The older 80GB versions don't either, I had to trade in my PS2 copy of Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2 because I couldn't play it.Furioso said:The new PS3 slim version doesn't have it... sad faceBright_Raven said:
PS3 backwards compatability...what gives?
- Thread starter Furioso
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's crazy, one of the main edges sony used to have, was the backwards compatibility over Microsoft.TheTim said:
the irony in this? Xbox 360 can play a bunch of xbox titles with a simple update.
i've been playing GTA:SA recently on 360, even looks a bit better.
Not just recently. How many consoles were fully BC? SNES wasn't BC to the NES. N64 wasn't BC to the SNES, Genesis wasn't BC to the Master system. How many were? Well, the 7800 could play atari 2600 games, but that's because the 2600 was a complete antique by the time the 7800 came out. The GBC could play GB games, but that's just because they had the exact same processor, except the GBC overclocked it. The GBA did the same for the GBC, but mainly because the GBC chipset was so cheap that it made sense to put it in. The NDS and GBA share a processor too. The Wii and Gamecube use the exact same processor, only the Wii is overclocked. The PS2 was BC to the PS1 only because the PS1 chipset made a darn good IO controller for the PS2, and it was also dirt cheap, so they threw it in, only replacing it for the very newest slim PS2's with software emulation. (The PS1 was $50 by a year or so after the PS2 was released.)Snotnarok said:
The Xbox360? It's a completely different architecture than the Xbox, and Pentium3's aren't easy to emulate 100%. The PS3's a completely different architecture than the PS2, and the PS2's still $100 4 years after the PS3 was released, and the PS3 doesn't really have any job that the EE excels at doing. The GS chip is also hard to emulate. It's not that they're abandoning BC for no reason, they were only doing BC in special cases where it was a no-brainer to do, at least up until the PS3 included PS2 for the first year or so...
The one you should be upset at more I think is nintendo with their NDSi. The only reason they had to remove the cart slot was that it made the unit slightly thicker... It didn't really save them much hardware other than the contacts themselves... And they raised the price by $40 when they removed it! (I suppose the same goes for the PSP Go with its $80 increase for removing a feature.) In both cases though, it wasn't because it was expensive keep in, merely that they could make it a little bit smaller by doing it. (Or a lot smaller, in the case of the PSP Go.)
Just keep your PS2, it's really not a big deal. Besides, PS3's are expensive to develop already. The last thing they need is an increase in development costs.Bright_Raven said:well... there go my plans for getting a PS3... that is the WORST development/marketing decision EVER in the games industry since the Virtual Boy.Furioso said:The new PS3 slim version doesn't have it... sad faceBright_Raven said:
The ps3 that could backwards compat made the games look terrible, so its a good thing they dropped it, as ps2's are dirt cheap now sony have done you a favour (They gain nothing from second hand sales)Furioso said:The new PS3 slim version doesn't have it... sad faceBright_Raven said:
EDIT: Sounding too much like a troll, in brief, looked bad, they dropped it, buy a ps2 for dirt cheap.
Genesis is compatible to Master System actually, you just needed to buy a extra bit that fit the cartriges, because the Genesis literally has a master system processor for a sound card.kazriko said:
Lots of systems featured BC, Gameboy Color, DS, Atari 7800, Colecovison let you play Atari 2600 games and they were working on one for Intelevision, Playstation 2, Wii.
I don't give a hoot if it saves them money, it's not helping their systems in the long run. Because lets' be realistic here, rumor has it Sony is going to start selling PS2 games on the PSN, hmm, that sounds like what 360 is doing. Oh man they're doing it so they can sell old games! GASP. I get companies have to make money but taking out BC is bullshit and the fact that they did it is pretty lame to me.
And it's not hard to emulate xbox, hell they have the Wii, Gamecube and PS2 (probably xbox at this point) emulated on PC, if a bunch of pirates can do it then the people who MADE THE STUPID CONSOLE should be able to make it work on their system.
Sorry about that, wasn't trying to be rude.Darktau said:Oh ok, my bad then, I played a couple of ps2 games on my ps3 then just didn't bother anymore as I was playing ps3 games >.< I stand corrected. (still cheaper to buy a ps2 than another ps3 with backwards though
Yeah, buying a PS2 is still a good option. The PS2 BC on the PS3 has a few annoying features, but it actually looks better playing a PS2 game on the PS3 than plugging a component cable into the PS2 and playing the same game...
But, definitely not perfect. I keep the PS2 around for certain games like Growlanser Generations and Shin Megami Tensei: Digital Devil Saga which tend to crash a lot on the PS3.
What does, the PS2 or PS3? Of course PS2 does, you just can't save anything because PSX memory cards don't fit into PS2 slots, so I use a virtual one.W00ty32 said:
(I say PSX because Sony made a remake console of Playstation and called it Playstation One.)
Thanks for the info on the SMS, my first sega console was the Dreamcast, so I pretty much missed all that. The Colecovision emulating the 2600 was partly because the 2600 was an obsolete piece of junk whose hardware could be fit in a tiny box when it was first released. That was more cross-compatibility anyway. I mentioned the others...Snotnarok said:
PCs are much faster on general purpose code than the Xbox360 and PS3. There's no branch prediction (AT ALL) on the new consoles for one thing. They tried for over a year to get the EE and GS to be emulated all on the Cell, but in the end it was just too much. A rule of thumb is that you need 10x as many Flops and Mips on your newer system to emulate the older one. The Xbox360 is only about 5x as fast as the Xbox's processor for a single core on the 360, and only 15x as fast using all cores... then the Pentium 3 had far superior branch prediction. The PS3 has a clock that is 10x as fast, so they could emulate the EE chip even with it's 3 cores, 2 of which are SPE style vector processors, but the GS chip is just so different than anything else, and it's a GPU, rather than a CPU, so emulating it isn't as simple as emulating a processor. Not to mention that the memory bus on the PS2 is very unusual...
I always liken the GS to the Matrox Parhelia. It's really powerful, but doesn't push many triangles. It just layers tons of effects on simple models to make it look good. The Parhelia was the same, very powerful, but its power was used for quadruple layered textures rather than raw triangle pushing. Thus, it got trounced in all of the benchmarks and games that didn't use 4-layer textures... Both really shine when you optimize for them, both are going to be hard to simulate on different architectures even though it seems like they're weaker cards.
Er. You mean the PSX cards don't fit in the PS3's slots? The PS2 and PS1 were slot compatible. (There was also an adapter sold for the PS3 to plug your PS1 and PS2 cards in and copy to and from them.)PoisonUnagi said:
But yes, the PS3 requires virtual memory card use even if you have the slot adapter...
i can understand why
but they said at first it was compabile i just wish they said we changed our minds but here is a patch u can buy so u can do playstation 2 games on ps 3
would be nice
but i understand
they need to make money and have new gene games to market them not make ps 2 games for ps 3
so it kinda forces u to buy new games
but they said at first it was compabile i just wish they said we changed our minds but here is a patch u can buy so u can do playstation 2 games on ps 3
would be nice
but i understand
they need to make money and have new gene games to market them not make ps 2 games for ps 3
so it kinda forces u to buy new games