Backwards Compability (Or why gaming sucks, period)

[SonofThunder]

Why give your post an alternate title when a subtitle will suffice?

Anyways, before condemning the big three, I'd like to know how much I'm paying to have an old system inside my new system.

 

[tippy2k2]

snip

I was content to just let this thread die since it's obvious he isn't here for a debate (when "The evil company is lying to you about the pricing" is one of your arguments, it's clear you're not coming at this logically) but since someone revived it, I'll chime in and state "Thank You" for putting down my thoughts so well.

I do however have one thing to add:

lSHaDoW-FoXl, you ask how I can pretend that this made any difference. I don't have to pretend; you can see it for yourself right here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_PlayStation_3_SKUs

However, since I'm such a nice fella, I'll point out the important bit.

In July of 2007, the Playstation 3 cost a person in North America $500 to purchase.
In November of 2007, the Playstation 3 (with chip removed) cost a person in North America $400 to purchase.

Now granted, the pre-chip removal PS3 was a 60GB model versus the brand new 40GB model after the chip removal but it's pretty clear that there was a decent price drop out of this deal. People who wanted the backwards compatibility had months to purchase the old model so anyone who REALLY wanted it had the opportunity.

But for fun, let's argue that the chip cost was ONLY a $5 saving for Sony (terribly unlikely it was that low but let's have some fun).

There have been 20,169,881 Playstation 3's sold in America since the system was put on sale. Now let's cut that in half since I don't really have a good guide to determine how many were sold pre-chip removal, so we now have 10,084,940 units sold.

10,084,940 x $5 = $50,424,702

Fifty million dollars. Fifty million dollars to keep in a function that many gamers are just not going to use. Fifty million dollars for a function that Sony gave gamers who DID care about it ample time to purchase. I would be absolutely shocked if it was just a $5 saving for Sony so I'm guessing this number is far lower than it should be.

TLDR? The chips are not free; removing them allowed for a price drop that allowed Sony to have a much more successful system.

 

[Jadak]

As far as I'm concerned, games are made for a specific console and that's the only expectation that people should have. The only reason that isn't the case is that Sony spoiled the PS1 generation with the PS2, and now of course people aren't happy when others don't strive to meet that bar.

So for me, it'd be nice if it happened, but new systems are for new games and I do not see why the console developers should go to the extra effort of making old games run on systems that may function entirely differently. It's nice if they do, but it is not something I demand of them. Of course, if the systems aren't that different and they have to intentionally prevent old games from working... That's less good.

 

[phreakdb]

BC could easily be obtained by Sony creating an emulator and making it part of their included goodies, this is true. It would take a shit ton of man hours and effort for for said emulator to be put together so that all ps2 games could be played. Add on top of that code being lost and everything, and you have a general charlie foxtrot.

Suck it up, console boy. You want BC, buy a pc.

 

[DracoSuave]

Step Five: Dump the BIOS, check emulation forums for details.

This part is actually illegal.

 

[burningdragoon]

snip + snip = 2snip

Ah, basic math. Something I wish more people would use. That also applies to the thread complaining about WiiU only having 1GB of RAM when 4GB "only" costs about $25

 

[chadachada123]

If your VCR dies, and you can't find a new one, same issue with your video tapes.

Consoles are not obligated to have backwards compatibility any more than you're obligated to buy it. Never forget that.

That doesn't really fit as an analogy, since the early PS3s shipped with the software required to allow BC, but then they TOOK IT OUT in subsequent versions.

Because it was too expensive, and there was really no point in keeping it in.

It only got mentioned after my post that the PS3 requires a special piece of hardware to play PS2/1 games. I had believed that it was a software-only issue (as my post says), which would be inexcusable. Hardware changing is a lot more defensible.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

There is one solution...

...buy a PC

Quoting for truth. That was my answer.

What I find really hilarious is that I have a PS2 emulator on my PC, and yet people can't play PS2 games on a PS3.

Classic.

I got one of the last 60GB models in the UK so I still have backwards compatibility with PS1 and 2 games, once they discontinued that model no more backwards compatibility.

Fortunately as I play mostly on PC now it's no longer an issue for me. But the continuing trend towards no backwards compatibility is worrying, because even though I prefer the PC, it's still nice to kick back on my bed or a sofa and play some of the games I used to love and still do.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

Welcome to the fun of dealing with a product made by the Japanese.

 

[guidance]

There is one solution...

...buy a PC

I don't know man, I have a lot of old PC games I can't get working on my new computer. I am fully aware that it's cause I suck and haven't done the proper research and found out how to make it work, but that is something the consoles did have convenience. I just put the PS1 disk into my PS2 and it worked. No hassle.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

I think this above all things demonstrates on how the gaming industry just continues taking a step back because a bunch of spoiled brats can't live without their pacifiers.

Interesting choice of words. Perhaps you'd have better luck with your pacifier if you took your foot out of your mouth.

I don't believe I attacked you in anyway way, so I don't get where that came from. I don't like the game industry, and I've got my reasons. Countless forms of DRM, on disk dlc, publishers closing studios like mad, and the poor dears never stop crying about piracy and used games when they basically steal intellectual property, profit off their games more than once, (I'd like to see a movie profit through DLC and DRM each time it's repurchased.)But fine, maybe I'm the one that's being a cry baby. Maybe we're all better off with DRM, on disk dlc, legislation's against used game sales and publishers that close down studios - even after - they made tons of money off of them. But above all, I can't have my foot in my mouth when I'm too busy standing up against bull shit.

 

[Squilookle]

I posted this last month- Relevant.

I'd still rather the option be there to buy old games on a new system. My gripe is more to do with them not making EVERYTHING backwards compatible.

 

[DracoSuave]

Step Five: Dump the BIOS, check emulation forums for details.

This part is actually illegal.

It voids your warranty, but it is not illegal.

The BIOS is copyrighted software.

DMCA's pretty clear on this.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I think this above all things demonstrates on how the gaming industry just continues taking a step back because a bunch of spoiled brats can't live without their pacifiers.

Interesting choice of words. Perhaps you'd have better luck with your pacifier if you took your foot out of your mouth.

I don't believe I attacked you in anyway way, so I don't get where that came from. I don't like the game industry, and I've got my reasons. Countless forms of DRM, on disk dlc, publishers closing studios like mad, and the poor dears never stop crying about piracy and used games when they basically steal intellectual property, profit off their games more than once, (I'd like to see a movie profit through DLC and DRM each time it's repurchased.)But fine, maybe I'm the one that's being a cry baby. Maybe we're all better off with DRM, on disk dlc, legislation's against used game sales and publishers that close down studios - even after - they made tons of money off of them. But above all, I can't have my foot in my mouth when I'm too busy standing up against bull shit.

No no no no no, DRM, On-disk DLC, the closing of studios, the campaign against used game sales, these are things worth getting up in arms about, but he you are whining about backwards compatibility and suggesting that others join you. BTW backwards compatibility in consoles was only introduced to consoles in the last console generation and here you are thinking you deserve it like some kind of royal prince. On top of that you accuse those in the industry of being spoiled brats. Seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black to me.

 

[fuzz]

Here's a story. I had an original 60gb Ps3. It was great. I could play ps2 games as well as the exiting new ps3 games. It had memory card slots on the front and 4 usb ports, more than I ever needed at one time. Alas after one year it broke, yellow light of death. So I upgraded to the 80gb one, and I'm glad to say despite sounding like a boeing 747 once the fan gets going its still working. Now I was a bit annoyed when I realised they had removed backwards compatibility and other small features but I realised it was for a cheaper price and more money could be spent of the components that matter rather than other less essential things. Sony aren't evil, it's just business.