| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Matt Bassos
Status: Offline
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 868
$poons: 110.20
Location: Brisbane
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:12 pm Post subject: PS3 backwards compatibility gone for good |
|
|
 |
|
| PS3 backwards compatibility gone for good by Matt |  | | PALGN News: “Never coming back.” | | [View Article] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qbert
Status: Offline
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 4541
$poons: 209.00
Location: Guayaquil
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ka-Pom
Status: Offline
Joined: 17 Feb 2009
Posts: 468
$poons: 122.70
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
Luckily I already have my 60GB model, not that I need it, I still have my PS2 but may as well make use of my PS3.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mantra79
Status: Offline
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 1060
$poons: 288.20
Location: south australia
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| PALGN wrote: | | most people are buying the PS3 for PS3 games |
Um that would be because 90% off ps3's cant play ps2 games. How hard is it to put ps2 emulator software on a ps3, boo to you sony.
_________________
PSN: cjdavis
360: mantra79
Steam: mantra79
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mic_128
Status: Offline
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 28
$poons: 4.80
Location: Somewhere around here....There! Perth, W.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't they also say Rumble was gone forever because it was an old technology? More likely they want to sell PS2 games again via digital distribution, and there's no point doing that if most PS3 owners are playing their already existing collection of PS2 disks
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NegativeZero
Status: Offline
Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Posts: 161
$poons: 13.40
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
It's an incredibly obvious comment to make that really doesn't do justice to the argument whatsoever.
Even if the PS3 was backwards compatible, I wouldn't buy one to play PS2 games on it if I already owned a bunch, unless for some reason I no longer had a working PS2. You buy them for the new games, not for the old ones. That's the primary reason.
Backwards compatibility isn't just a bonus, though. Backwards compatibility means there's an upgrade path. It means that the PS3 is a step up from the PS2 - it could play PS1, PS2 <i>and</i> PS3 games.
By taking that away, they make PS3 essentially a closed unit. It's not an upgrade or even a cross-grade, it's a completely separate platform. The problem with that is that they have a competitor which has a larger library, has most of the games they have, and their competitor's product is far cheaper.
Honestly, Sony shot themselves in the foot by taking the capability away and that they've managed to convince themselves that it was a good idea in any way aside from the financial bottom line shows that the reality distortion field that their execs seemed to all be affected by during the first 18 months or so of the system's life is still alive and well.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meier
Status: Offline
Joined: 18 Mar 2009
Posts: 93
$poons: 12.30
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
My original idea, before the initial launch for the PS3, was to replace my PS2. As I did when I bought a PS2 to replace my PS1. Not only that it can play the latest games, but it can play all those classic legacies I still have on my shelf.
This... just... I'm lost for words really. I really have delayed the purchase of the PS3 for such a long time, the loss of BC doesn't help much, but the price cut somewhat balances it out. I'll be a while before I really do get one though.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rankodour
Status: Offline
Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 627
$poons: 81.00
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
It's a bit disappointing that PS2 compatibility is being ditched but I'd rather play PS2 games on a PS2, just to preserve the lifespan of the PS3 drive for PS3 games (or blu rays). If that makes sense 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
el_rezzo
Status: Offline
Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 677
$poons: 35.40
Location: Geelong, VIC
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Eh, I was annoyed that the PS3 couldn't play PS2 games but I picked up a PS2Slim from Big W for $100. Plus you can pick them up second hand for less than $50 if you actually go to the effort of looking around.
It was an unfortunate case of everyone was complaining the price was too high so Sony listened and cut out a bunch of stuff including BC to get the price down. I wouldn't be surprised if a third iteration of the PS3 has BC in 3 or so years time. Would lineup well with their 10 year lifecycle plan as well as give strong sales through the launch of the PS4 like how the PS2 is still selling strong.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zhou
Status: Offline
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 4555
$poons: 382.11
Location: Summoner's rift
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
now we play the waiting game where m$ brings out the next 'ps3 killer' and sony goes.
*WHOOOOSH*
*unveils BC was there the whole ******* time *
Well played sony. Well played.
_________________
My flickr
i7 930 | 6gb ddr3 Ripjaws 2000 | GTX 560 | 1tb 7200rpm WD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sobriquet835
Status: Offline
Joined: 07 Jan 2009
Posts: 2369
$poons: 3.20
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely saw this coming. In a couple of months, PS2 games will most likely be available for download to PS3. It's terrible. It's a stripping of features in the name of future potential profit, and it stinks.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
renegadesx
Status: Offline
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 1599
$poons: 28.60
Location: Canberra
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| mic_128 wrote: | | More likely they want to sell PS2 games again via digital distribution, and there's no point doing that if most PS3 owners are playing their already existing collection of PS2 disks |
I think you hit the nail right on the head. Why throw on an emulator when you can make people play the same game twice. They see how popular Virtual Console is and think: well we dont really have that many consoles, lets just remove peoples ability to play them on the current machines and make the stupid morons buy them again.
Even if thats 90% will never use it (which I doubt) the other 10% is still a7 figure audience they are telling to get stuffed. You would think being in last place for a few years now would have taught them you dont piss off your customers.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Camm
Status: Offline
Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Posts: 136
$poons: 8.60
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
Linux going and BC gone, yep, PS3 can go jump. Most of its lineup is fairly mediocre anyway.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admeister
Status: Offline
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 13915
$poons: 983.60
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| sobriquet835 wrote: | | It's terrible. It's a stripping of features in the name of future potential profit, and it stinks. |
What's this? A company is trying to make as much money as they can? No way. 
To all those complaining about the lack of BC in the PS3, I say this:
As long as Sony are producing and selling the PS2, there will be no BC for the PS3. After all, why buy a PS2 if you can just play the games on a PS3? The sales would die pretty much overnight. Sony are just doing good business.
The reason why the 360 and Wii are backwards compatible is because the Gamecube and Xbox were dead by the time they were released.
As for Sony saying we'll never see BC in the PS3, I have my doubts.
_________________
"The first person to prove that cow's milk is drinkable was very, very thirsty." - Fact Sphere.
Last edited by admeister on Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shinhawk
Status: Offline
Joined: 06 Aug 2008
Posts: 1628
$poons: 397.10
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
With the price drop, I think now is the time for me to get a refurbished 60GB model.
_________________
My Play-Asia affiliate link.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
genxevo
Status: Offline
Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 1680
$poons: 233.60
Location: Melb
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder what this means for BC for those who own a 60gb console. Will BC be improved in future firmware updates, or are sony just going to stop on in altogether?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qbert
Status: Offline
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 4541
$poons: 209.00
Location: Guayaquil
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| admeister wrote: | | As long as Sony are producing and selling the PS2, there will be no BC for the PS3. After all, why buy a PS2 if you can just play the games on a PS3? The sales would die pretty much overnight. Sony are just doing good business. |
I really don't think that the audience who are buying the PS2 in the recent times are PS3 owners, but more the casual market who is happy at only paying $150?(however much PS2s are these days) for a new console.
By your logic, wouldn't Sony have not made the PS2 backwards compatible until after the PS1 was out? The PS2 having backwards compatibility certainly didn't stop the PS1 selling strongly after the PS2 came out.
You're right that it all comes down to a business decision (obviously), but I agree with others that that decision is based more-so on digital distribution.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zhou
Status: Offline
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 4555
$poons: 382.11
Location: Summoner's rift
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Camm wrote: | | Linux going and BC gone, yep, PS3 can go jump. Most of its lineup is fairly mediocre anyway. |
How many people actually are bothered to use linux on their ps3? I looked into it when it was first announced. Heard it was nothing but buggy.
One main downfall was the linux distro couldnt use the cell processor to its full extent..so whats the point?
Though anyone can see linux on the ps3 could have been the key to development of a softmod..maybe sony saw this too?
I paid $48 for both MvsC2 and Fat princess last night, now $24 for a digital game each. That pretty much takes the cake for the most expensive digital download I've ever paid. Apart from the Orange box which was like $40, but that's got at least $200 value in there  <3 Tf2. My point is, its not so bad for games like that since they're pretty small. MvsC2 and Fat princess are both less than <400mb. However, what about games like final fantasy X? That would rack in at least 4gb, unless they did some pro cutting and editing, ps2 games re-released as digital downlaods would be a turn off to most due to
a) crappy download speeds
b) games ranking in at sizes 4> gb. Thats quite a big chunk out of many ordinary household's monthly download quota...
_________________
My flickr
i7 930 | 6gb ddr3 Ripjaws 2000 | GTX 560 | 1tb 7200rpm WD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_spensa
Status: Offline
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 628
$poons: 141.80
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Well, this means I really have to buy a US 60gb ps3 in order to play the ps2 games that never made it here like Tales of the Abyss or Samurai Champloo.
And here I was, hoping for Sony to release a region-free BC ps3,
Oh well
_________________
Currently Playing : Atelier Iris 2 (PS2), Xenoblade Chronicles (Wii), Legend of Heroes : Trails of the Sky (PSP), 9 Hours, 9 Persons, 9 Doors (DS) and Final Fantasy XIII (PS3)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Island_Wolf
Status: Offline
Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 3126
$poons: 849.10
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I think from memory, the only good use with Linux on the PS3 was researchers who uses multiple PS3 to do calculation, since apparently its cheaper as a supercomputer than the pc alternatives.
I kinda knew from the very start BC won't be back, especially when MS also cancelled its support on BC for the 360. I mean, they need to be greedy to survive and DD is the future.
_________________
"Work hard now, play even harder later"
I am an Industry Ambassador at Girl Geek Coffees (Sydney)
Unofficial PALGNchat - IRC Client *New Server!*
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RhysDeschain
Status: Offline
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 310
$poons: 27.70
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
Argh!! They're PlayStation TWO games for gods sake, who cares?!?! If you really, REALLY wanna play ps2 games that bad, shock horror, buy an effing Ps2!! People have been whingeing about this long enough, shut the hell up already. As if you pay all the extra money for a ps3 if all u wanna do is play ps2 games. Idiots!!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NegativeZero
Status: Offline
Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Posts: 161
$poons: 13.40
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| admeister wrote: | As long as Sony are producing and selling the PS2, there will be no BC for the PS3. After all, why buy a PS2 if you can just play the games on a PS3? The sales would die pretty much overnight. Sony are just doing good business.
The reason why the 360 and Wii are backwards compatible is because the Gamecube and Xbox were dead by the time they were released. |
Why buy a PS2 if you could buy a more expensive PS3 and still play all your PS2 and any new PS3 games that are released? Well, possibly because until now Sony weren't making as much of a margin on the PS3. But the bulk of their profits have always come from software royalties, not hardware. Contrary to how they behave sometimes, Sony *want* more people buying PS3s than PS2s. PS2 sales are falling off but PS3 sales aren't increasing.
The reason that the 360 has backwards compatibility is that Microsoft knew they wouldn't have Halo 3 until later on in the console's life cycle, but they had to convince early adopters to buy into their technology or they'd have been sunk. Additionally there's the fact that they actually listened to their users and implemented a feature which in the previous generation had been considered one of the best things about the PS2, and one of the reasons that early on it was so successful despite an incredibly bad lineup of games on launch.
Wii is backwards compatible because it's the exact same hardware and Nintendo were able to do it for practically zero extra effort. Again I'm fairly sure that the main reason they did it was because the PS2 basically made it a standard feature. No one would launch a new iteration of a console nowadays without some form of backwards compatiblity - even Sony didn't.
| the_spensa wrote: | | Well, this means I really have to buy a US 60gb ps3 in order to play the ps2 games that never made it here like Tales of the Abyss or Samurai Champloo. |
Or you could just get a cheap PS2 and have it modded. If you want to really be extravagant (and potentially break the letter of the law) you could even pick up the Tales of the Abyss undub, which pulls out the mediocre English dub and replaces it with the original Japanese - a whole lot more of the game was voiced in the Japanese version.
| Island_Wolf wrote: | | I think from memory, the only good use with Linux on the PS3 was researchers who uses multiple PS3 to do calculation, since apparently its cheaper as a supercomputer than the pc alternatives. |
Adding Linux capability was to try to get the PS3 classed as a computer in Europe. Computers have a lower tax bracket than games consoles. They tried it with the PS2 as well but were turned down because the base console couldn't run a PC operating system without additional parts. Besides, it stopped the hackers who like to try and exploit consoles for the sake of getting Linux on there from being as interested.
| RhysDeschain wrote: | | Argh!! They're PlayStation TWO games for gods sake, who cares?!?! If you really, REALLY wanna play ps2 games that bad, shock horror, buy an effing Ps2!! People have been whingeing about this long enough, shut the hell up already. As if you pay all the extra money for a ps3 if all u wanna do is play ps2 games. Idiots!! |
It's an extra power socket, extra space, and extra input used up on my TV. It's also about future security - Personally I own about ten PS3 games but close to 60 PS2, I want to make sure I can still play the games I've purchased when you can't buy a replacement PS2 any more. They were solid hardware but they do crap out after a while. I don't want to just play PS2 games, I want to play both.
Additionally the Backwards Compatible PS3s had a really nice upscaling system in them which meant that PS2 games played on PS3 looked far better than anything your PS2 could put out, especially on an HDTV.
But the main reason people whine about it is that it was a feature which was randomly and suddenly taken away without warning. And generally before a lot of people had had the cash or interest to buy the system.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Passa
Status: Offline
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2613
$poons: 0.00
Location: Sydney
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
Whatever. This hilarious comment on Kotaku pretty much summed up my thoughts on the matter:
"Is this guy high? What kind of a shit reason is that? Porn isn't my primary reason for owning a computer, but I'm sure glad it can play it."
_________________
Xbox 360 Gamertag + Xfire Username + PlayStation Network ID: Passa91
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admeister
Status: Offline
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Posts: 13915
$poons: 983.60
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| NegativeZero wrote: | | Contrary to how they behave sometimes, Sony *want* more people buying PS3s than PS2s. PS2 sales are falling off but PS3 sales aren't increasing. |
PS3 sales have been just fine, the gap between the PS3 and 360's sales has closed considerably over time. I'd say there's a good chance that the PS3 could pull ahead. For all we know, Sony could make more money out of each PS2 they sell than they do out of each PS3 they sell. Perhaps they want to sell both.
| NegativeZero wrote: | | The reason that the 360 has backwards compatibility is that Microsoft knew they wouldn't have Halo 3 until later on in the console's life cycle, but they had to convince early adopters to buy into their technology or they'd have been sunk. |
You're saying they convinced early adopters to buy a 360 by offering them original Xbox games? Why buy an expensive next gen console just for that?
| NegativeZero wrote: | | Additionally there's the fact that they actually listened to their users and implemented a feature which in the previous generation had been considered one of the best things about the PS2, and one of the reasons that early on it was so successful despite an incredibly bad lineup of games on launch. |
I don't know about anyone else, but BC is never at the top of my list when looking to buy a new console. I wouldn't consider it one of the best things about the PS2, just a bonus feature. Once again, do you really think that early adopters bought the PS2 just to play PS1 games? I sure didn't buy my launch PS3 to play PS2 games.
| NegativeZero wrote: | | Wii is backwards compatible because it's the exact same hardware and Nintendo were able to do it for practically zero extra effort. Again I'm fairly sure that the main reason they did it was because the PS2 basically made it a standard feature. No one would launch a new iteration of a console nowadays without some form of backwards compatiblity - even Sony didn't. |
No. The Wii does not use the exact same hardware as the Gamecube. The BC with Gamecube games is done through emulation, hardware has nothing to do with it. I don't think the PS2 made BC a standard feature, it just happened to have it because Sony must have felt some obligation to PS1 owners. The fact that BC was ever included in the PS3 was a big mistake on their part, they realised this and got rid of it right away.
_________________
"The first person to prove that cow's milk is drinkable was very, very thirsty." - Fact Sphere.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NegativeZero
Status: Offline
Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Posts: 161
$poons: 13.40
Location: Melbourne
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| admeister wrote: | | NegativeZero wrote: | | Contrary to how they behave sometimes, Sony *want* more people buying PS3s than PS2s. PS2 sales are falling off but PS3 sales aren't increasing. |
PS3 sales have been just fine, the gap between the PS3 and 360's sales has closed considerably over time. I'd say there's a good chance that the PS3 could pull ahead. For all we know, Sony could make more money out of each PS2 they sell than they do out of each PS3 they sell. Perhaps they want to sell both. |
The PS3:360 sales gap has been getting smaller, yes, but not anywhere near as fast as you're making out. Sony are counting on the system having a really long tail like the PS2 to catch up. Microsoft beat them to market and built a very considerable lead quite quickly, and in the US has continued to outsell them just about every month. That lead isn't going away.
But that's neither here nor there. My point was that PS2 sales have dropped off significantly. Rather than a clear upgrade path for their existing customers, by removing BC Sony allow MS a foot in the door, so to speak. There's nothing to be gained for a PS2 user to go to a PS3, aside from a small handful of exclusives. They know the PS2 will dry up, and they want those sales to become PS3 sales, but they're not approaching that in a productive manner.
| Quote: | | NegativeZero wrote: | | The reason that the 360 has backwards compatibility is that Microsoft knew they wouldn't have Halo 3 until later on in the console's life cycle, but they had to convince early adopters to buy into their technology or they'd have been sunk. |
You're saying they convinced early adopters to buy a 360 by offering them original Xbox games? Why buy an expensive next gen console just for that? |
Not just for that, the system had other sellers. Gears of War for example convinced a lot of people to jump in. However the numbers speak for themselves - the most played game on Xbox Live on X360 for a substantial amount of time, aside from occasional weekly blips when new releases came out, was Halo 2. So the proposition given to early adopters was pretty clear: new, more powerful system, better integrated with Live, some great looking games in the pipeline, and it was guaranteed to play Halo 2 and make it look *better* than on the old system.
| Quote: | | NegativeZero wrote: | | Additionally there's the fact that they actually listened to their users and implemented a feature which in the previous generation had been considered one of the best things about the PS2, and one of the reasons that early on it was so successful despite an incredibly bad lineup of games on launch. |
I don't know about anyone else, but BC is never at the top of my list when looking to buy a new console. I wouldn't consider it one of the best things about the PS2, just a bonus feature. Once again, do you really think that early adopters bought the PS2 just to play PS1 games? I sure didn't buy my launch PS3 to play PS2 games. |
It's never at the top of anyone's list, which has been the point that I and several others have made. It's a nice extra that makes the purchase an *upgrade* for users of the old platform. Companies don't just release a product and then not entice people to buy it. Doesn't matter how good the system is, if you don't convince people to buy it it won't sell. Dreamcast is a good example. Backwards compatibility is a major selling point, because if your old library becomes useless you're not replacing your old console, you're buying a whole new one and have to either keep your old system or ditch your old games for good.
| Quote: | | NegativeZero wrote: | | Wii is backwards compatible because it's the exact same hardware and Nintendo were able to do it for practically zero extra effort. Again I'm fairly sure that the main reason they did it was because the PS2 basically made it a standard feature. No one would launch a new iteration of a console nowadays without some form of backwards compatiblity - even Sony didn't. |
No. The Wii does not use the exact same hardware as the Gamecube. The BC with Gamecube games is done through emulation, hardware has nothing to do with it. I don't think the PS2 made BC a standard feature, it just happened to have it because Sony must have felt some obligation to PS1 owners. The fact that BC was ever included in the PS3 was a big mistake on their part, they realised this and got rid of it right away. |
Gamecube and Wii both use PowerPC processors. Wii's is a more modern chip and clocked higher, but it's the same bog-standard PPC instruction set.
The graphics chip in the Wii is an ATi chip. The Gamecube's was an ArtX chip - ArtX were aquired by ATi not long after they designed that chip, and it became the building block for a lot of ATi's subsequent cards. I've never actually coded for the two, but I would imagine they would be fairly similar and very compatible.
It's true that there's an emulation layer over it, but when you can push the bulk of your instructions to processors which are completely compatible with what you're emulating, backwards compatibility is not a difficult prospect. Unlike with PS3 or 360, where the hardware is completely different.
Unfortunately the PS2 has created a precedent in the mind of the consumer, at least on Sony's part. A good chunk of PS2 users were PS1 users, and took the backwards compatibility for granted. It always seemed like a natural thing, really. Calling it a Playstation '2' suggested that it was an upgraded Playstation, and the fact that it played practically all existing PS1 software reinforced that and created the expectation that the same would be true of PS3. The fact that their two competitors, when producing a successor to their existing systems made sure to add some level of BC should underline that it's become an expectation.
I do agree that putting backwards compatibility into the PS3 then yanking it out was a terrible move, though. If it had never been there in the first place there'd probably be a lot less angry whining about the lack of it. I don't agree that it was a mistake to put it in in the first place, however. It was a mistake to suddenly remove it. The only 'mistake' in putting it in was that Sony underestimated the costs to build the whole system and overestimated demand and how much people were willing to pay for the system. I suspect they also expected blu-ray to ramp up much faster than it has, which will have had the knock-on effect of keeping BR components expensive. In other words, Sony got complacent and arrogant. The rhetoric in the original post here is just more of the same from them.
I think the most likely thing Sony are up to has already been speculated. Emulation-based backwards compatibility for select titles that you're expected to re-purchase from them at exorbitant rates over PSN. It's the sort of thing that publishers would love too - I can just imagine Bobby Kotick from Activision salivating over the prospect of charging his customers again rather than having them buy the game second hand for a quarter of the price. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
