Sony has a fix for $400 PS3's Lack of BackCompat

For you latecomers/sane people who may have been waiting for a PS3 price drop but are bummed out by the $400 40GB PS3's lack of Backwards Compatibility (BC), Sony has a solution for you.

Buy a Playstation 2.

Clearly if you already have a PS2 you have an advantage. You can already play a higher percentage of PS2 and PS1 games than the current 80GB model (and all PAL versions), and the new 40GB model will not have any BC at all.

According to Sony, this is better than the initial NTSC PS3s. Where the launch PS3 was $600, you can buy the new $400 PS3 and a brand spanking new $130 PS2 for the combined price of $530! That's $70 less than what everybody paid 10+ months ago for the same functionality.
-- Based on an interview about the new 40GB PS3

The above was mostly tongue-in-cheek, but I do understand Sony's logic (though I don't agree with it). You can buy a new PS3 with a new PS2 and get 100% compatibility, there's no arguing that, and it's cheaper than $600. There are some features that the PS3 uses with its BC, but in all cases you should keep your PS2 if you already have one.

I don't agree with them taking out the BC for this model because it is more important than Sony is giving it credit for. Sure, they needed to cut costs in order to have a nice price drop, but I would think BC--particularly now that they've switched to Software emulation--would be something that was set in stone for the PS3. Even if BC isn't a priority for them to continue fixing, it's part of the PlayStation Legacy that they've been building up. I understand that one can keep their PS2 (or buy one) to play the games, but I don't agree with that being the only option available to one who will be stuck with this new setup.

Heh,i'll still be waiting (at least one year) for my 80GB and bc PS3.By then i would also have an HDTV,and from what i hear PS3 plays PS2 games much smoother in HDTV's.
I have 2 PS2's (one is half broken that plays only PSX and old PS2 games,the other is a quite new slim one) but i still want my next-gen sony console to have bc.
If i was very excited with the current PS3 library,i might have considered the 40GB model but right now the only game that intrigues me is Folklore and it's not enough to make me rush to buy the system.
In a year from now the 80GB model will have at least another price drop,so i guess i'll take my time.

Good stuff. Anyways, I'll buy a PS 3 when Final Fantasy XIII comes out. I probably won't get one specifically for White Knight Story or Disgaea 3 also. I hope that there is a price drop and a great version out with full backwards compatibility.

I think that's a huge dissapointment and a major insult to the fans that have made the playstation the money it has over the years. That was one thing I always believed Sony to have over its competitors, that when I upgrade to the next system, I can bring all of my older games that brought me to the brand along with it.

Once FFXIII, GTA4 and MGS4 are all out I'll probably be getting one, or sooner, and I seriously hope that they have the BC back in. If not then I'm not sure how long I would wait to get a PS3, honestly I'd rather play the classics I haven't tried yet.

apart form MGS4 aren't the other two comming out on 360 also?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bert

apart form MGS4 aren't the other two comming out on 360 also?

---

Not FFXIII last I checked.

Hmmm, I thought I heard it was.

There were rumors which were debunked.

Oh ok. that's too bad.

It wouldn't be so bad if, when the PS3 originally came out, they said "Hey guys, sorry, no backwards compatibility, keep your PS2." But they didn't--they said backwards compatibility was very important and went so far as to stuff a PS2 into the PS3 casing.

Now they're so vary obviously cutting corners in a desperate attempt to stay competitive that it's just pathetic.

Ok, so it appears the ditched BC wasn't to save costs. Which makes EVEN LESS SENSE.

Again, I can understand their logic in wanting to focus attention on PS3-only content, but I do not agree with it. Regardless, there will be a PS3 with mostly-working BC for the forseeable future (they've already ceased production on the PS3 model with fully working BC).

Just like the random crashes in Maya, all I can say is...

WTF SONY, WTF!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKTrix

Ok, so it appears the ditched BC wasn't to save costs. Which makes EVEN LESS SENSE.

Again, I can understand their logic in wanting to focus attention on PS3-only content, but I do not agree with it. Regardless, there will be a PS3 with mostly-working BC for the forseeable future (they've already ceased production on the PS3 model with fully working BC).

---

This is what we call bull:skull::skull::skull::skull:. PR Spin for "We don't know what the smurf we're doing" or "The PS3 is worth $800, but we're giving it to you for $400 because we're awesome like that."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKTrix

they've already ceased production on the PS3 model with fully working BC

---

Ok,this IS bad news.

Honestly, I think you're all making a bigger deal about BC than most people would. There are more PS2's out there than Catholics in North America. Pretty much everyone and there brother has one. Honestly, people bitch about the price, then they bitch about losing full BC when Sony cuts costs to give them a more reasonable price. The fact is, Sony offered full BC once, and it might help sell a few consoles early one, but it's not going to help in the overall big picture, and PS2's aren't going to disappear from the shelves anytime soon, so if you want to play PS2 & PSX games, buy one. I didn't buy my PS3 so I could play older Playstation games on it. Even if they hadn't had full BC I still would have picked it up. At best I see it as a nice extra, but certainly not a major selling point.

That said, I don't see why they left out PS2 support with the 40GB model. It's all software emulation now so that doesn't really make sense. Maybe if people demand it enough though, they'll be able to add it through a future firmware update.

This is why I never sell my old consoles. It's the best way to handle backwards compatibility. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Honestly, I think you're all making a bigger deal about BC than most people would. There are more PS2's out there than Catholics in North America. Pretty much everyone and there brother has one. Honestly, people bitch about the price, then they bitch about losing full BC when Sony cuts costs to give them a more reasonable price. The fact is, Sony offered full BC once, and it might help sell a few consoles early one, but it's not going to help in the overall big picture, and PS2's aren't going to disappear from the shelves anytime soon, so if you want to play PS2 & PSX games, buy one. I didn't buy my PS3 so I could play older Playstation games on it. Even if they hadn't had full BC I still would have picked it up. At best I see it as a nice extra, but certainly not a major selling point.

That said, I don't see why they left out PS2 support with the 40GB model. It's all software emulation now so that doesn't really make sense. Maybe if people demand it enough though, they'll be able to add it through a future firmware update.

---

I think there's something very wrong with continually stripping features off a piece of hardware and offering it in a new package. First they said that it was a part of the Playstation legacy and that backwards compatibility was important. Then, it wasn't so important. Now, they say they're not giving it to us because we should try out more PS3 games. It would be less of a big deal if the console had been without the feature in the first place, but I still think it would've been an important issue.

I'd want backwards compatibility for a variety of reasons--the harddrive is a good one by itself. Upscaling is another. Simply not having four consoles plugged into my TV at any given time is another. I remember thinking it was dumb when Microsoft offered the Core and the Premium. The number of models Sony has blown through in the past year shows just how badly they've stumbled. I don't think they know what the hell they're doing.

Ignoring the bad business decisions, a PS2 is now what, 100$? Maybe less (it's been months since I bought a ps2 for 100$)? Just purchase a ps2 for your psx/2 needs, imo.

Why not just give up on the next gen for now and just stick to PS2's/XBox's and PC's?

It's the same as when I kept my SNES when I got an N64. The logic cannot be disputed: It makes perfect sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baloki

Why not just give up on the next gen for now and just stick to PS2's/XBox's and PC's?

---

That too. Each previous generation saw a massive leap in graphical technology, whereas this current gen is surprisingly gradual. Since the graphics are the only thing what's different, it's not worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Mullet

This is why I never sell my old consoles. It's the best way to handle backwards compatibility. :p

---

I could not agree more

*busts out the atari 2600*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReloadPsi

It's the same as when I kept my SNES when I got an N64. The logic cannot be disputed: It makes perfect sense.

---

There's a pretty big difference when you're comparing systems that use entirely different mediums to hold data. The PS3 can read CDs, DVDs, and Blu-Ray; there's no reason it shouldn't be able to play a PS2 game. Conversely, an NES cartridge obviously will not work if you cram it in an SNES.

*Turns away from PC emulation of Disgaea for a moment*

I'm sorry, what are you guys talking about?

Looks like Backwards Compatibility isn't all the new 40 gig model is lacking.

Yeah they're being real jackass on this. If you want backwards compatibility buy a PS2. Don't they know how stupid and inconvienient it is to unplug your PS3 to just to play your pS2 then unplug and replug in your PS3 when you want to play it again!?

YouTube - The TRUTH about the PS3's backwards compatibility...

That video is almost a year old. Those problems have been fixed several times over already (Check the links posted on the side of that video). Plus it's not really an issue now that PS3s won't have backwards compatibility anyway.

I don't really see what the big deal is here. You're getting less but you're paying less. If you really want a PS3 with backwards compatibility, buy one now. Sure, Sony have obviously backpedaled on this issue but I thought everyone would be so used to that by now that they wouldn't consider it to be a particularly notable occurrence.

Well I had to keep my old PS2 as alot of my PS2 games are imports so my PS3 cant play them anyway. Apparantly them keeping backwards compatability out of the 40GB PS3 isnt to make it cheaper. It just isnt there. Thats pretty damn lazy.

But then again, you buy a PS3 to play PS3 games, this isnt a big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azar

Looks like Backwards Compatibility isn't all the new 40 gig model is lacking.

---

So what? This isn't something they hid from the public. People complain when they add ports most people will never use and the price is high, then they complain again when they remove some to bring the price down. Ridiculous.

I don't have much room for consoles. I've only got room for three to be set up at once, and that's awkward. I have over half a dozen already, and I already have to keep my PS2 and PS1 both set up because they play games from different regions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karellen

That video is almost a year old. Those problems have been fixed several times over already (Check the links posted on the side of that video). Plus it's not really an issue now that PS3s won't have backwards compatibility anyway.

I don't really see what the big deal is here. You're getting less but you're paying less. If you really want a PS3 with backwards compatibility, buy one now. Sure, Sony have obviously backpedaled on this issue but I thought everyone would be so used to that by now that they wouldn't consider it to be a particularly notable occurrence.

---

That's the thing though. Considering Sony did release a patch that allowed PS1 and PS2 games to be run in 1080p, that was something I was actually looking forward to about the PS3. Especially considering since that meant (along with another patch) that you could play FFXI online with HD.

Anyway you slice it it's still a huge letdown to the consumer. I really don't like that one quote, that it was to encourage players to buy ps3 games. That sounds alot like coercion to me. It's a little scary that it's being applied to consumerism of video games, of all things.

As inane as it is (yes, backwards compatibility shouldn't be seen as something that's optional, I agree) I'm probably going to follow Sony's advice on this one. It's just generally a better practice to own the original consoles, and if I can buy the PS3 without backwards compatibility for a reduced cost plus the more reliable original console, I'll do it. (Plus you don't have to buy that annoying add-on that reads old memory cards).

But yes, I see the point of argument here - Sony doesn't look like a company that's willing to put quality over added price, which is what they'd been famous for with the PS2 (which BTW apparently had much better backwards compatibility too). I think they may have over-stretched themselves this time. They might not survive.

Way to alienate your customers, Sony. I think, aside from my Wii, I´m just going to skip this generation considering both Sony and Microsoft are screwing up on some big level. Maybe Sony will smarten up for the PS4. The PS2 and PS1 were both awesome. I don´t have any faith for this current generation left, but it's possible they'll learn from their mistakes for next time.

I don't see how Microsoft is screwing up on some big level.

If I buy the PS3, it will be to play PS3 games, not PS2 games. I can emulate most PS2 games on my PC anyway, let alone play them on my PS2.

Anyone who trusts a large corporation like Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft to stick to their word has no idea what they're dealing with. It's your own fault, really. It's not like they signed a contract which said that if they stopped BC that they would be penalised in some way or that the people would be given some kind of compensation. Words mean nothing, and you should all know that by now.

Otherwise you'd be buying your PS3's from Nintendo right now. :)

Of course, there are too few decent next-gen games to purchase any next-gen console right now, as far as I'm concerned. I'm still waiting for them to stop making PS2 versions of all the games. Why pay more for graphics? It means little to me.

[q=Mirage]I don't see how Microsoft is screwing up on some big level.[/q]
How is designing and selling a defective console not screwing up on some big level? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by o_O

[q=Mirage]I don't see how Microsoft is screwing up on some big level.[/q]
How is designing and selling a defective console not screwing up on some big level? :p

---

Seriously. That kind of thing is much worse than the PS3 backwards compatibility and price stuff. At least the PS3 works when it's all said and done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by o_O

[q=Mirage]I don't see how Microsoft is screwing up on some big level.[/q]
How is designing and selling a defective console not screwing up on some big level? :p

---

Seriously. That kind of thing is much worse than the PS3 backwards compatibility and price stuff. At least the PS3 works when it's all said and done.

---

Yeah, agreed. I actually bought a 360 which crashed an hour after playing, and continued to do so when I kept playing, so I brought it back right away and got an exchange. That one's fine. So I don't think they're all defective. But some definitely are, which is just despicable.

They all have a really high chance of getting the red ring. Hell, when Microsoft ´´fixes´´ your Xbox and sends it back to you, it´s still just as likely to get the red ring of death. I can't tell you how many calls I've gotten from people who just got their Xbox back after a month and it's getting the red ring right out of the box.

O right, the ring of death. Forgot about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent, Thunder God

That one's fine. So I don't think they're all defective. But some definitely are, which is just despicable.

---

Nope. Unless the ones with redesigned innards have been released now, then every 360 is just as likely as another to get the red ring of death. Every single one they made for two years shares the same inherent design flaw. If you're extra careful with them, or just luckier than most, yours might be fine for years, but there's a reason their failure rate is over 30%, whereas Nintendo and Sony are below 1%.

Nintendo and Sony seem to build their products to last, and take lots of damage.

In the UK the PS2 has stayed the same price for about 2 years, honestly, its not dropped in price. Because of this "slimline" lark they think its okay to keep the price the same.

I was going to buy one, too, because I dont have a PS2 in England, but I can't be bothered after that, I think I'll wait a year and a half and buy a PS3 regardless.