The lights are on
Is there a valid reason why the newer versions of ps3 is not backward
compatible?... I still want to play my old ps2 games instead of them
gathering dust on top of my shelf - the problem is I dont have a ps2
anymore, all I have is a ps3. i'm not saying that having a ps3 is bad
thing, but because of the limited titles under ps3 (for now) alot of
the best titles are only available on ps2. Sony tried to solve this cry
for past titles in the form of downloadable ps2 and ps1 games. The
downside is their list is short and doesn't include the best of the
best. One more thing, they only want to cash in on this past titles
instead of letting us play our own collection of old yet great games...
why Sony, why?
No kidding! I missed out on most of the PS2 era myself, so i'd love 2 be able 2 play PS2 titles on my PS3. Before i knew my PS3 wasn't backward compatible i ordered MGS3 and was psyched 2 play. Well i don't have 2 finish the story, but U know where i'm goin'. I don't want 2 go buy a PS2 just to play 5 or 6 games that i'd like 2 play. Why Sony indeed.
i know it is so annoying that it is not backward compatible. i don't want to have a ps2 siting next to my ps3.
Money. They save on it by removing hardware components needed for bc. Also allow themselves to make more down the road by putting PS2 games on PSN, porting them to PS3 like GOW collection, etc...
PS2's are $50. Much less than the $600 you'd be paying for Sony to put the emulation software in the PS3 to play PS2 games. Make your choice.
it really cost that much?... dang :D
...sort of. I'm not sure, but I believe only the original PS3s, the really early ones at least, are the only ones outfitted with BC. Those averaged from $500-$600 and the only logical reason would be the BC.
honestly, it seems to me like you just answered all your own questions. there's nothing more to it that i see. maybe it's because i own the last gen of BC PS3's >:D
Yes the BC is what made the originals so expensive. I have a 60gb with BC and i got it when they first dropped but sony has stated many times that the lack of BC in the new ones is what makes them cost so much less. On the other hand how can u say that there aren't that many good games on PS3. Do u live in a place where they don't sell that many games or what? Both motorstorms, prince of persia, ratchet and clank, uncharted, cod4, assassin's creed, mgs4, infamous, lbp, the list goes on and on so before you knock sony for not having that many games why dont you ask around a little.
The 60 and 20 GB launch PS3s had the entire PS2 Emotion Engine (CPU) hardware built into them.
The 80 GB didn't have it but it still had the PS2's GPU (Graphics Synthesizer), which allowed software BC but that BC is not as good as the launch ones, which do hardware BC.
The 40 GB and all models afterwards had all PS2 components removed.
lambrick you lucky basterd hehehe :D
i actually have 23 games in my colletcion ryt now... assassins creed, fear, GTA4, DMC4, Batman AA, resident evil 5, silent hill, street fighter 4, armored core 4... and more... but still we dont have final fantasy XIII (yet) and other sequels to ps2 greats... and... the thing i'm actually looking for is re-playing the classics... somewhat like a nostalgic thing :D
I know right. Thankfully I bought an 80 gb with backwards compatibility. But still I agree if Sony wanted to make more money they would have their systems backwards compatible.
They would have lost money as well because it would have cost them more to make it than to sell it.
Something people don't think about, which is simple if you look at it from a business standpoint, is that Sony was losing about $250 a sale when the PS3 first launched. So, they cut out features and reached that happy medium of $400 until recently, to which they regained all of their lost profit and could release the new Slim at a lower price.
my ps3 is backwards compatible...got one of the oringal 80 gb...buy an older one..also ps2 games would take up way too much room on a ps3...