GTA IV DLC for Feb 17, titled The Lost and Damned
NXE launch "incredible" but niggles to be ironed out
Home beta invites ship, v1.0 hits test servers
July 16th, 2008 @ 21:17
SCEA CEO Jack Tretton said in a roundtable with journalists at E3 today that he would have liked to have had backwards compatibility in PlayStation 3, but the company has made its decision and is sticking with it.
He explained that Sony did “not take a greater hit on production cost without losing PlayStation’s heritage” and that backwards compatibility “wasn’t all that expensive.”
“But we’re selling PS2 software to PS2 customers, and selling PS3 software to PS3 consumers,” he added.
“I would like to have had it in there, but Sony’s collective strategy determined we could afford to lose it. We’ve now gone down that road: we’re not going back.”
By Mike Bowden
Del.icio.us | Digg | Share on Facebook
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Time to sell my BC PS3 on ebay.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Fantastic. Everyone’s screaming for it back, but they’re being stubborn idiots as usual.
And him saying that they don’t actually save that much money by taking it out makes it even worse. Basically he’s admitted that they took it out purely to force you to buy more PS3 software instead of playing your old stuff.
Way to go, Jack.
/slow clap
July 16th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I thought you’d that one, Blerk. Just waiting for Psycho now.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
They make my blood boil sometimes. Like… whenever they open their mouths.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I’m so done with Sony.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
We can afford it, it’s easy to implement, thousands of people want it and are holding off buying a PS3 because of it, but we’ve made our minds up and that’s that.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Perhaps if more people said “I’m so done with Sony” they’d start fucking listening for a change.
By the way, Sony… if you’re reading… I’m so done with Sony, too.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
The end is nigh!
July 16th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I don’t do loyalty.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
I’m not about to sell my PS3, but I’m seriously considering buying another game for it.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
It *is* stupid not to return BC when so many people want it - almost as stupid as taking it out in the first place - but in a stange sort of way, at least they’re finally being clear about it being gone for good. We can mourn it and move on.
Up till now there’s been this constant will they/won’t they bring it back thing about BC which really hasn’t been helped by all the different SKUs (not least of which is the recent MGS4 80GB pack for the US), but it sounds as though they’ve finally made their minds up to go with one 80GB model globally.
It does nothing to provide that “seamless” transition to PS3 for all those PS2 gamers, but at least it’s settled. Now everyone can go and buy a 360 with peace of mind.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
BC for PS2 was pretty costly in the PS3 at the time when the PS3 was costing Sony the most money and was NOT an essential component in keeping the PS3 a PS3 (such as a hard drive or blu-ray drive). It was dependent on (initially) two hardware chips (EE and a GPU) and software to support them. A revision cut out one hardware chip and limited the compatibility.
Remember when the entire internet was crying “drop the price of your machine.” Well how do you think that can happen - particulary at the most expensive part of the manufacturing cycle (2 years within launch). You want a cheaper machine you got a cheaper machine.
Furthermore, Sony is the only company in the current market that is selling its previous generation hardware. The other two dropped their machines almost overnight (although Nintendo hilariously expected the development community to continue supporting the GameCube even though Nintendo said they themselves wouldn’t be). At this point in its life the PS2 is a profitable machine to manufacture and, to all intents and purposes, still selling remarkably well.
It is far better business sense for Sony to look at the people that want to play PS2 games and sell them a profitable PS2 than a less profitable PS3. Especially if it costs them more to put the BC hardware back into the PS3 and eat further into its profit margin in order to do so.
Sure, Mr. Demanding Gamer of Internet Town cries about how he wants his PS3 to be cheap, have more free stuff in it, and bring back full BC and he’s never going to stop and think about anyone but himself.
But the moment folk actually bother to think the situation through from a broader, more real-world perspective it’s pretty obvious how and why this decision was made and it’s equally obvious to appreciate the business sense in the decision.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
However Shatner, you’re missing the most fundamental law of business: you’ve got to spend money to make money.
If they put BC back in now, yes it would cost more but marginally so. Finally PS2 owners would have a reason to upgrade and the plan is they defect in droves. Now although the profit on every individual machine is slightly lower than it is now, they’d sell far more units and thus make more profit.
Simple business practice that.
July 16th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Sony are fucking idiots.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:20 am
The amusing part of all of this is that announcing that BC was gone for good (twice) actually helped their sales a hell of a lot. The BC models have flown off the shelves, selling even to people that didn’t plan on getting a PS3 for a long time.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:53 am
To be fair, Shatner makes a very good point. Sony have spent a lot of money and haven’t made much back. I really don’t think backwards compatibility is that big of a draw to the wider gaming audience. Can people really not upgrade to PS3 unless it can still play PS2 games? I don’t believe it, and all this ‘if it had PS2 BC then it could ease those gamers in’ stuff is complete rubbish. What do they do, buy a PS3 and then still play PS2 games on it until they’re ready? I don’t think it makes much difference, and I bet most new gamers wouldn’t even know BC existed.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:33 am
I thinkk Psycho’s above point kind of nullifies that statement ecu. Also, many of my friends and people I know who ask me about getting a PS3 (anecdotal, I know) always ask about BC and are gutted when I tell them it doesn’t play PS2 games but mine does so hah ah aha ah aha.
Honestly, I haven’t met oe person who’s thinking about getting a PS3 that hasn’t asked about it.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Sorry morriss, if the demand is there for PS2 then it makes far more sense to spend less and make more money selling people PS2s than it does selling PS3s.
It’s also far more damaging to the PS3 brand (and PS2 brand also) to position it as the best way to sell to people wanting PS2 games. Sony have enough chatter about cell, blu ray, free online and so forth to pitch the PS3 as a standalone product without diluting their PS2 brand.
I think your view of the business of this is too anecdotal and far too simplified and short term.
You sell to your products strengths - and you don’t let one product damage the fortunes of another. And you certainly don’t want to jeopardise the one that’s propping up your less profitable part of the business.
Once PS2 is no longer on the market then, maybe, it’d make sense for Sony to reconsider the BC situation. But I don’t see that happening any time soon and I would imagine PS2 will stay on the market as long as the market wants it - making PS3 BC kinda pointless apart from idealistic ranting on internet pages. People always claim they want what they haven’t got. Once they have it, they tend to lose interest quite quickly.
How many PS1 games did you play on your PS2? And, more importantly for business, how many PS1 games did you BUY to then play on your PS2?
July 17th, 2008 at 8:10 am
I think PS2 owners just want PS3 to be cheaper before they buy it. I don’t think BC is the be-all and end-all for them. If they’re that desperate to carry on playing their old games, they can just keep their PS2 as well.
And if they’re still making money from the PS2, then it makes perfect business sense to allow it to stand alone, without its games being playable on another console.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Sure, Mr. Demanding Gamer of Internet Town cries about how he wants his PS3 to be cheap, have more free stuff in it, and bring back full BC and he’s never going to stop and think about anyone but himself.
But the moment folk actually bother to think the situation through from a broader, more real-world perspective it’s pretty obvious how and why this decision was made and it’s equally obvious to appreciate the business sense in the decision.
So consumers should be unselfish and spend more money, and Sony are right to spend less. Right.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:57 am
But they just said it didn’t save them much money, didn’t they? They took it out to force you to spend more, not to allow you to spend less.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I would like a PS3 with BC so I only have one box plugged into my HD TV and it would upscale them. As that would appear to be no more then I may as well keep my PS2 connected and keep buying titles for my, as compatible with the PS2 as the PS3 is now, Xbox 360.
There’s nothing exclusive on the PS3 that’s going to get me to splash out the best part of 300 quid on and I really don’t need a Blu Ray player any time soon and if I did I think I’d pop a drive into my HD TV connected PC and watch them on that!
July 17th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I know Blerk, I was working within the premise of Shatners post.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:09 am
I wasn’t specifically answering you, Spiral. Don’t fret.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:21 am
I wasn’t.
Well, not about that anyway.
July 17th, 2008 at 10:27 am
The talk of it costing them massive amounts of money is really academic. They could have offered a non BC version and a BC premium version for a higher price.
I really believe this harms their chances to get people upgrading from the PS2 to the PS3. Previously you could say “Hey, buy a PS2 and you get to keep all your PS1 games” you could even trade in your PS1 for a little money off the next console while still playing your games.
Removing BC puts the consoles on an even footing because you’re either going to have to keep your old console to play your old games or sell it all.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:16 am
You don’t think that maybe they did a bit of research and found it was actually better business sense to do it this way? Rather just going with anecdotal research? There’s a lot of factors in here which we are not taking into account. Maybe their research was incorrect, but I’ll wager it was a hell of a lot better than any thought we’ve put into this.
I still think we’ll see software emulation at some point. Maybe that was a factor in the removal too but it is taking a little longer to get right. Selling a load of PS2 games as DLC would certainly appeal to the penny pinchers at Sony.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Spiral,
If, as a consumer, you refuse to see a perspective other than only your own self indulgent one and then complain that a company hasn’t met your demands even though it may jeopardise their future business then, yes, that’s selfish. It’s also pretty unreasonable assuming you were a company that wanted to minimise losses and maximise profits.
Thinking only of oneself is selfish. Abhorrent as the notion is, when you think about the situation from more than one perspective it makes a lot more [business] sense.
Complaining that Sony refuse to lose money so you can have some added convenience is also selfish. You can be selfish all you want. Just don’t try to suggest its some righteous crusade and that you’re hard done by. I really can’t stand the ‘gamer as victim’ approach to these debates, it’s pure melodrama for the sake of it and adds nothing worthwhile to the discussion.
Psychotext, your notion of additional SKUs would only be greeted by rage on the internet. You need to think it through a bit more carefully.
Incidentally, all of this “oh, it’s not right to ask us to spend more” talk is quite silly. We’re talking about luxury products here. They’re not pitched as ‘value’ consumables so to apply such a rhetoric is misplaced.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Shatner: Then explain why it was never an issue with the PlayStation 2. Also, BC in PAL PS3s was software emulated. That doesn’t cost them jack.
Now, Sony can do whatever they think the “consumer wants”, and that’s their right as the producers, but what Sony has been doing for the last few years is clearly *not* what the consumer wants, and its losing them lots and lots and lots of money.
So let Sony take out BC. It just means that I, as a consumer with a vast collection of PS2 games more than well aware of the lack of quality exclusives on the PS3, won’t be buying one.
And lets be honest here. I’m not in the minority.
Nor are casual gamers going to care about the PS3 with its price point being set so high. It seems Sony missed the entire concept of what “casual” means.
I don’t know what the hell it is exactly, but Sony seems to be able to “get it” this generation. It’s just one stupid, illogical, and money consuming move after another.
This has been a complete farce on Sony’s part. I still enjoy my PSP and will continue to do so, but as for PS3? I really don’t care anymore. And this is coming from a gamer who has supported *every* console through every generation all the way back to the Amstrad / Commodore / Spectrum era.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Why should we give a shit how much money Sony loses? I don’t care. I don’t own Sony shares, I’m not on the board, I have no real interest in the company itself.
As a consumer, you want the best product at the best price. If Sony can’t/don’t want to give you that product then that’s fair enough - you can go elsewhere. The fact that more people aren’t going elsewhere despite being unhappy only validates Sony’s ‘we’re not listening, we know what’s best for the consumer’ stance. If more people were selfish consumers then they might’ve had to sit up and listen to what people actually want by now.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
I suspect the reason it wasn’t an issue with PS2 was down to the simpler architecture and the fact that by the time the PS2 was launching all the custom chips of the PS1 had been unified into a single component. I imagine the differences in economy also played a significant factor.
If you’re not buying Sony’s PS3 then, whilst they’re selling it at a loss, you’re not costing them money are you? Elsewhere their market share is growing and their business momentum gathers apace (allowing them to work on strategic partnerships that would otherwise be harder to negotiate).
So, with your support or without it, their approach to BC is working in their favour, economically (because they have a multi-product PlayStation brand that is selling whilst you’re conveniently only focusing on a single product) and strategically. If they were to bow and scrape to every self-righteous videogamer with a blog and an opinion then they’d be more unpopular (because what one person wants is not what everyone wants, even if that one person is the one with the loudest voice) and they’d remain unprofitable for a longer period AND they’d damage their most successful brand.
Believe it or not, Sony’s priority is to make money, not to pander to the typically poorly-considered and frequently entirely-free-of-business-concerns pleas of the vocal minority and make (more of) a loss.
It’s easy to be idealistic when it’s not costing you any money. When it is you’ll see things quite differently, I’m sure.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
And I never have. Funny that. Any more straw men you want to argue against? Or are you going to address the blatent contradiction in lambasting people for wanting what’s in their best interests while saying that we should appreciate Sony doing what is in theirs?
July 17th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Blerk, I’m not asking you to care what sony’s financial situation is.
The typical stance here is that demanding gamers are acted offended that SONY care about their financial situation over the pleas of whiney unthinking gamers on the internet. The absolute refusal to acknowledge that their demands might cost someone, somewhere some money or that they might not be of benefit to anyone other than themselves is the bit that’s selfish.
To then twist that perspective up and paint yourselves as victims is just mindbogglingly arrogant. Even moreso when whats being discussed is a luxury item such as videogames.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Spiral,
You seem to defend your divine right to claim what is in your best interest (actually, that’s making it sound virtuous - you want your gaming fun to be cheaper). Yet whilst doing this your rhetoric is saying the Sony are not entitled to the right of doing what is in their best (business) interests if it happen to conflict with your current whim.
What I’m hearing, most strongly, is “it’s not fair” from people that are staunchly refusing to see any perspective other than their own.
Yes, it’s your right to be selfish. But being selfish doesn’t make you right.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
You completely ignored 90% of the points I made.
“I suspect the reason it wasn’t an issue with PS2 was down to the simpler architecture and the fact that by the time the PS2 was launching all the custom chips of the PS1 had been unified into a single component. I imagine the differences in economy also played a significant factor.”
Software emulation won’t increase the production costs in the same way hardware emulation did. Software emulation was in the PAL version. Now its not.
You seem to be saying that we shouldn’t be buying PS3s, and by not doing so, Sony will actually lose less money. The irony is not missed on us. *laughs*
But they’re trying to make the PS3 profitable. For all the arguments you’re making you fail to be missing that one single fact; it’s not profitable. And its not profitable because they’re 1) Set themselves at too high a price point for the casual market and 2) isolated a large percentage of the core market.
So where’s this “profit” you seem convinced us “selfish” gamers are ignoring in favour of our apparently completely self-indulgent whims?
Can I flame Pat? You’re an idiot Shatner. Your argument might actually have a point of Sony were doing well.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I’ve never denied that the demands would cost them money. And I don’t think anyone else has either - Psycho already said that he thought many people would happily pay a little extra to get that BC back and I agree.
But the consumers here are the victims. Sony gave them something and then took it away again. Even the people who bought BC PS3s now have a BC service that’ll never be updated again, so anything that wasn’t working before will never be fixed in the future. If their machines break, they’re unlikely to get them replaced with BC models.
Sony are reaping what they sowed, cash-wise. They spent far too much over-engineering the PS3 and launched it before they were ready to try and take on an opportunistic Microsoft. Piss-poor business decisions aside, they’d get a much better press if they just pretended that they were listening. It’s the dismissive “we’re not listening, we know what’s best for you” bullishness that pisses me off the most.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I’m not sure BC really matters to that many people outside of this forum. They’ll just keep their ps2s won’t they?
July 17th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Michael, the PS3’s BC of PS2 has NEVER been solely software emulation.
As I made clear in my first response - BC in the PS3 was handled by two custom chips (EE and GPU) with software on top.
The initial PAL release of the PS3 saw the removal of the GPU chip and a drop in the software compatibility rate.
Regardless, when BC was present it was always achieved with through the implementation of additional hardware. When the hardware got dropped as a cost management decision the BC got dropped with it.
Please let me make myself clear: BC in PS3 for PS2 games has NEVER been software only.
Furthermore the assumption that if it was software only it would therefore carry no cost to the manufacturer at all is also incorrect. Last time I checked, software development cost money. And quite a lot of it.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Shatner: They already did multiple SKUs, or haven’t you been paying attention? Hell, they’ve had as many as Microsoft at this point… including a no less than three temporary “premium” SKUs that contained BC. It makes no sense to me why they wouldn’t have continued it… even if it meant a price premium that made it worthwhile to them.
DrDamn: You hit the nail on the head - This is a bean counter decision. By removing BC from the PS3 they are encouraging sales of their more profitable PS2… the problem is that it isn’t conducive to the long term health of the brand. It’s a decision that helps their short term financials only.
That’s assuming of course that they’re not working on full software BC - and I’ve seen nothing that indicates they are at this point. Perhaps they’re keeping it under their hat… but that’s very unlike Sony who generally like to talk about features as far in advance as possible. If they’re not working on it, they’ve given up on a massive future revenue stream - their entire PS2 back catalogue which they could have made available for download.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Psychotext, I’m well aware of the multiple SKUs and the vitriolic reception they receive. Thats why your suggestion of adding to them needs more thought. Also the main difference in the current SKUs is hard disk size which is very easy to control and very easy to change as manufacturing demands dictate. If Sony got lumbered with more 80gb stock than they wanted and needed to bring in some 40gb stock it’s very easy to modify one SKU to meet the demands of the other.
On the other hand, if we’re talking about circuitry installed on the motherboard of a machine then the stock control is not so flexible. Much bigger headache and logisitcal cost to the manufacture - all for the casual whim of some gamer on the internet.
It’s very easy to come up with an idea until you have to consider some of the factors involved in making it happen. Those are a couple off the top of my head, I’m sure there’s hundreds more that I haven’t even considered.
So when people say “It’s crazy? Why don’t they just do X, Y, Z” it’s because it’s never as simple as that. The mistake is to assume these things are simple.
Also Psychotext, not compromising the ability to sell your profitable product over damaging its worth in the market with your unprofitable one isn’t that dumb a business decision. As for whether it’s short term or not, it look like it may have means to run for as long as necessary until the other product reaches profitability. The brand is spread across both products and isn’t being compromised in business terms. Not unless you believe the misinformed rantings of people on the internet. But I wouldn’t take such people very seriously if I were you.
Michael, thanks for the insults. If you’d got your facts straight when debating about how the BC worked then I’d say you were justified. Now you just look like another faceless ranter working on limited and compromised assumed knowledge.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
You lot should get a blog
July 17th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
“The initial PAL release of the PS3 saw the removal of the GPU chip and a drop in the software compatibility rate.”
BZZZZT! Incorrect, the PAL release didn’t have the Emotion Engine CPU (which was emulated), the Graphics Synthesiser was in place but discarded for the 40 gig unit.
“If you’d got your facts straight when debating about how the BC worked then I’d say you were justified. Now you just look like another faceless ranter working on limited and compromised assumed knowledge.”
Ooops.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
“Yet whilst doing this your rhetoric is saying the Sony are not entitled to the right of doing what is in their best (business) interests if it happen to conflict with your current whim.”
I’ve done no such thing. What I’ve said is that what they’ve done is not good enough if they want me to buy a PS3. You on the other hand paint Sony as being the victims of selfish consumers because they won’t pander to the poor hardware manufacturer who’ve done nothing wrong but try as make as much money as possible by making the consumers pay more. You want to remove peoples right to complain, which is odd considering it’s all you ever do about the articles you read here. You say that it’s ok for Sony to be selfish, but not ok for consumers to be selfish. Your argument is logically unsound.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Blerk, Sony didn’t “take something away” from people.
Your phrasing is deliberately manipulative. Sony sold a product. Sony sold a different product. Consumers bought a luxury item depending on cost and availability. Nothing was taken FROM people.
Your suggestion paints a picture that evil Sony Ninjas crept into people’s homes and stole the BC away from machines that had already been bought.
This, clearly, didn’t happen. You (nor others) are victims. Your insistence that you are is merely melodrama to tell a tale it’s not actually what happened.
Unless you have some proof of Sony Ninjas going around stealing things that is. If so I’d like to see it.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Fair point Whizzo, I got my EE mixed up with my GPU. (I often get those mixed up anyway).
My specific point about BC having always been hardware supported remains correct and therefore still makes a mockery of Michael’s “argument”.
Half a point to you.
Good to see nobody is being petty or narrow minded in this debate.
July 17th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Spiral, that’s not what I’ve said. You and Blerk should write a soap. You’re both very good at producing melodrama for the sake of it.
All I’ve done (and, amusingly, what everyone here seems to be so out of sorts with) is I’ve dared to view the situation from more than a single, self-serving perspective.
“You say that it’s ok for Sony to be selfish, but not ok for consumers to be selfish. Your argument is logically unsound.”
Again, that’s not what I’ve said. Both parties are welcome to look after their ‘interests’. Your interests are getting your luxury gaming fun nice and cheap, Sony’s interests are staying afloat and making money.
I very much doubt Sony begrudges you persuing your interests as much as you appear to begrudge Sony persuing theirs.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“Spiral, that’s not what I’ve said. You and Blerk should write a soap. You’re both very good at producing melodrama for the sake of it.”
“Your suggestion paints a picture that evil Sony Ninjas crept into people’s homes and stole the BC away from machines that had already been bought.”
July 17th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Yup, I’m just taking my cues from the scenario concocted by Blerk.
That’s some carefully selective quoting you’re doing there spiral.
Be sure to quote my bit about being petty next time. You’ll get bonus marks for irony.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Your suggestion paints a picture that evil Sony Ninjas crept into people’s homes and stole the BC away from machines that had already been bought.
But they did. People might not have realised it, but they absolutely did.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Good to see no one’s being horribly biased in this debate…oh wait…
July 17th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
pjmaybe, for what it’s worth, I wouldn’t say no to BC either. But I’m not about to act some stroppy 13 year old who makes demands and then slams his bedroom door and sulks when he doesn’t get what he wants.
I’m playing devils advocate and presenting the other side of the argument. I’ve also substantiated every point I’ve made. I’m not being arbitrary for the sake of it.
That broadening the discussion can be percieved as bias says more about those calling bias than anything else.
Blerk, if that’s the case I take it all back.
July 17th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I was highlighting a further example of your logical inconsistency rather than trying to be petty. Frankly, I was taking my own cues from you claiming that my “rhetoric is saying the Sony are not entitled to the right of doing what is in their best (business) interests if it happen to conflict with your current whim” so you might want to reconsider crying foul about me quoting you out of context when you’re perfectly happy to put words into my own mouth.
But if I was going for irony I’d probably start with you claiming that my position of saying that both sides have the right to be selfish meant I begrudged Sony looking after their interests, and follow it up with “That broadening the discussion can be perceived as bias says more about those calling bias than anything else.”
July 17th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Sorry Spiral, you lost me at “I was highlighting..” If you had a point in either of those paragraphs you appear to have disguised it very well indeed. Congratulations!
July 18th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Sony wanted to, and were selling the Playstation brand as, an evolving platform. PS2 could play (most) PS1 games, PS3 *used to* play (most) PS2 games.
The mass market likes the idea of an evolving format.
By the logic displayed here, it’d make perfect sense for a manufacturer of Blu-Ray players to remove DVD playback if it could save them a quid or so on each player because, after all, they’re trying to get people to buy their Blu-Ray products, not the previous-generation DVDs.
OH WAIT, THAT WOULD BE MONUMENTALLY STUPID
July 18th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Retroid wins.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I’d agree.
OH WAIT. MEDIA FORMATS ARE NOT THE SAME THING AS INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE NOR REMOTELY AS COMPLEX.
Oh well. The comparison seems appropriate until you think about it for more than 3 seconds. I think we need to make some games/movie comparisons to round things off nicely. We could throw some apples and oranges in too!
July 18th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Would you not agree that BC has always been part of the PlayStation DNA though Shatner? Even Sony themselves bulletpointed it as a key differentiator.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I called Retroid. I’m sticking with it!
July 18th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
OK morriss. Don’t let wildly inappropriate comparisons bother you. So long as they sound pretty, who cares if they’re relevant? Right?
Psychotext, I’m not even going to honour “PlayStation DNA” as a term. Considering the grief exec get from gamers for using things like “core gamer” or “supply constrained” I think it’s a bit silly to start creating new terms for the fun of it.
But, out of 4 PlayStation branded products (PSP + 3 consoles) only one has had backwards compatibility. One and a half if you want to argue the first few PS3s. Objectively, I wouldn’t take the exception and argue it’s the standard just so I can suggest the standard is being changed.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Shatner: PlayStation DNA is from a press conference… I didn’t create it. The very same press conference where they talked up how good their BC was compared to that of the 360.
(Yes, I have a memory like a heffalump for this sort of thing)
July 18th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
It’s called Sony DNA here but I’ve heard both used:
“Kaz Hirai - Sony Computer Entertainment, America:
It’s always been an important strategy of Sony Computer Entertainment that we provide value to the consumers; and one of the values that we’re providing is the backwards compatibility of the PlayStation 3, to play PlayStation 2 games that the gamers and consumers have bought over the years, as well as the original PlayStation titles that have been available in the market since 1995.
And I think that when we ask the consumers, or the gamers to make an investment in software, that it’s our responsibility to make sure that the future consoles that we bring to market, including a PlayStation 3, is able to actually play all these titles that the consumers have really spent a lot of money in, and invested a lot of money into really a master library.
And I think you’re doing the consumers and the gamers a huge disservice, when you come out with a new console only to say, it only plays PlayStation 3 games; and that’s really counter-intuitive to our strategy, but also, really to the Sony DNA who’re always trying to provide compelling consumer value in any of the products that we launch.”