Basic PS3 Question

[tiredinnuendo]

I've mentioned a few times that I've been looking for a good excuse to justify buying a PS3, and now I think I've finally found one in that my PS2 has given up the ghost. However, as I was looking over various PS3 options, I'm not really clear on the backwards compatibility differences of the system. Wikipedia tells me that the 40 gig version contains no backwards compatibility whatsoever, which I find hard to swallow but how could the internet be wrong? After that it mentions the 60 gig, which has hardware compatibility but doesn't seem to be being made anymore; and an 80 gig, which basically houses a software emulator.

My real question to those with the various systems is, what is the difference between these systems as far as their backwards-compatibility? Can a 40 really not play anything? What are the limitations (if any) of the 80-gig's emulator? I've found some 60 gig models online, but they run *really* high dollar, so forget that.

Any tips?

- J

 

[shatnershaman]

40 GB-NO PS2 back-compat (PS1 only)
80 GB-FULL PS2 back compat and PS1
60 GB-same as 80 GB

 

[tiredinnuendo]

How glitchy? Is it glitchy enough to make hunting down a 60 gig a priority?

- J

 

[Aries_Split]

I got a 60 gig as soon as they were released. I switched out the hard drive for a 250 gig one, and now I have the superior version.

 

[shatnershaman]

Nope were talking minor jagged edges in a old gran turismo and like 3 other games
EDIT: NVM they were fixed in a patch.

 

[Mojozing]

If your living in the UK I'd hold off trying to find a 60GB version (which is backwards compatible and now very expensive due to being discontinued). It is rumoured that there will be an update some time in the summer making the 40GB PS3 also backwards compatible.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

i've heard a couple games don't work with the 80 gig but that's about it but it could be the person as well

i got the 60 gig cause of the hardware emulation, not big on software

the blu-ray player is also a good excuse and the whole remote play thing with the psp is another good excuse

ok found these 2 links for it

http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/CompatibleStatus
http://www.ps3comp.com/view.asp

EDIT: added the links

 

[Methshin]

I've got an 80 gb package and aside from a little slowdown in ff7 (psx) during the summoning sequences, the game has run perfectly. Also! Anyone that played ff7 on the ps1 knows that the files saved on your memory cards frequently became "ruined", well, on the ps3, that is not the case, out of precaution i have been saving on three slots (same as what i did on psx) anot not once throughout this time through have I experience a "ruined" file.

 

[tiredinnuendo]

the blu-ray player is also a good excuse and the whole remote play thing with the psp is another good excuse

Well, the blu-ray player is only a good excuse once Blu-Ray discs either go down in price or up in quality. Currently there just isn't enough of a difference between the two media to be worth paying three times as much for the same movie.

And I don't own a PSP.

That said, I'm well aware of what the PS3's relative merits are. I'm also the type of person who likes to consider cost vs immediate need. Right now, there are very few PS3 exclusives, and even fewer that I'm interested in. I don't see the justification to spend several hundred dollars for the opportunity to play games that currently only exist in potentia. However, there are several great games which are exclusive to the PS2, some still coming out.

Therefore, since I no longer possess a functional PS2, and buying another of those would be something of a waste with the three being out, I now have a good reason, but this reason hinges on being able to play my PS2 games, not PS3 ones. Hence the original question.

In short, thanks a ton for the compatibility links, and any personal stories about troubles/successes you've had with your various versions of the system. I don't need anyone throwing more reasons at me though. I've heard them all, and they aren't valid to my situation.

- J

 

[Ultrajoe]

i have the 40gig and not being able to play the PS2's is a right *****, go for the 80.

 

[Kemmler0]

Get the 60 gig and swap out the drive if you need.

Also the 40 has no front flash card ports and only 2 USB ports. Put that together with the no backward computability for PS2 and PS1 games and its a bit of waste.

The ease of use, media server capabilities, and the quality of the device are far better than the Xbox.

Xbox has more games and better online play.

I own both, but don't play games that frequently and never online. So i prefer the PS3.

The one major factor for me is that my PS3 will outlast my box by a decade. Sony really know how to build devices.

 

[Jumplion]

If backwards compatibility is an issue for you, then go for the 80.

And don't believe the 60gig ones, they're really 55gig.

I do suggest saving up for the 80gig because you will not know how grateful you will be for that space until you fill it up about half way. I'm down to about 30gigs of space on my PS3 with a couple of pictures/songs/movies/game files.

Or if BC isn't a problem with you, get the 40gig (if possible the 60gig with BC for the cheapest price you can find) and maybe a rumble controller for games that could be compatible with it (along with a spare controller for your friend on LittleBigPlanet )

i'm a good planner in my opinion.

P.S. Be careful of your wording, Kemmler0 , we don't want a flamewar to start.

 

[Mojozing]

If extra storage is what you want, dont pay extra for a 60 or 80GB. Buy a 40GB and you can upgrade the hard drive to 250GB for around £45.

Also, whist the 40GB doesnt support PS2 games (for now at least) you can play PS1 games on it.

 

[tiredinnuendo]

Therefore, since I no longer possess a functional PS2, and buying another of those would be something of a waste with the three being out, I now have a good reason, but this reason hinges on being able to play my PS2 games, not PS3 ones. Hence the original question.

i have the 40gig and not being able to play the PS2's is a right *****, go for the 80.

Or if BC isn't a problem with you, get the 40gig (if possible the 60gig with BC for the cheapest price you can find)

If extra storage is what you want, dont pay extra for a 60 or 80GB. Buy a 40GB and you can upgrade the hard drive to 250GB for around £45.

Also, whist the 40GB doesnt support PS2 games (for now at least) you can play PS1 games on it.

This right here is why I never start threads. You get ten answers to questions you didn't ask.

My only real question was: What is the experience of playing PS2 games like on the various versions of the PS3?

So far we've got:
40 gig: Doesn't.
60 gig: Does.
80 gig: Does, with the occasional glitch.

So, follow up question (just to sate my curiosity), why is the 60 so coveted if the 80 handles PS2 games pretty much just as well?

- J

 

[shatnershaman]

Because it was the $659 PS3 that only the "l33t sony fanboys" bought.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

the blu-ray player is also a good excuse and the whole remote play thing with the psp is another good excuse

Well, the blu-ray player is only a good excuse once Blu-Ray discs either go down in price or up in quality. Currently there just isn't enough of a difference between the two media to be worth paying three times as much for the same movie.

there is a difference with blu-ray and regular dvd and for the most part they are only a couple dollars more, just got national treasure 2, dvd was 27.99 blu-ray was 29.99 so i went blu-ray

the issue is tv's have good picture, on an hdtv you just have to look at the edges of things and you can really notice the difference between blu-ray and dvd. also for stuff not filmed in hd, stick with dvd cause it looks dotty depending on the tv

So far we've got:
40 gig: Doesn't.
60 gig: Does.
80 gig: Does, with the occasional glitch.

So, follow up question (just to sate my curiosity), why is the 60 so coveted if the 80 handles PS2 games pretty much just as well?

- J

the 60 gig is coveted because of the hardware emulation

hardware will always be better than software for a lot of reasons. first and foremost is you are running the software on the native equipment and you don't have to succumb to the issues with programmers on either side, being the game developer or the person coding the emulator as both will take shortcuts. also with software you run into the issue of coding the emulator to make certain things work, which causes other things to break. hardware emulation will for the most part be faster as well

a coder could tell you more about it but that's the quick coles notes version of it

 

[shatnershaman]

the blu-ray player is also a good excuse and the whole remote play thing with the psp is another good excuse

Well, the blu-ray player is only a good excuse once Blu-Ray discs either go down in price or up in quality. Currently there just isn't enough of a difference between the two media to be worth paying three times as much for the same movie.

there is a difference with blu-ray and regular dvd and for the most part they are only a couple dollars more, just got national treasure 2, dvd was 27.99 blu-ray was 29.99 so i went blu-ray

the issue is tv's have good picture, on an hdtv you just have to look at the edges of things and you can really notice the difference between blu-ray and dvd. also for stuff not filmed in hd, stick with dvd cause it looks dotty depending on the tv

So far we've got:
40 gig: Doesn't.
60 gig: Does.
80 gig: Does, with the occasional glitch.

So, follow up question (just to sate my curiosity), why is the 60 so coveted if the 80 handles PS2 games pretty much just as well?

- J

the 60 gig is coveted because of the hardware emulation

hardware will always be better than software for a lot of reasons. first and foremost is you are running the software on the native equipment and you don't have to succumb to the issues with programmers on either side, being the game developer or the person coding the emulator as both will take shortcuts. also with software you run into the issue of coding the emulator to make certain things work, which causes other things to break. hardware emulation will for the most part be faster as well

a coder could tell you more about it but that's the quick coles notes version of it

Still the ones(60GB) online are more than the 80gb and the 80gb has 20gb more space and a game while still doing a pretty good job at being a ps2.
EDIT: Quote tower!!!

 

[Flionk]

a coder could tell you more about it but that's the quick coles notes version of it

Software Engineer to the rescue!

With hardware emulation, as the 60GB version has, it basically has a complete PS2 built into it (not quite, but close enough for this explanation). This means that any game that can run on a PS2 will run on the 60GB version with no troubles what-so-ever. It also means that this version is more expensive, because it contains more hardware.

In software emulation, whenever you put a PS2 game into the PS3, it'll run an emulation program that tricks the game into thinking that it's running on a PS2, whereas it's actually running on the PS3 hardware (it still has some PS2 hardware, but a significant amount of it is removed. The 40GB version has no PS2 hardware). Because it's running on hardware that it wasn't originally designed to run on, there could be some issues with certain games, especially if the game used special peripherals (like the EyeToy, the PS2 hard-drive, generally anything beyond a standard controller and memory card). Now generally the programmers at Sony are going to try to make the emulation as perfect as they can, and you can be fairly well guaranteed that all the top-name most-popular PS2 titles will run with few issues, if any, but there's always the chance that some one of your games will have strange problems - ranging from something minor like certain music/sound effects sounding different when played on the PS3, to a game just completely not working.


In all honesty, unless you have a lot of really obscure PS2 games, the software emulation should be enough. But if your library contains a lot of games that most people have never heard of, you'd be better off not risking it. If it were me, I'd try to go for the 60GB version either way, and only get the 80GB version if the 60GB one were prohibitively rare or expensive. Hope that helps!

 

[ReepNeep]

But since you are likely to replace the HDD at some point anyway, that 20GB is pretty meaningless.

 

[shatnershaman]

But since you are likely to replace the HDD at some point anyway, that 20GB is pretty meaningless.

Uh huh and if you don't like most people.