News

Comment by: xaznboitx (Feb 17, 2011 02:55)

About time!!!!
Also, we need more Dreamcast games... Sony needs to ask Sega for more games to be added on the PSN.

I agree all old games should be FULL HD

Comment by: porosus (Feb 17, 2011 03:24)

They can do this but not enable backwards compatability on all ps3's with a software update? I call Shenanigans. they did it with the 80 gig unit why not with all others.

Comment by: hikaricor (Feb 17, 2011 04:05)

They removed backwards compatibility simply to either force consumers to buy a ps2 or eventually pay for the privilege to play games they already own through this special service. Maybe next year they'll be selling the ability to use another operating system at 29.95$ per install. ;)

Comment by: KillerBug (Feb 17, 2011 04:31)

Originally posted by hikaricor:

---

They removed backwards compatibility simply to either force consumers to buy a ps2 or eventually pay for the privilege to play games they already own through this special service. Maybe next year they'll be selling the ability to use another operating system at 29.95$ per install. ;)

---

Nah, next year they will be selling the ability to play the PSN games you have already purchased; much like they are doing on the PSPhone...except it won't even be a new device. They figure that they have gotten away with everything else, and they might as well just keep taking bigger liberties.

Comment by: xnonsuchx (Feb 17, 2011 05:50)

Originally posted by porosus:

---

They can do this but not enable backwards compatability on all ps3's with a software update? I call Shenanigans. they did it with the 80 gig unit why not with all others.

---

Find a near perfect PS2 software emulator!

Comment by: xaznboitx (Feb 17, 2011 05:57)

Huh I thought only 20 GB
CECHB01 60 GB
CECHA01 could play ps2 games?

nothing about 80gb

nevermind, I googled it , it shows that the 80gb uses software...

Comment by: Anonymous User (Feb 17, 2011 07:52)

Originally posted by hikaricor:

---

They removed backwards compatibility simply to either force consumers to buy a ps2 or eventually pay for the privilege to play games they already own through this special service. Maybe next year they'll be selling the ability to use another operating system at 29.95$ per install. ;)

---

They PS3 was about $600 for the consumer when they made the decision to drop backwards compatibility. Also they did two separate iterations of the removal of BC... it was completely for price. Besides, if people are going to buy a PS2 now, its gonna be used. I bet you are one of those guys who thinks we never landed on the moon or dinosaurs were made up by the government.

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Feb 17, 2011 07:56)

These will not be HD remastered games but ports like the n64 games on the VC.

Comment by: hikaricor (Feb 17, 2011 09:26)

We did land on the moon, however the topic of when we actually did this and the validity of the footage of the "moon landing" is another story entirely. If you honestly believe that Sony dropped the ability to play PS1/2 games to save the consumer money you should probably get a CAT scan.

Comment by: KillerBug (Feb 17, 2011 09:55)

Originally posted by Nojerome:

---

Originally posted by hikaricor:

---

They removed backwards compatibility simply to either force consumers to buy a ps2 or eventually pay for the privilege to play games they already own through this special service. Maybe next year they'll be selling the ability to use another operating system at 29.95$ per install. ;)

---

They PS3 was about $600 for the consumer when they made the decision to drop backwards compatibility. Also they did two separate iterations of the removal of BC... it was completely for price. Besides, if people are going to buy a PS2 now, its gonna be used. I bet you are one of those guys who thinks we never landed on the moon or dinosaurs were made up by the government.

---

Your history does not jive with the facts.
The 20GB model (with 4 USB ports and full hardware BC) cost $500. The first 80GB model (with software-based BC support) cost $600. What did you get for $100 more a full 9 months later? A $20 card reader and a drive that cost sony about $4 more than the 20GB drive. Oh, and half of the BC hardware removed.

Flash forward a bit farther; a full two years after the 20GB was launched at $500 and sony is still selling a $500 PS3...it has no card reader, no BC support at all, and only 2 USB ports. The only thing it has on the original 20GB model is the slightly larger hard disk (at the time, the 160GB drive they were using was selling for about the same cost as the 20GB drive was selling for at launch). Two years gone, 2 ports gone, BC gone, lower chip costs (they were already using the third version of the cell at this point), and a hard disk that cost the same amount...and the price didn't drop one cent. Where exactly is this huge savings for the customer that BC removal brought? Not only do I see no savings because of BC removal, but it seems like we had to pay for BC removal by giving up 2 USB ports.

Comment by: Anonymous User (Feb 17, 2011 15:18)

Why update when they can make you buy it again

Comment by: Mysttic (Feb 17, 2011 15:58)

I do not think this will be as big a sell as Sony is hoping. Its all going to come down to cost of each game, but I see Sony going around the $20 range which should flop. Most PS2 games now I can buy used for $10 at any pawn shop, and hell there are some occasional ones new you can get cheaper if you know where to look.

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Feb 17, 2011 16:24)

Originally posted by KillerBug:

---

Originally posted by Nojerome:

---

Originally posted by hikaricor:

---

They removed backwards compatibility simply to either force consumers to buy a ps2 or eventually pay for the privilege to play games they already own through this special service. Maybe next year they'll be selling the ability to use another operating system at 29.95$ per install. ;)

---

They PS3 was about $600 for the consumer when they made the decision to drop backwards compatibility. Also they did two separate iterations of the removal of BC... it was completely for price. Besides, if people are going to buy a PS2 now, its gonna be used. I bet you are one of those guys who thinks we never landed on the moon or dinosaurs were made up by the government.

---

Your history does not jive with the facts.
The 20GB model (with 4 USB ports and full hardware BC) cost $500. The first 80GB model (with software-based BC support) cost $600. What did you get for $100 more a full 9 months later? A $20 card reader and a drive that cost sony about $4 more than the 20GB drive. Oh, and half of the BC hardware removed.

Flash forward a bit farther; a full two years after the 20GB was launched at $500 and sony is still selling a $500 PS3...it has no card reader, no BC support at all, and only 2 USB ports. The only thing it has on the original 20GB model is the slightly larger hard disk (at the time, the 160GB drive they were using was selling for about the same cost as the 20GB drive was selling for at launch). Two years gone, 2 ports gone, BC gone, lower chip costs (they were already using the third version of the cell at this point), and a hard disk that cost the same amount...and the price didn't drop one cent. Where exactly is this huge savings for the customer that BC removal brought? Not only do I see no savings because of BC removal, but it seems like we had to pay for BC removal by giving up 2 USB ports.

---

I think thats his point.

Comment by: xnonsuchx (Feb 18, 2011 00:03)

Some of you seem to be missing the fact that Sony only started making a profit on each console shortly after the slim model was introduced. Hardware that was removed in previous models mostly helped them lose less money even though they were sold at the same price point. Full hardware BC added around US$40-60 to the cost of the unit and 'buggy' partial hardware BC reduced that to around US$25-40. Add to that, according to market research, ONLY around 15% of people even cared about PS2 BC, it was more beneficial to lower the cost of the unit than to keep any PS2 BC. Personally, I think they should have designed some expansion slot where a ~US$40-60 PS2-compatibility expansion card (with the actual PS2 chipset) could be installed for those who really wanted that feature...even though there'd still be a bunch of whiners there too.

If you REALLY want PS2 BC, buy a used/refurbished launch unit that has it (the upscaling is nice compared to just using a separate PS2).

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Feb 18, 2011 02:30)

Originally posted by xnonsuchx:

---

Some of you seem to be missing the fact that Sony only started making a profit on each console shortly after the slim model was introduced. Hardware that was removed in previous models mostly helped them lose less money even though they were sold at the same price point. Full hardware BC added around US$40-60 to the cost of the unit and 'buggy' partial hardware BC reduced that to around US$25-40. Add to that, according to market research, ONLY around 15% of people even cared about PS2 BC, it was more beneficial to lower the cost of the unit than to keep any PS2 BC. Personally, I think they should have designed some expansion slot where a ~US$40-60 PS2-compatibility expansion card (with the actual PS2 chipset) could be installed for those who really wanted that feature...even though there'd still be a bunch of whiners there too.

If you REALLY want PS2 BC, buy a used/refurbished launch unit that has it (the upscaling is nice compared to just using a separate PS2).

---

So? either build it as its intended or don't built it at all, BWC for the PS2 was first then linux its one debacle after the other at least the 360 had a good reason for no BWC and it was due to licensing it for a different chipset...however the 360 had its fair share of trouble with its own 30% fail rate.

Comment by: KillerBug (Feb 18, 2011 04:18)

Exactly...Sony is always using "market research" to define what people don't want...but never what they do want. They said only 10% of users wanted OtherOS and that only 15% of users wanted BC support, so they were both removed. Yet something like 50% of users want cross-game-chat (the other 50% don't know what it is, or else they would want it), and it still isn't there.

Oh, and never say, "Only 15% of PS3 users"...there are about 45 million PS3 users, and 15% = 6.75 million users.

Sony has consistently offered a "higher end" system for $50-$100 more. After the end of BC, the only differences that the more expensive versions offered were slightly larger hard disks that cost less than 1/2 of the mark-up (not to mention that they didn't have to pay for the cheap drive). Sony should have continued BC support on these models, as well as the 4 USB ports...I can understand dropping the card reader because you can do that externally, but a USB hub is not the same as an extra 2 USB ports, and Sony obviously thinks people want to play their PS2 games...years after BC support was removed.

I'm still waiting for them to revoke all access rights to all PSN content because "Only" 30 percent of users would care.

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Feb 18, 2011 06:21)

Originally posted by KillerBug:

---

Exactly...Sony is always using "market research" to define what people don't want...but never what they do want. They said only 10% of users wanted OtherOS and that only 15% of users wanted BC support, so they were both removed. Yet something like 50% of users want cross-game-chat (the other 50% don't know what it is, or else they would want it), and it still isn't there.

Oh, and never say, "Only 15% of PS3 users"...there are about 45 million PS3 users, and 15% = 6.75 million users.

Sony has consistently offered a "higher end" system for $50-$100 more. After the end of BC, the only differences that the more expensive versions offered were slightly larger hard disks that cost less than 1/2 of the mark-up (not to mention that they didn't have to pay for the cheap drive). Sony should have continued BC support on these models, as well as the 4 USB ports...I can understand dropping the card reader because you can do that externally, but a USB hub is not the same as an extra 2 USB ports, and Sony obviously thinks people want to play their PS2 games...years after BC support was removed.

I'm still waiting for them to revoke all access rights to all PSN content because "Only" 30 percent of users would care.

---

Don't you mean oh god what is the 2 word other word used alot for the research group?

I mean hell if they follow the advise of research groups so closely why not drop all the fuss over unlocked PS3s?

Comment by: Gnawnivek (Feb 18, 2011 17:18)

The PS2 games better be remastered and have trophy supports like the already released HD collections. Otherwise, I don't see any point buying those games at premium prices when you can get them dirt cheap on the PS2.

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Feb 18, 2011 17:49)

Originally posted by Gnawnivek:

---

The PS2 games better be remastered and have trophy supports like the already released HD collections. Otherwise, I don't see any point buying those games at premium prices when you can get them dirt cheap on the PS2.

---

That costs money you will barely get HD filtering/scaleing.

Comment by: Interestx (Feb 18, 2011 19:35)

I can think of several PS2 games which if updated would probably get my buying a PS3 now prices ahve fallen a fair bit. Thunderhawk 2 was a fav and good old shoot em up chopper comabt seems to be very much out of fashion these days.
Shame.

Comment by: RickWJ324 (Feb 20, 2011 22:36)

I wish they'd re-do the Ratchet and Clank games and Jak and Daxter games (like they did recently with God of War, Sly Cooper, and Prince of Persia).

Comment by: Emudude1963 (Feb 26, 2011 15:08)

Actually, all PS3's including the Slims will play Original PS1 games. This is for the Remote Play so you can play them on your PSP remotely connected to the PS3. I have Played PS1 Return Fire on a Slim PS3. I Know it works.

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Feb 26, 2011 15:13)

Originally posted by Emudude1963:

---

Actually, all PS3's including the Slims will play Original PS1 games. This is for the Remote Play so you can play them on your PSP remotely connected to the PS3. I have Played PS1 Return Fire on a Slim PS3. I Know it works.

---

Its just of they tossed out PS2 BWC like they did, I thought sony was better than that, Nintendo tossed out GBA BWC on the later DS revisions and the DS 2.0(3DS) which was not that supriseing.

Frankly I would rather has a TV out and controller for the portables than extra fancy crap no one wants.... would like BWC as well. Then they can see stuff via the store and repacked on disc with minmial reworking. I mean that would be the best way to do it but no they want devs to port it to the digital store....

Comment by: Emudude1963 (Feb 26, 2011 15:30)

I have an Original 60 GB PS3 so I have Full Backward Compatibility for PS1 and PS2 Games. I had to get replaced once due to the Video Going out on me. Since it was out of warranty, I had to Pay $130 to get it replaced. They sent me a brand new 60 GB, and I have never had a problem with it for the past 3 years now. If the one I have now goes out again, I will gladly pay another $130 for another replacement of the Same Model Number. If they don't have one, I will try to ask for my original $600 back. (like that would work).

Comment by: banzaigtv (Feb 28, 2011 06:02)

Sony should enable HD graphics on PS2 games via game patches. Otherwise, they should make remastered versions of the most popular classics as collection bundles. All Resident Evil mainstream games, including Resident Evil 4, in 1080p resolution and Dolby TrueHD 7.1 audio on a Blu-ray disc? Sure, why not? RE4 in this bundle will totally obliterate the Wii version.