Sony PS3

[Necrotic]

I specifically mentioned the technical feasibility of backward compatibility with games in an HDTV with a modern system. Way to read it totally wrong.

Also, I highly, highly doubt that backward compatibility is a SELLING point. Is it a sticking point? Yes. Did it create an unnecessary shitstorm? Yes. But do people really buy entire game consoles on backward compatibility? I'd have to laugh at that notion.

Well, even if you do take what you said into context, none of you what you said really did "click" with my own personal viewpoint on the subject... and based on the response you're getting, I'm not the only one. You're generalizing too far, maybe.

For one thing, I think you're going a little too far by saying that anyone in their right mind buys new generation consoles for the sake of playing old games. I don't even think anyone's implied that in this this thread but you, and aside from that, when a company offers to support their consumers in something it's hard to take lightly when they keep removing things after the product has been on shelves for a year now. Natural order of things is, they're going to complain. And depending on how hard they complain, that company may or may not change their stance on the issue. Seems to me a good portion of people are just as whiny about how they hate people complaining after getting shafted by a company when it's the complainer's right not to mention their job to defend their investment.

The way I see it, the more I can consolidate my consoles, the more space I save and the more convenient it is to be able to take advantage of things like, say, wireless control of my games. Maybe you have an entire house or basement at your disposal, you're single, you like being able to throw a bunch of old analog TV sets in a room and maintaining a bunch of old consoles and whatever costs are associated with it. That's cool for you, but I'm not really in that position. Plus things like games being blown up and pixelated and upscaled on an HDTV don't bother me. I play games like Monkey Island on my PC all the time and get the same effect because my monitor is too many sizes too big for the way the game is designed but I'd rather take advantage of all the space I have. Games have a habit of bugging my eyes out on oldschool analog TV's because the quality on said TV's is just so shitty in general.

Between the option of having BC and not having BC I see more benefits in having BC and I would (and did) pay for it. I think the issue is mostly that Sony is taking options away from consumers when it seems more reasonable to give consumers options.

-Nick

[SilverStar]

Honestly, one of the big selling points of Wii was, and to me, still is, the 100% GC BC support. But, that's because the hardware is so much smaller.

In the case of the PS3.. because of the shape of the hardware, stacking isn't possible. If you have a PS2 slim, you can't stack it with anything, unless it's the topmost system. And, as anyone with more than 3 consoles active at any time could attest to.. inputs and power spaces come at a very high premium, especially when dealing with a modern TV set and surround sound speaker system, HD cable box, and DVD player. Being able to replace a PS2 with a PS3 means you're not dealing with having a whole bunch more jacks being used, without a purpose. It's not like you'd be playing more than one game at once and you would need to have PS1, PS2, PS3, Xbox, X360, GC, Wii, N64, DC, Saturn, etc... all plugged in at the very same time. But you can readily take PS1 and PS2 out, as well as GC. And eventually, even N64. And depending on the games you have, Xbox as well, unless you use it for media center functionality.

Until they come out with a good, high quality and readily available AV switch, that supports HDMI, component and composite inputs/outputs, where you can simply string all your hardware up to it without a second thought, that's a hell of a lot of spaghetti hanging behind your system. And both MS and Sony will void your warranty, if you have their current systems plugged into a surge protector and you call them to complain about a problem.

Good luck finding enough places to plug all your systems in, both to display and to power, without doing something that would void the warranty.

[I-n-j-i-n]

Well, even if you do take what you said into context, none of you what you said really did "click" with my own personal viewpoint on the subject... and based on the response you're getting, I'm not the only one. You're generalizing too far, maybe.

Sorry if this sounds blunt, but I almost consider my stance a fact. Maybe that is because I'm a bit of a purist with oldie titles and that I think it's a ridiculous idea to replace things entirely. I don't know. I don't know many people who takes care of old consoles like I do. And the idea of trading in entire consoles for new ones is almost nonexistent for me.

For one thing, I think you're going a little too far by saying that anyone in their right mind buys new generation consoles for the sake of playing old games.

I'm not backing away from that stance by an inch. Even if you may say that you don't, then what's keeping you from NOT buying the newer system? You don't buy newer systems to play older games. That is a nigh fact. It'd be NICE if the newer system can play older games, right? But do you buy it for that sole reason? Ask yourself that. Certainly I can appreciate playing some old PSOne games on the PS2 days or the Gamecube titles on the Wii, but is it critical? I'd say no. And there is no reason at all to not consider getting the new systems if I didn't expect all the NEW games to come. I would not stop myself if the backward compatibility was an issue. I'd ignore it as the vast majority of gamers (in their right minds) do.

I don't even think anyone's implied that in this this thread but you, and aside from that, when a company offers to support their consumers in something it's hard to take lightly when they keep removing things after the product has been on shelves for a year now. Natural order of things is, they're going to complain. And depending on how hard they complain, that company may or may not change their stance on the issue. Seems to me a good portion of people are just as whiny about how they hate people complaining after getting shafted by a company when it's the complainer's right not to mention their job to defend their investment.

Exactly. Why make promises you can't keep? Why even promise backward compatibility? Here is an idea: No more slapped on backward compatibility. Or better yet, no backward compatibility at all. Focus all attention on new products, get new customers, etc etc. It worked in the past systems, it works today.

The way I see it, the more I can consolidate my consoles, the more space I save and the more convenient it is to be able to take advantage of things like, say, wireless control of my games. Maybe you have an entire house or basement at your disposal, you're single, you like being able to throw a bunch of old analog TV sets in a room and maintaining a bunch of old consoles and whatever costs are associated with it. That's cool for you, but I'm not really in that position. Plus things like games being blown up and pixelated and upscaled on an HDTV don't bother me. I play games like Monkey Island on my PC all the time and get the same effect because my monitor is too many sizes too big for the way the game is designed but I'd rather take advantage of all the space I have. Games have a habit of bugging my eyes out on oldschool analog TV's because the quality on said TV's is just so shitty in general.

There is that subjective side and I wouldn't question that. But is your entire buying decision hinged solely on older games? If there is a game you absolutely, positively must play (Let's say: MGS4, Smash Brothers Brawl, Halo, etc etc), then what's keeping you? Backward compatibility? That is a total joke. Also, a new gaming console being backward compatible isn't really necessary in the grand scheme of things. It's simply not all that crucial at all to the equation. Gaming politics wise, it just creates a lot of headaches and nothing else. If game companies feel they don't want to provide the compatibility, I'd be really, really happy for that decision, or I wouldn't care at the slightest out of anticipation for that must have new game. Not because of older stuff.

Also, PC games are really not much of an issue in terms of compatibility since most games were still pretty pixelated from the start and it's only a matter of applying patches. There is no worry about a computer not being able to play older titles (without the patches and programs to run old OS programs). And new PCs do not make it some sales clique to pitch backward compatibility. Game consoles do that. And it's exactly just that: a sales pitch.

Between the option of having BC and not having BC I see more benefits in having BC and I would (and did) pay for it. I think the issue is mostly that Sony is taking options away from consumers when it seems more reasonable to give consumers options.

Okay. That is just silly. Because the BC issue is only hurting Sony in terms of its public relations and yet it's one of those features that really is just a tacked on extra. Instead of the BC issue, why not bolster their potentially biggest-goldmine-ever with the PSOne downloadable library? Patch it with a wide screen format, put some new extras, slap on a small fee, then watch millions of gamers contently download them. All BC is doing for Sony is giving them a huge headache. Do you really argue that point? How do you think this issue even came up at all?

Honestly, one of the big selling points of Wii was, and to me, still is, the 100% GC BC support. But, that's because the hardware is so much smaller.

But is it THE selling point? No. Unless you're out of your mind, it was the Wiimote. Not even the system's last generation power or BC. Actually, I think Virtual Console was THE biggest software factor with the system. It basically sold the console for me.

In the case of the PS3.. because of the shape of the hardware, stacking isn't possible. If you have a PS2 slim, you can't stack it with anything, unless it's the topmost system. And, as anyone with more than 3 consoles active at any time could attest to.. inputs and power spaces come at a very high premium, especially when dealing with a modern TV set and surround sound speaker system, HD cable box, and DVD player. Being able to replace a PS2 with a PS3 means you're not dealing with having a whole bunch more jacks being used, without a purpose. It's not like you'd be playing more than one game at once and you would need to have PS1, PS2, PS3, Xbox, X360, GC, Wii, N64, DC, Saturn, etc... all plugged in at the very same time. But you can readily take PS1 and PS2 out, as well as GC. And eventually, even N64. And depending on the games you have, Xbox as well, unless you use it for media center functionality.

I play older games constantly and I did say I have around a dozen games plugged in, but I wonder if all that is really necessary. I can do just fine plugging in a single system while putting most others in boxes until I need them. My brain would go bust if I tried playing more than three different games in a day. Seriously, do gamers really play like schizophrenics and play 5 different consoles on a single day? I wouldn't think so, unless it's a bit of a habit to just put the systems in an accessible setting.

Until they come out with a good, high quality and readily available AV switch, that supports HDMI, component and composite inputs/outputs, where you can simply string all your hardware up to it without a second thought, that's a hell of a lot of spaghetti hanging behind your system. And both MS and Sony will void your warranty, if you have their current systems plugged into a surge protector and you call them to complain about a problem.

Good luck finding enough places to plug all your systems in, both to display and to power, without doing something that would void the warranty.

I don't disagree with the convenience. But Sony or Nintendo or Microsoft or anyone else aren't obliged to do so technically. It's been since become the norm since the PS2 and Gameboy Advance, but it's more a yet another selling point. But it still does not strike me as something crucial for game system sales at all. I would think colors for the system boxes would have a much bigger impact in the grand scheme of things.

[tk]

I haven't seen any real positive media coverage of the PS3 lately. Even the price drop was crapped on because of the BC removal in the 40GB (and rightly so).

(it's nice to want things though, isn't it?)

It's mainly been the last couple of days. Like Gamespot did an article about their sales predictions for the Christmas period and they put the 360 in last. Joystiq also did an article about how the PS3 sales are actually equal if not slightly better than the 360's if launches are aligned (which most people already knew).

Just small stuff like that.

[Hector]

That's a long post, so I'll make the case of buying a system because of backwards compatibly quite simply.

First, let us pretend that each new console were to be made perfectly backwards compatible (including those that are not actually backwards compatible).

Now, say I just have a backwards compatible Gamecube to start. The new consoles come out and I have a choice between the Wii, PS3 and 360. The Wii offers me one generation worth of games, the 360 offers two and the PS3 offers three. Rather than stick to Nintendo, I may try the other consoles to try many of the games that I had missed out on.

Backwards compatibility can easily be the breaking point for a new console. The PS2 has one of the best gaming libraries of any console, and anyone who has missed that Library ought to be sorely tempted by the PS3. Remove backwards compatibility though, and one might as well buy a PS2--which people seem to be doing since the PS2 still outsells the PS3.

[Drack]

It is indeed a huge selling point.

I skipped PS1. I skipped PS2! Hardly played a dozen titles for each of those platforms.

Do I want to play their games? Hell yes. Can I get them cheaply? Of course. I am considering getting a 60gb PS3.

To cover both the past and the future.

Remove the BC, or even just the hardware BC and there's no chance I'd buy it.

Your opinion is not fact.

[SilverStar]

When a system like the PS3 still has a library so honestly pathetic that the biggest selling point for it is the past libraries of games from PS1 and PS2 that you can play on it, while new PS2 games are STILL coming out, taking out the BC support is just a way to cripple it.

You just don't get the total package anymore. Fuck, in 5 years the PS3 will be reduced to two PS2 ducttaped together with a bit of waggle in the controller. Which would still make it weaker than the Wii.

[I-n-j-i-n]

When a system like the PS3 still has a library so honestly pathetic that the biggest selling point for it is the past libraries of games from PS1 and PS2 that you can play on it, while new PS2 games are STILL coming out, taking out the BC support is just a way to cripple it.

You just don't get the total package anymore. Fuck, in 5 years the PS3 will be reduced to two PS2 ducttaped together with a bit of waggle in the controller. Which would still make it weaker than the Wii.

Again, why bother with BC games alone? Look at Virtual Console for one second: You BUY all those games. Gamecube games (which has a dismally small library compared to the mammoth NES/SNES/Genesis libraries), that is where the real draw is. The games you BUY. The idea behind the sale of older PSOne titles is the same thing. If they can sell the old and now hard to find older games with a cheaper price, it's going to sell like wildfire. No way it'll be entirely dependent on the current backlog of games. It's a part of it but selling it like with the VC/Xbox Live Arcade style will most definitely work.

Also, future PS3 game projects at least look promising and it will have its share of AAA multi-console games right alongside 360 with Wii games on the rear as far as the highly graphical games and M-rated stuff are concerned. But it's still dismal compared to how strong the 360 looks at least for western audiences.

It is indeed a huge selling point.

I skipped PS1. I skipped PS2! Hardly played a dozen titles for each of those platforms.

That's not the console's fault, nor the company's policy's fault or the fault of the system's technical aspect. It's yours. If you decide to skip it, that's tough nuts for you. Sony didn't snatch away their consoles from under your nose. You did it yourself. Also, those systems are DIRT CHEAP online by now. You can get a good, $20 PSOne if you bid right in eBay. I did that just a few months back to get a better, cleaner system.

Do I want to play their games? Hell yes. Can I get them cheaply? Of course. I am considering getting a 60gb PS3.

To cover both the past and the future.

Remove the BC, or even just the hardware BC and there's no chance I'd buy it.

I think you mean software backward compatibility such as a possible downloadable backlog. Also, if it hinges so much on not buying the newer console for the factor of old games, then why is buying PS3 even an option? That's what I'm getting at precisely: If you want new games, get PS3. If you want older stuff, buy older stuff. I couldn't give a crap about system politics and which systems sell. It's just silly that a backlog of games is the sole decider as it may be with PS3. It's just sad.

Now, say I just have a backwards compatible Gamecube to start. The new consoles come out and I have a choice between the Wii, PS3 and 360. The Wii offers me one generation worth of games, the 360 offers two and the PS3 offers three. Rather than stick to Nintendo, I may try the other consoles to try many of the games that I had missed out on.

I suppose that makes sense if you're really coming from the side of a totally new gamer of any one type of system or generations of consoles. Maybe I don't see that perspective AT ALL since I follow just about every console out there. I still think it's silly to just blow by the perfectly fine older systems in favor of lousy backward compatible games. It's like playing console games on a PC. Can it be done? Yes. Is it appropriate or the best option? I'd really say no.

Backwards compatibility can easily be the breaking point for a new console. The PS2 has one of the best gaming libraries of any console, and anyone who has missed that Library ought to be sorely tempted by the PS3. Remove backwards compatibility though, and one might as well buy a PS2--which people seem to be doing since the PS2 still outsells the PS3.

Then good. Sony ought to be revamping their new features like I kept saying. Their downloadable content idea has so much potential, it is strange how they are making such drama with the BC of older titles. Look at the 360. Their backlog of games aren't perfect and fans know that most games do work (albeit not as well. Sound being garbled is the norm with Shenmue 2 for example), but almost ALL of the visible effort put by Microsoft is with the new content, new games, new features, new online, new new new new new. It's a matter of how you sell things.

Just to make it a bit clear, I'm not writing up entire essays to disprove everyone who actually likes BC in their systems. But I still think it's an overblown 'problem' which was never something that was featured in older systems. Repackaging games sell well and sell like crazy. So that is a good knock of ancient games where a lot of the copies you either can't find or they're $200+ for a good copy. Even if you do find them, they do no justice to HDTVs anyway. Touched up remasters of older games can and often do it justice in flying colors (IE: every f'n Xbox Live Arcade game ever.)

[KakTheInfected]

I think the most important point you are missing is that Sony is in no position to remove anything from the hardware. If they sold a 40GB model with full BC at launch for $400, sales in Japan alone could have pushed the worldwide sales into a much less embarassing position than they are now. Stop worrying about manufacturing costs when you're not selling hardware or software unless you plan on discontinuing the goddamn thing.

[Hy Bound]

I'm sorry if this is already asked, but i don't want to go through 194 pages looking for it...

Can you use the 8mb memory cards from the ps2 in the ps3 without the stupid adaptor? I've heard both it can and it can't.

[Drack]

Once again, injin dismisses everyone elses point of view as he obviously has the one, true, correct idea.

Fuck you. I'm not arguing with your bullshit anymore.

[HoopyFrood]

yes you need the adapter for PS2 memory cards.

The memory card adapter in the system is only for camera cards. (i.e. MMC/SD, Memory stick, compactflash I/II and smart media)

[I-n-j-i-n]

Once again, injin dismisses everyone elses point of view as he obviously has the one, true, correct idea.

Fuck you. I'm not arguing with your bullshit anymore.

I actually mellowed a bit through the argument if you paid some attention. I know I'm being very opinionated here. Aside from the very fact that backward compatibility just is not all that consistent especially with the HDTV leap with most consoles nowadays. Even with the PSP, the problem of possibly putting downloaded PSOne games on it was the widescreen format.

[Fishy]

Okay so my bro just got a ps3, and so far, I am incredibly underwhelmed. This is mostly due to the fact hes got two shite games for it.

Ridge Racer 7 is an embaressment. It has graphics WORSE then GT4 for ps2, and possibly the most boring game play I've ever seen. I've never played a drift racing driving game before, but I'm fairly sure I should suck ass at it considering how complicated drifting is. I actually TRIED to corner badly, and the game just wouldn't let me do badly. You had to forcibly do something stupid to fail at that game, which is bollocks. I know its not representative of the newer games cause its almost a year old, but this game won best racing game of 2006? ....WHY!? I could have forgiven the gameplay if the graphics were incredible, but man... they shouldn't have wasted their time making it for ps3 when ps2 would have done the job.

The other game it came with was a motocross game I didn't care enough for to even look at the game case, mainly because it was one player only unless you go online. I only expect that sort of multiplayer ability from MMORPGS. If the ps3 has 7 wireless controllers possible, why didn't they use them?

That said, I'm almost positive I will warm up to it over time, especially when the biggies come out, like FFXIII or MGS4. I'm also desperately looking forward to the next TEAM ICO release. Also if that FF7 remake ever happens then hyes, but meh if it doesn't. On the one hand its the most financially safe investment ever, because theres more then enough fanboys/girls that will buy it; On the other hand they might totally change it and destroy it, we'll see.

One last bitch; you can't take your PS/PS2 saves with you unless you buy an adapter? Weak.

[djpretzel]

Ride Racer 7 worse than GTA4 on the PS2, visually?

What type of TV are you using? On a 50" HDTV, RR7 looks pretty sweet to me, and definitely better than any PS2 game I've played... not artwork/modeling/design, mind you, but in terms of resolution and detail, hands down...

[Bigfoot]

Yeah, it should look a hell of a lot better than GT4, even though I heard the 360 version looks a tiny bit better. Probably not even noticeable unless you look really hard.

In other news, Sony's revenue is up, but games division losses are double than what they were last year. Ouch.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=29949

[Fishy]

Ride Racer 7 worse than GTA4 on the PS2, visually?

What type of TV are you using? On a 50" HDTV, RR7 looks pretty sweet to me, and definitely better than any PS2 game I've played... not artwork/modeling/design, mind you, but in terms of resolution and detail, hands down...

I think its 45" HD, and the difference is huge imo. GT4 looks and feels like a car, whereas RR7 cars looks like boxes, and they way they move is so unnatural. Theres no attention to shadows or reflections in RR7 and the scenery seemed very uninspired. While RR maybe have higher resolutiobns etc, I think the art direction really lets it down. Its relying on the ps3 imo.

I know the movement comment is moot because GT is a simulator whereas RR is a drifter, but honestly, I was expecting far more. Seeing how expensive the console was and how much better the technology supposedly is, I shouldn't be looking at a ps3 game and thinking a ps2 game comes anywhere near as good as it.

[Bahamut]

Is it just me, or is Motorstorm just difficult to handle?

[Brithor]

I thought it was only me. I always disable Motion Sensors on Motorstorm...

[Bahamut]

I thought it was only me. I always disable Motion Sensors on Motorstorm...

Wait what? It uses motion sensors?

[Soma]

Wait what? It uses motion sensors?

well the six axis controls suck IMO. Same with Warhawk, everyone told me the only way to play warhawk is with the sixaxis controls enabled.. but i can't fly shit with it on.

I ended up buying the 60 gig ps3 for 499 with heavenly sword thrown in. The end boss on heavenly sword is a little bitch, it's frustrating. I'm torn between ratchet and clank and Folklore as my next game. I know ratchet got way higher scores but I've never been all that into the Ratchet series.

[Fishy]

So I've been playing around with it for a while now, and we got a new game called skate, which is SO awesome. You realise just how stupid and unrealistic the Tony Hawks games were within 10 minutes of turning it on. I love recording the videos and slowing them down when you do a cool line, and some of the online videos are hilarious.

I'm also appreciating several other features such as the free Internet acces, how it doubles as a very low-cost blu-ray player, the way you can download demos of games directly into the console to try them out and the motion sensing is pretty good, if a little sensative.

One very bad note: it makes the FF12 cutscenes look like utter crap.

Overall, my attitude has changed from dissapointed to midly impressed. Just waiting on some more really awesome games.

[Kusabi]

Okay so I bought a 60GB PS3 last April.

I'm in almost complete agreement that the system is underwhelming, from a purely games perspective. I'm still waiting for Gran Turismo 5, and wasn't planning to buy a PS3 until then.

Blu-Ray movies? Nice, but didn't sell the system for me. It was a pleasant surprise when Sony removed the downconverting "feature" for those who don't have 1080p TVs connected to their PS3. (I have a 720p/1080i display, but I run my PS3 in 720p mode).

Linux install capability? Hang on, we might be getting somewhere....a $500 sort-of-multicore-but-not-really machine with an interesting architecture that I'm actually interested in learning to program? Yes, this is sounding really good!

Backwards compatibility? Wait, so I can play my PS2 and PS1 games on this thing too?

You don't buy newer systems to play older games. That is a nigh fact. It'd be NICE if the newer system can play older games, right? But do you buy it for that sole reason? Ask yourself that.

Asked, and here's the answer: Backwards compatibility was THE reason that I chose to buy a PS3 now, as opposed to later, or not at all. Given that at the time, there were no PS3 games that I wanted to play, and Linux required me to use a distro that I didn't want to use (minutia, but still a factor), I didn't think spending $500 on a console that did nothing other than folding@home, and has a memory card reader, was worth it. Given the fact that I could sell my PS2 to my friend, make some money, and still play my PS2 titles until there are PS3 games that I actually _want_, without screwing with Sony's software BC, is what sold the console for me, and made it worth my while to pick one up.

Of course, I was able to toy around with Linux on it and get Gentoo running. So until I get some PS3 titles that I like, I have my completely backward compatible, Linux running, HDTV displaying, mini personal computer that I can use.

So your rhetorical question is hereby proven non-rhetorical.

But do people really buy entire game consoles on backward compatibility? I'd have to laugh at that notion.

Then laugh away, sir. I will laugh too, however, I will be laughing at you instead of with you.

For every feature X, there is someone out there who is willing to buy the product for that feature.

[Soma]

I love how this thread degenerated into "OK i got a ps3 now what?" but seriously folks I have an actual question pertaining to PS3 save files. I want to visit my brother tomorrow and bring along my heavenly sword file and i have a memory stick duo and a psp (if that helps). I was wondering if you can transfer them that way? Since there's no ps3 memory card how does that work? Can you never transfer saves to your buddy's ps3?

[Bahamut]

I love how this thread degenerated into "OK i got a ps3 now what?" but seriously folks I have an actual question pertaining to PS3 save files. I want to visit my brother tomorrow and bring along my heavenly sword file and i have a memory stick duo and a psp (if that helps). I was wondering if you can transfer them that way? Since there's no ps3 memory card how does that work? Can you never transfer saves to your buddy's ps3?

What version of the PS3 does your brother have?