer a 60Gb PS3 that was ridiculously expensive. I know there was a 20Gb model as well, but I sure as hell didn't see any anywhere and it was still stupidly expensive for what it was.

Sony couldn't remove BC quickly enough, I mean it was what, 3 months before it came to the EU and they were already ripping parts out? Wasn't long after that they removed BC entirely, all because they wanted (or rather, needed) to cut costs. It's their fault for not giving the consumer what they wanted at a price they could afford.

Sony should have never cut production of the 60Gb with full BC, they should have simply released the 40Gb alongside it so people could decide what they'd want. There's no real reason why they couldn't have (they have 2 different models out now - 80Gb and 160Gb), other than it saved THEM a bit more money. Cheap People? Nah, it goes both ways.
I wanted a 60Gb, but not for the price Sony were charging, if they were still selling it today for the same price as the 160Gb console, I'd consider it.

[morganfell]

I don't want to hear anyone whine about a $600 console. Specifically people that believe it is all about cost. Why? If cost was their real concern they would do their homeowrk and a little simple math.

Back when the PS3 was $599, if you took the cost of the 360 at that time, added 4 years of Live (not an unreasonable expectation) then you had your self a $599 console. Some of us were aware of that then and even now are aware that same simple math because with the full experience (HDD and online play) the PS3 is still cheaper.

Maybe people are poor because they have no sense of financial planning. If they did they wouldn't keep investing in the get it cheap now, pay more later scheme. Which interestingly enough that has the same theme as all the get rich quick now schemes that rob people blind.

[Death]

Any time a console launches and people buy it, they generally pick up a game or two and an extra controller. The PS3 gives you the luxury of needing to buy an HDMI cable too. If you bought one game, one additional controller and an HDMI cable you would spend between $750 and $800 with tax. That's alot of money. Even if you bought the console only, it was still close to $650 with tax and you couldn't really do much with it until you picked up a game and a cable to get it to output hi-def.

Now keep in mind the bulk of sales come near the Holidays. The PS3 was out of many people holiday gift buying range. This had a significant impact on console sales.

As for your comment about 4 years of Live making the Xbox 360 cost the same, I'm pretty sure you can buy annual subscriptions annually. You don't actually have to buy them all at the same time. This costs much less up front. Many people already had a Gold account when the 360 launched too which made it even more reasonable or atleast closer to reasonable. At $399 it was $100 higher than traditional MSRP's so the impact wasn't as great during the Holidays.

-Death

[Silellak]

Realism and logic have little place at N4G, I'm afraid.

Still, great post.

[Sitdown]

I was able to get a refurbished 60gb ps3 as a wedding gift. The rarity of these systems and bluray winning out was the main reasons I went ahead and jumped on board last March.

[morganfell]

No you are the one that is being unrealistic. It is reasons such as yours - and the unwillingness to do what needs to be done up front combined with not looking at the long term that has cause so many people financial difficulty and ruin.

Yes you can buy yearly subscriptions for Live - I do - but the end result of 4 years of payments is still almost $200. What happens when you stay with Live longer than that? Kepp tacking on that money. Add just 4 years to the original cost of the 360 at the time the PS3 launched and you have your $599 console right there. And you do have to look at that cost over time. It is called financial planning.

You do have to look at the fact there was no Wifi out of the box for the 360 - add $100. You do have to look at the the fact that everything on the 360 is proprietary, from the HDD to the cables. All of that has to be factored in. You do have to look at the fact that, at the time HD DVD was still viable, a add-on DVD drive was required. More cost. As a consumer you did and do need to consider the fact that the 360 had and still has a serious reliability problem. And as a smart shopper you did need to consider the fact the 60Gb PS3 - hell the 20GB for that matter - gave you access to thousands of PS1 and PS2 titles right out of the box. And would continue to give you such access to future PS2 titles. So knock off the PS2 trade in price right there if you had one.

No, spending that extra up front paid huge dividends instead of paying even more in the long run. The mentality you espouse is that of these outrageous rent to own stores that slag you with an arm and a leg over time just to give you what seems like a cheap deal on furniture for your double wide.

[Kushan]

morganfell, how come you go on so much about considering this and considering that, when you haven't considered that quite a lot of people, most people, will never fully utilise every single component of their console?

Not everyone wants Wifi. Not everyone wants Blu-ray (or any HD player for that matter). For those people, these are just needless expenses that increase the price of the console. Even the 360 Arcade has a market - people that don't want or need a hard drive (and more to the point, didn't want or need to go online).

You can whine about paying for Live, but (particularly when the PS3 was first released) you get what you pay for, you get a much better overall service than what the PSN is. Don't get me wrong, I think the PSN has got a lot better and I begrudge paying a single penny for Live, but even today live IS a better service, so it's highly Ironic of you to moan about how people should have paid more for a better console, but then use Live as a comparison. And as I said before, those who didn't want Live were still able to buy a 360 without the "needless expense".

You also haven't considered that not everyone can just plop out that amount of money up front. It's funny that you say that this is what caused people financial difficulty, when it's the other way around. Anyone that picked a 360 on price is obviously thinking about cost. People spending more than they have is what caused them financial difficulty and a PS3 is far more likely to constitute the "more than they have" than the 360. Your point about the price of the 360's addons are valid, but nobody's forcing anyone to buy them and the 360 works just fine without them, plus if someone suddenly hits financial difficulty, they can cancel Live and put off buying those accessories. In other words, that point is rubbish.

And what about backwards compatibility? The 360 had backwards compatibility (it still does). Sure, it wasn't quite as good as the LAUNCH 60Gb consoles, but who on EARTH thinks buying a console at LAUNCH is "good value"? Since when has a console retained it's value after it launched? Most people who couldn't afford or justify the price tag were happy to wait until it came down, or just buy a 360. And it was only a few months before Sony dropped hardware compatibility for the EE, dropping compatibility rates down within line of the 360's, so really it's a moot point. The fact that Sony removed it completely actually adds value to the 360. So take away the trade-in value of your old Xbox while you're at it.

[Sitdown]

My concern is that you are fighting the battle between necessities and and extras. What about those on the other end of the spectrum? What if I don't have the ethernet or an hd tv....what if I want a console for local gaming only? So in the grand scheme of thing...how does that help my financial planning to buy a system with all these features that I care less about and have no intentions of using? Since you are adding the $100 wifi, would it be fair to add an extra $50 to $100 to the ps3 cost since the original units did not ship with dual shock 3 controllers? So I would have to purchase them to be equal with the xbox 360 with regards to rumbling? Also, the concern with your rent to own scenario is that.........you don't have to buy live or wifi....which means no increased cost. Rent to own you are paying the same small payments as interest its you up..big difference.

Edit: I basically agree with Kushan...he posted that while I was in the midst of replying.

[morganfell]

At launch 60GB/20GB backwards compatibility - 100%
At Launch 360 backwards compatibility - a handful of titles.

And we are talking about launch prices here. Also owning a console with no Multiplayer is like owning half a console. Don't kid yourself or anyone that you can begin to say MP isn't necessary as it is half of vast number of games made every year. It is a tired and quite frankly useless point to say that online isn't necessary.

Everyone can't plop down that money then you save until you can. It's these "I have to have it now" mindsets that wind up costing people as they have no sense of real value. These people might be able to better afford such things if they were a little smarter with their money instead of going the nickel and dime route.

And since you seem to think people shouldn't buy at launch, that they should wait well, thanks for making my point for me. Welcome to my side of the debate.

It's like buying something on credit and you end up paying a great deal more over the long run because of the interest rate. That's the mentality and it is full of failure. Buy smart may not mean buy immediately.

[Kushan]

How is that your point at all? You're saying people should have bought a launch 60GB PS3, my point was that it was too expensive. Now you're saying people shouldn't have bought it? Then how are they supposed to be able to get a 60Gb with Backwards Compatibility?

And no, it was never 100%, it was more like 95% and that was only the consoles with the EE in them, later ones dropped that substantially.

Now, what's that argument you're making about people only buying what they can afford? Surely that means people on lower incomes are going to buy the 360 because out and out, it's cheaper?
And FYI, last generation most people played without online multiplayer just fine. Sure, online MP is the new thing, what defines this generation, but you'd be surprised at the amount of people who just don't care for it. You'd also be surprised at the amount of teenagers who have parents that refuse to let them online due to all the racist slander going on.

[Death]

Is it cheap people or irresponsible people? I believe my point was $599 was too high for a holiday gift. You responded with me being the reason the economy tanked. A game console is a luxury item and shouldn't be part of a responsible budget wheeee money is tight. You bring up the cost of Live as being too much a d then stress the importance of online. You also fail to take games into consideration. I own over 50 Xbox 360 games. Is $50 a year for the best online experiene really an issue?

-Death

[Aclay]

Luckily for me, I have a launch 60GB PS3 with the Emotion Engine chip for full compatibility will PS1 and PS2 games.

But what about the PS3's that used Software Emulation for Backwards compatibility, like the 80GB PS3 bundled with Motorstorm and like the 80GB PS3 bundled with MGS4?

Those older model 80GB PS3's that used Software Emulation for Backwards compatibility didn't have an Emotion Engine chip in them, so I think there's a little bit more to why the PS3 doesn't have Backwards compatibility now than just no Emotion Engine. I guess Sony cut out Software Emulation to save further costs, even if they were small costs.

Most people that want to buy a PS3 more than likely have PS2's, so I really don't see it as so much of a big deal, but I can imagine that there's plenty of people that want the Backwards compatibility because I did and I love it. Glad I have my trusty ol' 60 Gig PS3 though.

[darkdoom3000]

well, considering its software based, it wouldnt effect the motherbroard layout

[hfaze]

Actually, I have one of the Motorstorm bundle 80GB PS3's. The Emotion Engine is removed from the hardware (emulated), but the GS chip (the PS2 graphics chip) is still in hardware.

I originally had a 60GB launch unit, but ended up trading it in before my extended warranty ran out. I can honestly say that the PS2 backward compatibility was MUCH better on my old launch unit.

Although my 80GB PS3 for the most part only has issues with older PS2 games. I have the Metal Gear Solid Collection, and MGS2 & MGS3 work flawlessly, but Tekken Tag Tournament is flat-out unplayable.

I hope that whenever the PS3 slim is released that there is a model with full PS2 backwards compatibility... That would be sweeeeet...

[darkdoom3000]

well considering it lowered the price of NZ PS3 by 400 dollars, im not complaining.

The only games that i really want to play are the MGS essentail collection( Ive already played all 4 mgs games. but still), FFXII, GofOfWar 1 and 2
(60gb was 1200, 40gb was 800. PS3 games are 100 each)

[darkdoom3000]

disagree if you want. but i would rather get 4 Ps3 games than BC.

[austere]

mine does have backwards compatibility

I win.

haha, all the PS3 fanboys on this site and you idiots don't even have backwards compatible PS3s. Some fanboys you are...didn't even buy launch PS3s.

[Ryudo]

Your stupidity well its beyond any logical words so I wont try and express it.

[austere]

nice anime avatar

[Jager]

Nice 2, no wait, ONE Bubble.

[Ryudo]

Just buy a PS2... I mean its not like the PS3 can run them any better half the time games look worse when running through the PS3. Only downside is not having a wireless pad. But seriously for the price of buying a PS3 BC well a decent one not the 80gig version.

Its far cheaper to buy a good old PS2 slim for ps2 games PS2 slim > PS3

[austere]

I guess you completely miss the point of having BC in a PS3. I won't try to explain it further. Your "stupidity well its beyond any logical words so I wont try and express it"

Apparently I need to go to English class as well.

[Ryudo]

Your telling me am wrong but not stopping to mention the reason behind it. So therefore I shall simply disregard your opinion as idiocy k? Noticed you just lost yet 1 more bubble. maybe we can continue this discussion when you stop posting bull crap and losing your rights to post at all.

[n1kki6]

People need to get over it. With side and front inputs on most tv's, if its really that important to you hook the ps2 back up when you want to play a game, or you should have never sold the ps2 before buying a non-backwards compatible ps3.

I often wonder if some of these articles are made up. You have a ton of ps2 games but don't still have your ps2, really? SO let me get this straight. This person kept the ps2 games, bought a ps3 knowing its not BC, and then proceeded to sell their ps2. Something does not add up.

Edit: Someone tell me how the hell i would get a disagree? If your gonna disagree at least respond with what you disagree with.

[Ryudo]

Just simply ignore them the only way to get agrees on N4G is to ever express your unending love for Sony. Posts like I just got my 87th RRoD are all the range at the moment.

There 1 agree xD

[Skerj]

Hah playing P4 on MY PS3, someone should have been informed before buying a model without BC. Or that someone shouldn't have waited so long, there's your precious price drop. I spent 600 on mine, I have a PS2 in it, you didn't and you don't. Sadly those are the breaks in this situation, but it's not like you can't find a BC model OR A PS2.

[n1kki6]

Why would this person have ps2 games, a non-BC ps3, but no ps2? I mean really, who buys a non-BC ps3, keeps their games but sells their ps2.

[smurfie4]

Your ps3 doesn't have bc because it boosts manufacturing costs.

[n1kki6]

You are correct, it does cut manufacturing costs. This is a business after all.

Considering everyone that has a non-BC ps3 and still has ps2 games, you would think they would still have their ps2. It really shouldn't be a problem.