...rip it's backwards compatibility away from the PS3? I know it happened a long time ago, I was just wondering why.
Is it that expensive?
I'm pretty sure it was a cost thing. At first cause there was hardware specifically for it. Then software or something
Gary Johnson For President 2012!
so they can sell you the games in their store or in remastered rereleases instead of you buying them dirt cheap used (which they get no money from).
This. Plus I see it as a move for the future. To get out of the concept that a Sony console must be backwards compatible.
thegreatone18: so they can sell you the games in their store or in remastered rereleases instead of you buying them dirt cheap used (which they get no money from). This. Plus I see it as a move for the future. To get out of the concept that a Sony console must be backwards compatible.
that is kind of assinine as 99% of releases will not have a remastered release; hardly a move towards to the future as many see BWC as a feature they want and is a selling point
Likely to reduce some cost on the unit.
Maybe it was an effort not to cannibalize their ongoing PS2 sales, which are still selling rather well, relatively speaking.
Join the Goozex Pokerstars Club!
GreenManGaming
Considering the fact that PS2 dominated Xbox it doesn't make sense that they'd dump it, now 360 is beating PS3.
They could at least sell a seperate more expensive BC model or something. There are people out there with loads of PS2 games, still buying them, and would switch if supported I think. They just don't want to pay $600 off ebay for an old machine that might break on them.
Initially it was hardware based, so in order to bring down the initial PS3 price down from 600$, the chip got the axe. If you consider that PS2 is still selling relatively well, it's a no brainer.
It's gonna come back eventually as software based, when, who knows. I doubt I'll run out of current generation games to play before that.
SuperRick: Considering the fact that PS2 dominated Xbox it doesn't make sense that they'd dump it, now 360 is beating PS3. They could at least sell a seperate more expensive BC model or something. There are people out there with loads of PS2 games, still buying them, and would switch if supported I think. They just don't want to pay $600 off ebay for an old machine that might break on them.
They weren't making any money early in, in fact losing money. It was a terrible launch for the PS3, and I'm certainly against its removal, though it wasn't a deal breaker.
I don't believe the 360's competition is a major concern though with it's removal. The 360 has extremely limited BC IIRC, while some PS3's have overall stellar BC. The race between the two systems is rapidly closing in its gap as 2009 was a great boost for SONY, so I don't think they'll look towards MS when making all their decisions.
I've been considering getting a new PS2 just for BC, as they're getting extremely cheap and would more than cover the limited times I do play my PS2 games. This is also including the fact that my PS3 has software BC, something that works well when it does, but otherwise is sketchy.
Kenny007:This is also including the fact that my PS3 has software BC, something that works well when it does, but otherwise is sketchy.
I don't know what that is, could you explain?
Kenny007:I've been considering getting a new PS2 just for BC, as they're getting extremely cheap and would more than cover the limited times I do play my PS2 games.
I think that was a big thing. They were still selling PS2's, I don't have the numbers but I'd imagine those were quite profitable when compared to the early PS3's. The BC PS3's had the PS2 chipset (if my terminology is correct) as well as what was needed to play PS3 games. So, I think production costs really forced their hand. I don't think they wanted to be like MS with the cost of the original XBOX far exceeding it's sale price.
I have a PS3 Slim, PS2 Slim and a 60GB PS3. I picked up a wireless PS2 controller (katana accessories (sp?)) and it works really well with the PS2. I have my PS2 hooked up to my AV receiver which up-scales it...the graphics look fine (I haven't compared them to the PS3 up-scaling) and I get Dolby Digital sound I regret not just spending money on the receiver/speakers/wireless controller when I wanted a BC PS3...I'd feel really guilty if I didn't get a solid deal on the 60GB, cost me $150 (after I sold my 40GB).
Forum Moderator
SuperRick: Kenny007:This is also including the fact that my PS3 has software BC, something that works well when it does, but otherwise is sketchy. I don't know what that is, could you explain?
Before totally abandoning BC, they just removed hardware BC in favor of a software derivative. The hardware BC was almost perfect from what I've read and been told, as it was essentially PS2 hardware within.
Once that was removed, the software derivative made its way into the next string of models (what I have...though I wanted a hardware one when I was shopping in 2009 I couldn't justify the added cost and the fact that a new one was $100s more). This type can handle many games fine with no issues, but others it can't run well. Chief examples I've personally dealt with are the Ratchet & Clank series and the Jak and Dexter series. They'll run, but it's very choppy and sluggish, essentially unplayable.
This link will allow you to search various PS2 titles and see if there are any issues with either model.
After a short while, the software BC got the boot and we're where we're at today.
It was a cost cutting measure. When the PS3 first rolled out, it was $600 and they were actually losing a couple hundred on each unit sold. Because of poor initial sales, there was quite a bit of pressure on them to reduce the price of the console, but they couldn't afford to take a larger loss per unit than they already were. This caused them strip features out of the units so they could drop the price without taking larger losses. USB ports got cut down, memory slots were stripped, and backwards compatibility was taken out - all at the same time.
IMO, the people at this site seriously overestimate the mass appeal of backwards compatibility. Not all that many people would pay extra money for a backwards compatible unit and it might not be worth bothering with having a separate production line for it. Like any corporation, Sony didn't just strip this on a whim, I'm sure they did they research and realized that this feature just isn't all that marketable for what it costs.
I love my full hardware backwards compatible 60Gb (now 500Gb!) PS3, which has the added benefit of upconverting the games (as opposed to a regular PS2).
