PS3 - Backwards Compatability Less For Europe

[AngelfireUk83]

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6166312.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;1

Seems that they've changed it for euro gamers it'll be crap for PS2 titles but better for PSone. Thats a marketing ploy so the PS2 still sells since shops in the Uk are selling them for £50.

This just gets better and better all the time.

[FudgeNuggets]

Yes, it is an abismal failure. I'm looking forward to picking up the EGM magazine with the PS3 splattered in tomatoes on the cover. This is obviously a strategy to keep selling more PS2s in order to recoup all the money they've lost on the PS3. Shameless, I say.

[rainless]

Tsk... Tsk...

It's the EXACT same thing as the Xbox compatibility on the 360 in Japan. Nobody bought the damned xbox in Japan anyway, so I guess they didn't even bother with 70 percent of the games. You can check the compatibility lists on xbox.com

Which I'm sure the Japanese could care less about it, but my friend in Japan is going to be left out of a few things...

[FudgeNuggets]

Tsk... Tsk...

It's the EXACT same thing as the Xbox compatibility on the 360 in Japan. Nobody bought the damned xbox in Japan anyway, so I guess they didn't even bother with 70 percent of the games. You can check the compatibility lists on xbox.com

Which I'm sure the Japanese could care less about it, but my friend in Japan is going to be left out of a few things...

Like Forza!!! Sure, it's not a "tuner" game, but I still bet he/she would love it.

[PYROMANIAC]

must be a firmware restriction since ps3 has ps2 chipset in it

[tenchi86]

The real deal here is Sony is switching to software emulation and requires a Firmware update before it will play games. The US and Jap versions are also supposed to switch to software emulation instead of hardware around late March and it's rumored that without the limitations of the old PS2 hardware the games will be upscaled. Either way though it's the same deal as the Xbox 360, it simply will no longer include the PS2 hardware and will require software updates to play games. Of course when Microsoft does it is fine, but now that Sony is doing it then they must be doing it as a way to sell more PS2s right?

[Vampiregabe]

Of course when Microsoft does it is fine, but now that Sony is doing it then they must be doing it as a way to sell more PS2s right?

No. What MS did was wrong, but they did it because they halted production of the original Xbox entirely. What they did was unfair, but they had to cut production costs as the xbox was not providing a stream of revenue (sound business practice).

Sony still continues to manufacture PS2s today.
Sony has no other real income (short of the upcoming movie season) other than the PS2 right now.
Sony has to ensure that revenues are not cut short today, while waiting for potential future revenues later from the PS3 (also sound business practice).

Although this combined with what has turned into a abysmal launch, and not much improvement there after, just adds to the fact that things are not going well, right now. I don't see how it is NOT viewed as an attempt to continue to sell the PS2, but I also don't see it as a bad thing to ensure revenue continues to flow in.

[FudgeNuggets]

Microsoft never promised 100% backwards compatibility with the Xbox1, they said they would try to get as many games as possible, then when that proved to be a bit too challenging they said that they would make the best selling/most popular games compatible. Sony is doing this to cut costs on the PS3 and sell more PS2s.

[tenchi86]

Point is you don't know why they are doing it, you assume thats why. Fact is they both are doing the same thing and its been known for a very long time that the Eur consoles would not have the PS2 hardware in them. Personally I of course love having the old hardware in my PS3 because it allows nearly perfect BC but from a business standpoint it cost to much which is why MS did not do it and why Sony is cutting it.

[FudgeNuggets]

Point is you don't know why they are doing it, you assume thats why. Fact is they both are doing the same thing and its been known for a very long time that the Eur consoles would not have the PS2 hardware in them. Personally I of course love having the old hardware in my PS3 because it allows nearly perfect BC but from a business standpoint it cost to much which is why MS did not do it and why Sony is cutting it.


Sucks for the consumers but it is a smart move. They're losing way too much on the console and there isn't going to be enough games out to recover those costs until at least early fall.

[>HyperlogiK<]

Sony is only supposed to have done it in the first place because their emulation software was too buggy and immature by the US/Japanese launch.

[PYROMANIAC]

No. What MS did was wrong, but they did it because they halted production of the original Xbox entirely. What they did was unfair, but they had to cut production costs as the xbox was not providing a stream of revenue (sound business practice).

Sony still continues to manufacture PS2s today.
Sony has no other real income (short of the upcoming movie season) other than the PS2 right now.
Sony has to ensure that revenues are not cut short today, while waiting for potential future revenues later from the PS3 (also sound business practice).

Although this combined with what has turned into a abysmal launch, and not much improvement there after, just adds to the fact that things are not going well, right now. I don't see how it is NOT viewed as an attempt to continue to sell the PS2, but I also don't see it as a bad thing to ensure revenue continues to flow in.

do you own a ps3(just asking)? b/c they've had several firmware updates and added a few features since launch.

i don't see how they'd have to try promote the ps2 this late in the game considering it's the most sold console in history. god of war 2 is coming out in march for it, the console sells itself

i dont see how it IS viewed as an attempt to continue to sell ps2's

[rainless]

No. What MS did was wrong, but they did it because they halted production of the original Xbox entirely. What they did was unfair, but they had to cut production costs as the xbox was not providing a stream of revenue (sound business practice).

Sony still continues to manufacture PS2s today.
Sony has no other real income (short of the upcoming movie season) other than the PS2 right now.
Sony has to ensure that revenues are not cut short today, while waiting for potential future revenues later from the PS3 (also sound business practice).

Although this combined with what has turned into a abysmal launch, and not much improvement there after, just adds to the fact that things are not going well, right now. I don't see how it is NOT viewed as an attempt to continue to sell the PS2, but I also don't see it as a bad thing to ensure revenue continues to flow in.

Well, for one, Microsoft stopped producing the Xbox because the Xbox never did come CLOSE to outselling the PS2. I'm pretty sure that if the Xbox was still the number one selling home console (like the PS2 is) they would probably still be selling them. So that really isn't a valid excuse. I mean... OF COURSE Sony continues to sell the PS2... I think it's sort of unprecedented that, a year after the begining of "the next generation" the LAST generation home system is still the best selling. The Dreamcast was dead and buried by this time last time around.

And you're also neglecting the sizable chunk of money the PSP has generated. The DS Lite is the number one selling console, but the PSP has managed to bite into a third of their market, which no other handheld manufacturer has been able to accomplish in Nintendo's 20 year-long reign. They could probably dig even deeper by teaming up with somebody that KNOWS WHAT THE HELL THEIR DOING like Yahoo or Google, or even the Winamp people, because the PSP has a lot more room for upgradeability than the DS Lite does.

And PS2 titles like Final Fantasy XII are still EXTREMELY strong with sales right up there with, and possibly surpassing, Gears of War. People tend to think of Sony only in terms of the PS3, but that's really only a very small portion of their revenue.

[>HyperlogiK<]

the Winamp people.

I know it's not what you meant, but I love the thought of AOL Time Warner being 'the Winamp people.'

[Vampiregabe]

OF COURSE Sony continues to sell the PS2... I think it's sort of unprecedented that, a year after the begining of "the next generation" the LAST generation home system is still the best selling.

And what better way to ensure profits on a lost cost, high revenue product. Thanks, you helped my argument. Businesses will not stop production, and will try to increase sales, to bolster losses from other products. Business 101.


And you're also neglecting the sizable chunk of money the PSP has generated.

But revenues per PSP, are nothing compared to revenue per PS2. I also doubt the the PSP is generating that much cash in comparison. PS2s sell at a rate of 100:1 for PSP, making PSP a minuscule drop in the bucket.

do you own a ps3(just asking)? b/c they've had several firmware updates and added a few features since launch.

i don't see how they'd have to try promote the ps2 this late in the game considering it's the most sold console in history. god of war 2 is coming out in march for it, the console sells itself

Not sure of the validity to the question, I don't see how me owning any console adds to the discussion. As far as promoting the PS2, well, its basic cost vs revenue analysis. PS3 is loosing $200 each. Sony has to offset those losses, every business does it. Most businesses either slash revenue loosing products, or try to increase sales for other items. Until PS3 starts making Sony money, it has to ensure a constant revenue stream.

Nintendo is not making the GameCube, they don't have to. They are making money hand over fist on the Wii. MS cut xbox, not because it wasn't selling that well, but because it was expensive to manufacture.

I am not faulting Sony for their actions, just stating that it is understandable and clear why they are doing what they are doing. They are ensuring PS2 sales, while allowing them to boost revenue by removing costly hardware.

/Off-topic, sort of/
What I found odd in that link was this:
Rather than concentrate on PS2 backwards compatibility, in the future, company resources will be increasingly focused on developing new games and entertainment features exclusively for PS3, truly taking advantage of this exciting technology.

This means that instead of giving customers the ability to play older games, they want to focus on new games and products that are exclusive to PS3.

Why? I think there is a LOT to being said in that statement that cements the issues that 3rd party companies are having with the PS3.

[>HyperlogiK<]

But revenues per PSP, are nothing compared to revenue per PS2. I also doubt the the PSP is generating that much cash in comparison. PS2s sell at a rate of 100:1 for PSP, making PSP a minuscule drop in the bucket.

I think rainless was pointing out that Sony were the only company in the past 20 years to make any real dent into the handheld market which has been mostly sewn up by Nintendo.

It doesn't matter much in terms of revenue, but it is analogous to IBM suddenly releasing a PDA OS that steals a whole load of Microsoft's market share. M$ wouldn't care about the revenue, they make most of that from desktop and server software, but the very fact that a big competitor had appeared in a market which they previously dominated would be important.

[rainless]

And what better way to ensure profits on a lost cost, high revenue product. Thanks, you helped my argument. Businesses will not stop production, and will try to increase sales, to bolster losses from other products. Business 101.



But revenues per PSP, are nothing compared to revenue per PS2. I also doubt the the PSP is generating that much cash in comparison. PS2s sell at a rate of 100:1 for PSP, making PSP a minuscule drop in the bucket.

I think rainless was pointing out that Sony were the only company in the past 20 years to make any real dent into the handheld market which has been mostly sewn up by Nintendo.

It doesn't matter much in terms of revenue, but it is analogous to IBM suddenly releasing a PDA OS that steals a whole load of Microsoft's market share. M$ wouldn't care about the revenue, they make most of that from desktop and server software, but the very fact that a big competitor had appeared in a market which they previously dominated would be important.

Exactly. Even more telling is the fact that the PSP is still AROUND. How long before the Ngage bit it? Like three months or something? The NGPC was around for 6-8 months (I remember because I had one) and the PSP isn't going anywhere anytime soon.



.

However the PSP... you will have to admit... is FAR outselling the PS3. This was my point. What is it 4:1? 5:1? Maybe even 10:1 in favor of the PSP? At that rate they're making far more money on that than the PS3 which sort of makes it a Big Deal.

[FudgeNuggets]

If I bought a pack of bubblegum for 50 cents and sold it to you for 1 cent, then I'd still be making more money than Sony is on the PS3, Rainman, so that is a bad example. Sony is selling PSPs and has titles available for them, which is better than the TurboExpress, Atari Lynx, Sega GameGear or any other handheld not Nintendo branded has done, but in an article in that EGM I bought yesterday, Sony says no piece of software has been selling well for the PSP aside from GTA:Liberty City Stories, even GTA: Vice City stories has sold poorly. Sony says customers are waiting to buy the games used or at bargain bin prices and admit they're in trouble with the PSP and that they are LOWERING THE PRICE THIS SUMMER to something more competitive with the DS Lite.