PS2 emulator coming for non-BC PS3s?!?!

[zewone]

Not sure if this is fake or not, but it'd be awesome if true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omWOdvGWKkM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0U7vElslY0

For those that don't know Spanish - he points out that it is the 40 GB non BC PS3 by showing that it has 2 USB ports and no media card slots.

Then he boots it up into a version of the XMB that has not yet been released and plays God of War II.

As far as the screen flickering, I used to own the exact TV that he's using.

While using the PS3, the resolution switches so often from XMB, Blu-Ray, PS3 game, PS2 game, and every time it did, my TV would make the same flicker his TV did, which is a sign of the res changing.

[blitz6speed]

Dev firmware since 2.0 i believe lets you boot ps2 games on any ps3, they're working on the emulator for sure. It will be part of sonys plan of turning things around with the PS3 sales situation.

[riddler]

mmm i thought that non bc ps3's lacked hardware that was necessary for ps2 games to be played, not that it was simply a firmware issue?

[zewone]

If they can get a proper software-only emulator, you wouldn't need hardware.

This is how it's done on debug units and of course PS2 emulators on the PC.

[Friend of Sonic]

I'm glad I have a 60GB so I don't have to wait around patiently waiting for Sony to correct their screw up.

[fuss]

I'm glad I have a 60GB so I don't have to wait around patiently waiting for Sony to correct their screw up.
eh, I still do not see the big deal. I have a 60 GB and have not played a PS2 game in well over a year now.

[zewone]

I have a PS2.

[Friend of Sonic]

I too have a PS2. But it's kind of crappy and doesn't work all the time.

Really, honestly, people shouldn't be lynching Sony because of the BC stripping (or the original Sixaxis with no rumble) It's just odd to see a company whose goal was to deliver the most technologically advanced system on the market first offer BC, then gimp it by going the software route, and then proceed to remove software BC. If the above scenario in the OP is true, Sony is now scrambling to fix their mistake while still being able to produce the lower costing hardware (I assume).

It's weird. I thought Nintendo of all people who be skimping out on the BC entirely. But it's just two Gamecubes duct taped together mirite

[YobRenoops]

He doesn't actually play anything thought, it's all menu screens.

As soon as he tries to play it I bet a pound to a piece of shit that it craps out. Its probably residual Back-Cat code from when there was some form of PS2 hardware on the motherboard. As all PS3s use the same firmware, and it seems theirs is in Factory mode (which apparently re-enables PS2 loading), this is how it works.

If I see the chap actually play a game, then I'll believe its true. Until then, nah....

[StrandedBrit]

I too have a PS2. But it's kind of crappy and doesn't work all the time.

I have a 60GB PS3, but it's kind a crappy and doesn't work all the time i.e a few weeks out of the past several months.

Anyway, I'd take software emu on the new units anyday over a 60GB not that I'd use it.

[mykevermin]

PS2 BC + $100 price drop = Sony's somewhat in a less shitty spot.

Now, here's the thing: it's a dev kit he's on. As homeboy points out, all the guy does is boot the disc. I don't believe the newer PS3 consoles even recognize PS2 discs anymore, so there's obviously something soopa cool with dude's dev kit. But do all dev kits merely boot PS2 games, but crash later?

[The Mana Knight]

While I saw the video, I will not technically believe it yet (some could have swapped motherboards or did some of their own internal things) because I've seen plenty of fake leaks online (like PS3 accomplishment, in-game XMB wrong leaks, etc.) in the past relating to PS3 (some even with videos). I will not believe anything until Sony Computer Entertainment announces it themselves.

[zewone]

PS2 BC + $100 price drop = Sony's somewhat in a less shitty spot.

Now, here's the thing: it's a dev kit he's on. As homeboy points out, all the guy does is boot the disc. I don't believe the newer PS3 consoles even recognize PS2 discs anymore, so there's obviously something soopa cool with dude's dev kit. But do all dev kits merely boot PS2 games, but crash later?

http://www.edepot.com/playstation3.html

PS3 Test Unit
Developers get a PS3 Test unit (Debugging Station) that allows it to run unsigned code. The machine is labelled Test below the PlayStation 3 logo, and it comes with a testkit. The PS3 model numbers for these Test machines are similar to the the ones for consumers, but instead of the CECH prefix, the model numbers have the DECH prefix. Unlike consumer units, a PS3 Test unit has an extra "Settings"->"Debug Settings" menu in the XMB (XrossMediaBar), which allows many options like downgrading to previous PS3 Test firmwares (available in PS3 Test firmware 2.00 and higher), changing the PS3 region, and treating a USB drive as a Blu-ray drive,. The PS3 Test unit is identical to the consumer PS3 unit hardware-wise, but the different software settings is tailored for allowing easy debugging of programs. By default it also does not use the same decryption key as a consumer PS3, as PS3 Test units have its own decryption key for debug encrypted software. Therefore, the PS3 Test cannot decrypt and run retail Blu-ray games. In the DECHA models, PS2 games (any region, debug and retail) loading were disabled, but later firmwares allows it.

[mykevermin]

So any PS2 test would be able to load and boot (not necessarily play) a PS2 game?

[zewone]

I guess. I was hoping for better news.

[PraiseChaos]

I don't think this is particularly bad news. I'd like to know when the ability to boot and load PS2 games was added to the development models. If you look at the progress of PC emulation projects, the menus tend to be done correctly first since it's a good starting point. This could still suggest full software emulation is being development and is at an early stage. This would definitely drive me to buy a PS3 sooner. Just my $0.02.

I own a PS2, but I'd really prefer BC. My entertainment center is crowded up enough as it is. I still play my PS2 and some PS1 games regularly.

Slightly off topic... Did anyone else catch the page with PS4 specs and predictions of the PS5?
http://www.edepot.com/playstation4.html

[blackjaw]

I'm glad I have a 60GB so I don't have to wait around patiently waiting for Sony to correct their screw up.

True story. I'm happily playing Persona 4 on my 60gig.

[javeryh]

I really really really wish my PS3 played PS2 games. My PS2 won't recognize controllers anymore and God of War II, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus and a couple of others are just sitting there!!

If Sony added BC via a software fix I'd be so happy.

[Ryuukishi]

Slightly off topic... Did anyone else catch the page with PS4 specs and predictions of the PS5?
http://www.edepot.com/playstation4.html
Wow... somebody wasted a lot of time writing all of that. Hope they remembered to pick up a 2015 Sports Almanac during their trip to the future.

I'm sure Sony is working on a software emulator for PS2. Whether it will actually be completed and see use in the PS3 is the question, IMO. From what I understand, it's quite a thorny engineering problem, and at the end of the day the PS3 may be just not powerful enough.

[Needles-Kane]

I really don't think they're doing anything with it. You would think they would have announced something after they cut it from the new models to ease people's minds. sony makes claims many times that they don't deliver on but say it just to make the hype or confidence of consumers. Like the Killzone 2 and Motorstorm video being real time or when they announced they were going to make an online version of GT4 which of course they couldn't deliver on but it was in their thoughts. Maybe they've changed their ways and won't announce something unless they know they can do it?

They progressively made the PS3 worse and not once gave any hope of making it better- I don't think out of the blue they are going deliver BC. Not to mention, is software BC something to be really excited about? Just look at the 360's BC, it sucks and that is with a much smaller library. sony did get awesome software BC with the PS1 though but I guess that is a much simpler system.

[leveskikesko]

Don't care, my ps3 plays ps2/ps1 games already. (:

[Needles-Kane]

Don't care, my ps3 plays ps2/ps1 games already. (:

You'll care when your PS3 dies and you can only replace it with a piece of crap version.

[leveskikesko]

You'll care when your PS3 dies and you can only replace it with a piece of crap version.

I've never in my life had a console die on me, not sure if that's luck or the fact that I treat my consoles right.

Still I'm pretty sure if my ps3 were to die I would have the option of getting Sony to replace it with a BC ps3. Correct me if I'm wrong, preferably with a source...

[lokizz]

so then are all the other bc system that are the 20 or 60 gb run on something other than emulation and if not then why cant they just make it something you can download?

[lokizz]

I've never in my life had a console die on me, not sure if that's luck or the fact that I treat my consoles right.

Still I'm pretty sure if my ps3 were to die I would have the option of getting Sony to replace it with a BC ps3. Correct me if I'm wrong, preferably with a source...

i had an nes bitch out on me but that aside i too have had great luck with systems. oh yeah my ds hinge recently cracked dammit.

[Ryuukishi]

so then are all the other bc system that are the 20 or 60 gb run on something other than emulation and if not then why cant they just make it something you can download?
Those models include some or all of the essential PS2 hardware, similar to how a Wii includes the GameCube hardware. PSX emulation on the PS2 was an example of a pure software solution.

[Needles-Kane]

so then are all the other bc system that are the 20 or 60 gb run on something other than emulation and if not then why cant they just make it something you can download?

20/60GB run on full hardware BC- they have a PS2 GPU and CPU

The original 80GB has partial hardware BC- it has a PS2 GPU

[zenprime]

Damn it, I just wish they'd either crush this rumor completely or do it.

[62t]

Those models include some or all of the essential PS2 hardware, similar to how a Wii includes the GameCube hardware. PSX emulation on the PS2 was an example of a pure software solution.

actually early on the PS2 has the actual PSOne chip inside too. Late on it is software emulation.

[mykevermin]

Damn it, I just wish they'd either crush this rumor completely or do it.

MGS4 on 360 what?

Rumors can't die until they've been debunked or proven right. Which, in this case, means that as long as the PS3 is Sony's major gaming product, and it doesn't have PS2 BC in every console, the rumor shall live.

[Needles-Kane]

Damn it, I just wish they'd either crush this rumor completely or do it.

As far as I know, they have crushed it. When they were question about removing BC they said they were not looking back and moving forward (it also seemed like they were saying they wouldn't have any in the PS4). I'll see if I can find the article on GameSpot.

Everything else is just gamers hoping it will be done. Sony hasn't hinted at it and have done and said everything to the contrary.

[Blackout]

I've always wondered this. Can your transferred saves from your PS1/PS2 memory cards get corrupted by the shitty BC? My PS2 broke and I don't know how long my memory cards are going to last. I want to store all the saves on the PS3. I would eventually like to play through some of the old games again (I've been itching to play Vice City) but I don't want my saves getting all messed up.

[The Mana Knight]

Yeah, I read on GAF that it appears when consoles are getting repaired, they are in some sort of test mode (which exposes certain things on the PS3). The thing is, since 50% of the PS3 is emulated (the EE) you can actually see some stuff. But since the software code isn't complete, that may be why you do see them working, but probably not fully if tested (due to lacking the GS).

One thing that gives it away to me, for not being truly real (meaning it's coming soon) is no PS2 logo coming up when booting up PS2 games.

[advanced]

So any PS2 test would be able to load and boot (not necessarily play) a PS2 game?

A PS3 test kit can play PS2 code, or at least all the ones I saw while I did QA. We even had to use them to do it because of running out of PS2's for online play.

I bought an 80GB with BC because I doubt Sony will reintroduce it later. This would be sick though for my brother.

[jman619]

I've never in my life had a console die on me, not sure if that's luck or the fact that I treat my consoles right.

Still I'm pretty sure if my ps3 were to die I would have the option of getting Sony to replace it with a BC ps3. Correct me if I'm wrong, preferably with a source...

Wow your one lucky man. My 360, and my NES was the only systems I ever had die on me. I had a ps2 since launch, and never had a problem with it. I sold it after I got a 60 gig ps3.

[zenprime]

I've always wondered this. Can your transferred saves from your PS1/PS2 memory cards get corrupted by the shitty BC? My PS2 broke and I don't know how long my memory cards are going to last. I want to store all the saves on the PS3. I would eventually like to play through some of the old games again (I've been itching to play Vice City) but I don't want my saves getting all messed up.

They shouldn't get messed up. And once you have them on the PS3 it should be easy to copy them to another device like a memory stick, SD card or usb drive.

[PraiseChaos]

A PS3 test kit can play PS2 code, or at least all the ones I saw while I did QA. We even had to use them to do it because of running out of PS2's for online play.

I'm not trying to cast any doubt on the subject or any POV, but I'm curious why Sony includes the ability to boot PS2 code on development PS3's especially since they don't plan to reintroduce BC later. Anyone have any ideas? Are they just lazy to remove that section of code, or is there a valid purpose?

I may do a little research into the matter later. Need food first!

[Thomas96]

There was another video just like this on qj.net shown here: http://www.qj.net/Vid-of-40-GB-PS3-running-PS2-game-PS2-support-disabled-in-retail-PS3s-/pg/49/aid/128259

similarities, is that neither video showed any gameplay from the two ps2 games.

[fatez]

is it possible to use a 40gb hdd and find a friend with an 80gb ps3 w/ software bc and put the 40 in that console and install the ps2 software onto the 40gb hdd?

[brighenne]

No.

[epobirs]

actually early on the PS2 has the actual PSOne chip inside too. Late on it is software emulation.

No. This is a distorted take on the history. What the PS2, every model to date, has is a chip designed by LSI thatt incorporates most of the entire PS1 chipset along with additional features. This includes the MIPS CPU, which runs slower when running PS1 games, and the graphics processor LSI did for the PS1. Combined with the other PS2 elements this allows 99% PS1 compatibility and in return performs a variety of vital functions for the PS2: the drives, memory cards, other ports, and other operations are managed by this chip.

By extending the PS1 hardware and enlisting it as part of the overall PS2 architecture the cost of the backward compatibility was kept very low. At the time, software emulation of the PS1 was still quite challenging. The best PC emulators only handled a fraction of the library. The passage of time has brought technological improvements that hugely expanded system resources and made running PS1 software on different hardware an easily done feat, especially when there was no issue over proprietary IP violations.

What you wrote is more accurate if you move things up a generation. Some PS3 models had a nearly complete PS2 hardware set on the board while others had only a partial chipset with the remainder handled by so-so software emulation. Unlike the PS2's incorporation of the PS1 hardware, the PS2 chips were given no native task on the PS3. They were there solely to provide PS2 software compatibility and thus were expendable when cost cutting was deemed more important than product features.

This is just one of the long list of near disasters due to Sony enthusiasm for a radically different system design, little of which made it to the final product.

Likewise, it's a misnomer to say Nintendo included the GameCube hardware in the Wii. The Wii chipset is a direct expansion of the GameCube chipset. To say that that Nintendo included the GameCube hardware makes it sound like an optional item. Imagine someone saying that Intel included the Pentium in the Pentium II.

[epobirs]

is it possible to use a 40gb hdd and find a friend with an 80gb ps3 w/ software bc and put the 40 in that console and install the ps2 software onto the 40gb hdd?

The PS2 support in that model is still partially driven by dedicated hardware. It's a less complete version than in the 60 GB and thus more subject to failure.

[epobirs]

There is a PS3 in my home that I can use but it is in a shared area of the house and I prefer solitude for most of my gaming. BC would be a significant selling point in getting me to buy a future PS3 model, along with price. The amount of gear I can host in my room is severely limited. At the same time I have hundreds of games on both the PS1 and PS2. A single console that supported those libraries along with its own would be considerably more interesting than not being able to use my PS2 library without more hardware crowding my space.

I would not be surprised if Sony, in light of the current economy, sought to directly monetize PS2 emulation rather than give it away as an added enticement to buying a PS3. As seen on the Xbox 360, it is far easier to deliver emulation on a per game basis than claim across the board compatibility. Likewise, Sony would likely wish to extend the PSN offering beyond PS1 to include PS2 games for downloading. This is already happening with original Xbox games available for download purchase on the Xbox 360.

So, say you want to play Final Fantasy X. This is a BIG download but you don't need most of it immediately. Due to the linear nature of the story, there are large chunk of the data that aren't needed ntil many hours into the game. If the emulator allows downloading to continue in the background, all the better but not critical.

But what if you already have the PS2 game on DVD? A local store still had it in stock or a friend lent it to you. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the disc will pass copy protection scrutiny and the multi-gigabyte download is now reduce to an emulator specialized to FFX that downloads in a minute or two. Instead of $10 for the whole game, you pay, say, 99 cents for the emulator.

Sony and third party publisher would love this because it means deriving revenue from used games. And it could be carried out to other platforms. The Dreamcast platform could be licensed for emulation from Sega. So long as Sega pockets a dime every time an emulator or entire Dreamcast game is sold via PSN, what have they to lose? (Microsoft or Nintendo could just as easily pursue that, too.)

[alongx]

Just because there's no media card slot + 2 USB + a 40GB HDD doesn't mean that it's the non-BC 40GB. The original 20GB had only 2 front USB ports, no media cards and could have had the harddrive upgraded. Unless they show the model number, I don't necessarily believe it. It'd be nice if it was true.

[manthing]

You don't know much about PS3's do you?

That PS3 in the video had a chrome front.

The 20GB lacks the chrome.

So unless that guy did the chroming himself(which isn't cheap and doesn't always look good), I'm gonna believe that was a 40GB PS3

[collven]

Also, I don't know why people keep saying the 20GB model had 2 USB ports. It had 4, just like the 60GB, it was just missing the media card slots and wi-fi.

[Thomas96]

I wish that Sony would bring back the 60gb model, and make it available online only...

[ChiefsFan21]

I hope that they are really working on this.

[lokizz]

Also, I don't know why people keep saying the 20GB model had 2 USB ports. It had 4, just like the 60GB, it was just missing the media card slots and wi-fi.

just internet wifi right? if it had no wifi abilities at all how could use the controllers cordlessly or use headsets?

[Needles-Kane]

I wish that Sony would bring back the 60gb model, and make it available online only...

I wish they would bring it back too since if they even do this, full software BC would suck (the partial hardware and software BC of the MGS4/Motorstorm 80GB was pretty crappy when I used it). But why would you want it online only?

[Needles-Kane]

just internet wifi right? if it had no wifi abilities at all how could use the controllers cordlessly or use headsets?

Correct, just the wireless net connection (which I thought only wifi refers to, I could be wrong). The headsets and contollers are Bluetooth and work on the 20GB.

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

But what if you already have the PS2 game on DVD? A local store still had it in stock or a friend lent it to you. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the disc will pass copy protection scrutiny and the multi-gigabyte download is now reduce to an emulator specialized to FFX that downloads in a minute or two. Instead of $10 for the whole game, you pay, say, 99 cents for the emulator.

Sony and third party publisher would love this because it means deriving revenue from used games. And it could be carried out to other platforms. The Dreamcast platform could be licensed for emulation from Sega. So long as Sega pockets a dime every time an emulator or entire Dreamcast game is sold via PSN, what have they to lose? (Microsoft or Nintendo could just as easily pursue that, too.)

I already paid for the system(40 gb non-BC model) and I already paid for the games(mostly from clearances), so why the fuck would I pay even a buck to be able to play a single game I already own?

They're going to try and charge people a second time for things they already own? If I already paid $5 for a game, I'm not paying another dime to be able to play it.

Keeping the price as high as it still is and removing the BC have been the two largest blunders Sony has made this gen. It seems almost like they WANT to fail this gen.

[mykevermin]

While I agree with your points (or that, more or less, paying to play games you already own will cause more of the anti-Sony backlash, and rightly so), could you use a more...elegant...phrase than "raping"? It's quite classless to flippantly use that phrase. Call it what it is: double charging.

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

While I agree with your points (or that, more or less, paying to play games you already own will cause more of the anti-Sony backlash, and rightly so), could you use a more...elegant...phrase than "raping"? It's quite classless to flippantly use that phrase. Call it what it is: double charging.

That's the term I was going to use: double dipping. It just amazes me how it seems as if Sony has made it look like they WANT to fail this gen. If not for the failure rate, I would've been an Xbox 360 owner this gen, since they were a cheaper option and had 90-95% of the games that I've wanted to play.

If it comes down to it and I want to play my old PS2 games, I'll just buy a cheap, used PS2 in the future if Sony doesn't decide to include some form of BC again.

[willardhaven]

$199 + BC is when I'll bite, otherwise I'll stick to PS2 and a 360.

[galvatron2k1]

I already paid for the system(40 gb non-BC model) and I already paid for the games(mostly from clearances), so why the fuck would I pay even a buck to be able to play a single game I already own?

I don't know, people pay annual fees to play games online which is already encoded into the game. People pay for "downloadable content" for a game that is already paid for. To each his own, I guess.

[mykevermin]

A hypothetical $20 up-front cost for software BC is much more reasonable than an a la carte charge per title.

No charge at all would be most ideal.

Working software-based BC that would make any PS3 play PS2 games, though, is the start that we're unsure of at the moment, and having that would be mostestest ideal.

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

I don't know, people pay annual fees to play games online which is already encoded into the game. People pay for "downloadable content" for a game that is already paid for. To each his own, I guess.

I've only ever played on PSN, never had ANY interest in 'pay-to-play' type of games(WOW, for example) and thus far I've only downloaded the FREE content for games that I own(free costumes for Little Big Planet, etc).

I'm a very frugal gamer. If the day came when PSN was a pay service, I'd immediately stop logging into it.

[galvatron2k1]

I've only ever played on PSN, never had ANY interest in 'pay-to-play' type of games(WOW, for example) and thus far I've only downloaded the FREE content for games that I own(free costumes for Little Big Planet, etc).

I'm a very frugal gamer. If the day came when PSN was a pay service, I'd immediately stop logging into it.

Agreed. Although I've paid for downloadable content every now and then (yes, they got me!), I've finally realized how much of a joke it is to pay for online gaming. Thus, my 360 gaming time has decreased and I have a ton of 48-hour free trials if I really need it.

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

Agreed. Although I've paid for downloadable content every now and then (yes, they got me!), I've finally realized how much of a joke it is to pay for online gaming. Thus, my 360 gaming time has decreased and I have a ton of 48-hour free trials if I really need it.

I have 10 months worth of free XBL codes from various Xbox 1 games that I bought new and used over the past 3-4 years. I used to have over two years worth I think, but I gave away a whole bunch of codes a while back.

It just amazes me that these codes still work years after they were originally printed.

So, if I ever need or want to try and play something online on XBL whenever I get a 360, I know I have some time that I can use.

[epobirs]

I already paid for the system(40 gb non-BC model) and I already paid for the games(mostly from clearances), so why the fuck would I pay even a buck to be able to play a single game I already own?

They're going to try and charge people a second time for things they already own? If I already paid $5 for a game, I'm not paying another dime to be able to play it.

Keeping the price as high as it still is and removing the BC have been the two largest blunders Sony has made this gen. It seems almost like they WANT to fail this gen.

You'll notice the game says quite prominently on its box that it is for the Playstation 2. Sony is under no obligation whatsoever to make this game usable on anything other than the Playstation 2, which is still widely available for purchase. To make the game work on the PS3 would be an additional service which they can attempt to monetize if they choose.

From Sony's perspective, anyone acquiring a large PS2 library almost certainly has a PS2 or intends to buy one. Anyone with just a small handful of favorite PS2 games they would like to play on their PS3 is not likely to quibble over a small one-time fee, especially when that fee is quite little compared to the download purchase route also offered.

This isn't about right or wrong. It's about the struggle to make money on the platform and what the majority of the market will accept. If 5% shake their fists and refuse to have anything to do with it, that is a small loss compared to the revenues to be had from the remaining 95%.

If it were up to me, Sony would have taken a more rational course in the PS3's development and chosen an architecture that made use of the PS2 circuitry while in PS3 mode, thus making the cost of including the PS2 hardware far easier to absorb.

But they didn't do it that way.

Because of that, supporting BC without a pure software emulator has been a severe cost center for Sony. Even with a pure software approach that added no cost to the PS3's manufacture, it would still carry significant costs for testing and verification of the massive library. Convincing Sony to continue down this path with little or no discernible reward is an uphill battle at best.

If the original Xbox had not been burdened with an unviable cost issue and remained in production after the 360 came to retail, it is unlikely Microsoft would have invested nearly as much effort in making the 360 able to play a large portion of its predecessor's library. They'd have been in the same postion as Sony, able to continue offering one platform while another newer platform matured.

Microsoft was in a very similar position to what Sega had when they were bringing the Genesis to market in the US. Retailers had large amounts of Master System software still unsold and increasingly unsellable if not supported on the Genesis. So the Genesis was designed to provide most of what was needed for compatibility, with the Power Base Converter covering the remaining need for an adaptor for the Master System cartridge and card connectors. Thus the cost to customers uninterested in Master System games was minimized while still allowing a profit to be made on sales of the Power Base Converter.

Everybody remembers the bitter complaints over that, don't they? Bueller? Bueller?

So there were tons of Xbox games left on store shelves when the Xbox ceased production and the new Xbox 360 was on its way to stores. Take away that motivation and Microsoft's interest in supporting already sold games from a previous platform on the new machine would have been reduced quite a lot.

As it is, Sony hasn't even pushed the price of the PS2 down much in quite a long time. Not only is it still selling well but at a good profit to boot. A small bright spot in Sony's current woes. As such, Sony has very little motivation to make software emulation of the PS2 available for free, if at all.

[epobirs]

A hypothetical $20 up-front cost for software BC is much more reasonable than an a la carte charge per title.

No charge at all would be most ideal.

Working software-based BC that would make any PS3 play PS2 games, though, is the start that we're unsure of at the moment, and having that would be mostestest ideal.

I've no doubt the emulator is doable. Consider how well along PS2 emulators are on the PC. Those developers are mainly self-financed hobbyists with no access to the proprietary details of the PS2. Sony would have no secrets from itself and the full time personnel on the project should be able to make rapid progress. The real issue is whether the numbers add up to this being accounted in black ink rather than red.

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

You'll notice the game says quite prominently on its box that it is for the Playstation 2. Sony is under no obligation whatsoever to make this game usable on anything other than the Playstation 2, which is still widely available for purchase. To make the game work on the PS3 would be an additional service which they can attempt to monetize if they choose.

From Sony's perspective, anyone acquiring a large PS2 library almost certainly has a PS2 or intends to buy one. Anyone with just a small handful of favorite PS2 games they would like to play on their PS3 is not likely to quibble over a small one-time fee, especially when that fee is quite little compared to the download purchase route also offered.

This isn't about right or wrong. It's about the struggle to make money on the platform and what the majority of the market will accept. If 5% shake their fists and refuse to have anything to do with it, that is a small loss compared to the revenues to be had from the remaining 95%.

If it were up to me, Sony would have taken a more rational course in the PS3's development and chosen an architecture that made use of the PS2 circuitry while in PS3 mode, thus making the cost of including the PS2 hardware far easier to absorb.

But they didn't do it that way.

Because of that, supporting BC without a pure software emulator has been a severe cost center for Sony. Even with a pure software approach that added no cost to the PS3's manufacture, it would still carry significant costs for testing and verification of the massive library. Convincing Sony to continue down this path with little or no discernible reward is an uphill battle at best.

If the original Xbox had not been burdened with an unviable cost issue and remained in production after the 360 came to retail, it is unlikely Microsoft would have invested nearly as much effort in making the 360 able to play a large portion of its predecessor's library. They'd have been in the same postion as Sony, able to continue offering one platform while another newer platform matured.

Microsoft was in a very similar position to what Sega had when they were bringing the Genesis to market in the US. Retailers had large amounts of Master System software still unsold and increasingly unsellable if not supported on the Genesis. So the Genesis was designed to provide most of what was needed for compatibility, with the Power Base Converter covering the remaining need for an adaptor for the Master System cartridge and card connectors. Thus the cost to customers uninterested in Master System games was minimized while still allowing a profit to be made on sales of the Power Base Converter.

Everybody remembers the bitter complaints over that, don't they? Bueller? Bueller?

So there were tons of Xbox games left on store shelves when the Xbox ceased production and the new Xbox 360 was on its way to stores. Take away that motivation and Microsoft's interest in supporting already sold games from a previous platform on the new machine would have been reduced quite a lot.

As it is, Sony hasn't even pushed the price of the PS2 down much in quite a long time. Not only is it still selling well but at a good profit to boot. A small bright spot in Sony's current woes. As such, Sony has very little motivation to make software emulation of the PS2 available for free, if at all.

Back in the Genesis era I was a far less informed consumer than I am now. However, Sony initially touted the BC functions of the PS3, but over time their focus has shifted away from keeping the established base happy and more effort has gone into getting people to realize that 'the PS3 plays more than just games this gen'.

Of course, there are people like me, who will never utilize those other functions. I do use the photo function and the net browser, but I'll never play a movie or CD on my game system.

I hope Sony realizes their mistake and actually takes the initiative to support those who have supported them in the past.

[drobaby]

its fake, cause a patch cant make a ps3 bc

[brighenne]

its fake, cause a patch cant make a ps3 bc

Uhh, yes it could?

[javeryh]

I thought this was interesting from a recent IGN article:

Hey, speaking of the PS2 and the fact that it had 86 quadrillion amazing games, Sony should probably get cranking a little faster on giving us full PS2 backwards compatibility on every system. It's almost like they're afraid of the money it would generate. That or their networks are, which is more likely. But hey, all the excess revenue generated by having tons of people buy dozens of PS2 games at like $20 a pop could buy plenty of new servers and host them on some fat pipes. Plus, 3rd parties would get a cut, of which they get none when classic PS2 games are sold on eBay or used at the local GameShackStopBuyCoLand.

It's as if they expect it to happen eventually.

[Paco]

Isn't the main problem holding back backwards compatibility that small 4 mb of Embedded ram which was insanely fast to the point where it's still faster then most ram out today? If I was sony I would have made an expansion module on non BC PS3s and make that ram direct to order. That sounds like the main part making BC so damn difficult.

[riddler]

if sony were to create a patch that allows for full emulation would you guys be willing to pay for it? I think i'd be willing to pay like 30-50 bucks for it...even though it should be free. My ps2 recently stopped working and i still gotta play GoW I & II, yakuza I & II, and shadow of the colossus and ico. =(

[bmulligan]

Paying money for the privilege of buying ps2 games. Nope, I don't think so.

[niceguyshawne]

While I would like to see it, I won't be paying extra for it.

[Ryuukishi]

if sony were to create a patch that allows for full emulation would you guys be willing to pay for it? I think i'd be willing to pay like 30-50 bucks for it...even though it should be free. My ps2 recently stopped working and i still gotta play GoW I & II, yakuza I & II, and shadow of the colossus and ico. =(
I'd be willing to pay more for a backwards compatible PS3. In fact, if I'm going to pay more for something, BC is a lot better than a few extra gigs on the hard drive or a pack-in game. Sony's big on offering premium bundles instead of making the vanilla PS3 cheaper; BC could be part of the premium package.

[zewone]

newer PS3s offer more positives other than more GBs. 65nm technology is very important to me, plus it's cheaper to run since it uses fewer watts. I also believe that the Blu-Ray diode has a lower failure rate now than before.

[b3b0p]

It will never happen.

I'm convinced, because of technical issues, that this will never ever come true.

I hope I'm wrong.

[Oktoberfest]

It will never happen.

I'm convinced, because of technical issues, that this will never ever come true.

I hope I'm wrong.

QFT :oldman:

[epobirs]

Paying money for the privilege of buying ps2 games. Nope, I don't think so.

I take it then you have never owned a PS2? There is no difference. Early adopters paid a whopping $299 for the privilege of being able to play the PS2 games they purchased despite having few choices and even fewer of good quality.

The same can be said for any console.

[epobirs]

its fake, cause a patch cant make a ps3 bc

Really? How do you suppose they worked that trick on the Xbox 360, which never contained any hardware elements from the original Xbox?

[Paco]

Really? How do you suppose they worked that trick on the Xbox 360, which never contained any hardware elements from the original Xbox?

Everyone knows the 360 is filled with magic.

[epobirs]

Isn't the main problem holding back backwards compatibility that small 4 mb of Embedded ram which was insanely fast to the point where it's still faster then most ram out today? If I was sony I would have made an expansion module on non BC PS3s and make that ram direct to order. That sounds like the main part making BC so damn difficult.

That embedded RAM was fast by the standards of a bygone era.

The Emotion Engine ran at 300 Mhz, and the Graphics Synthesizer, containing that 4 MB, ran at 150 Mhz. That 4 MB was very good for its day but nothing extraordinary compared to the internal throughput of the PS3, all of the PS3's major elements run at several times the rate of the PS2's EE. As it is, some pretty good PS2 emulation has been done on PC of considerably lesser strength than a PS3.

Saying that PS2 emulation on the PS3 is 'so darned difficult' makes a big assumption that Sony tried valiantly and gave up in the face of great adversity. Can anyone point to any statement by Sony that complete software emulation was ever attempted? Although it should be noted that in the hybrid software/hardware emulation used on some PS3 models, it is the Graphics Synthesizer that is replicated in software. This would suggest that the embedded RAM didn't present much of a hurdle compared to the innards of the Emotion Engine.

[epobirs]

Everyone knows the 360 is filled with magic.

Of a highly volatile and untamed sort, apparently. At least, until it was subjected to a binding in the form of a 65nm process node.

[epobirs]

Back in the Genesis era I was a far less informed consumer than I am now. However, Sony initially touted the BC functions of the PS3, but over time their focus has shifted away from keeping the established base happy and more effort has gone into getting people to realize that 'the PS3 plays more than just games this gen'.

Of course, there are people like me, who will never utilize those other functions. I do use the photo function and the net browser, but I'll never play a movie or CD on my game system.

I hope Sony realizes their mistake and actually takes the initiative to support those who have supported them in the past.

Are you saying the Power Base Converter was a ripoff on Sega's part?

At $39.95 MSRP I thought I quite reasonable for those uninterested in Master System games before purchasing the Genesis.

[advanced]

I'm not trying to cast any doubt on the subject or any POV, but I'm curious why Sony includes the ability to boot PS2 code on development PS3's especially since they don't plan to reintroduce BC later. Anyone have any ideas? Are they just lazy to remove that section of code, or is there a valid purpose?

I may do a little research into the matter later. Need food first!

Don't ask me, I was just a tester. My guess would be as good as yours. All I know is that my senior told me to put a PS2 formatted disc in my PS3 and play it for logging online games.w

I bought a used 80GB software BC console to not worry about this. So either way, eh.

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

Are you saying the Power Base Converter was a ripoff on Sega's part?

At $39.95 MSRP I thought I quite reasonable for those uninterested in Master System games before purchasing the Genesis.

I played SMS games on a SMS that my one buddy still had hooked up at his families' house, so we needed no Power Base Converter to play those games.

[Needles-Kane]

if sony were to create a patch that allows for full emulation would you guys be willing to pay for it? I think i'd be willing to pay like 30-50 bucks for it...even though it should be free. My ps2 recently stopped working and i still gotta play GoW I & II, yakuza I & II, and shadow of the colossus and ico. =(

Depends on how the bc is. If it is the same quality as the PS1 BC then yes without a second thought. If it is the same quality as the 360 BC then no.

I'm still not sure what people are expecting from full software BC from sony. The original 80gb had help from hardware and that even sucked.

[Paco]

Of a highly volatile and untamed sort, apparently. At least, until it was subjected to a binding in the form of a 65nm process node.

volatile and untamed magic being forced into a smaller form doesn't make it any less volatile or untamed. It just means it's in a smaller box. Give it time for it to work it's violent magic that wreaks havoc on the box.

[epobirs]

I played SMS games on a SMS that my one buddy still had hooked up at his families' house, so we needed no Power Base Converter to play those games.


All well and good but not an answer to my question. For those with no previous access to the Master System library, was $39.95 an unreasonable price for a Sega Genesis owner to pay in exchange for being able to run those separately purchased games?

[bmulligan]

I take it then you have never owned a PS2? There is no difference. Early adopters paid a whopping $299 for the privilege of being able to play the PS2 games they purchased despite having few choices and even fewer of good quality.

The same can be said for any console.

I got my first PS2 at launch, so I was one who paid $299 for the privilege. I don't think I'll be paying again. But, really, how many PS3 owners DON'T already have a PS2? I'd say a very small percentage. Since it's a "hardcore" system as opposed to the Wii, I'm under the impression most PS3 owners started their soft-core days on the PS2, still have one in their basement and just want the privilege of playing PS2 games it on their new HDTV.

I don't even want Sony focusing on PS2 development. I'd rather have them spend their time improving the PS3, the online environment, and the number and quality of games for the PS3 instead of wasting resources supporting an older platform. I'm still looking for more than 2 good games to play on the damned thing and I'd rather get more next-gen entertainment for my $400 Blu-ray player instead of an BYOB invite to play all the oldies again.

I kinda feel like I did when I bought my PS2 at launch. I immediately went out and bought a Dreamcast and a half dozen awesome games for $100 so I had something good to play until PS2 development came into it's own. The PS3 is 2 years out already so there's really no excuse for it's lack of content, and the dismal state of what already been published. Save for a few titles, there's really not that much compelling me to even turn it on.

[ChiefsFan21]

I think sony has already shot this down:
http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=ps3&thread.id=3670185

[willardhaven]

I kinda feel like I did when I bought my PS2 at launch. I immediately went out and bought a Dreamcast and a half dozen awesome games for $100 so I had something good to play until PS2 development came into it's own. The PS3 is 2 years out already so there's really no excuse for it's lack of content, and the dismal state of what already been published. Save for a few titles, there's really not that much compelling me to even turn it on.

By 2002 the PS2 was really exploding with great titles, I don't see that happening on PS3.

Sony needs to bring BC back because it will get people to buy the console, which is what they want right? I don't think PS3 is as important to Sony as Blu-Ray, so maybe they can afford to fail with PS3.

[IAmTheCheapestGamer]

All well and good but not an answer to my question. For those with no previous access to the Master System library, was $39.95 an unreasonable price for a Sega Genesis owner to pay in exchange for being able to run those separately purchased games?

That thing cost $40? Fuck that. I'd sooner buy a cheap Master System to play Master System games. For me, $40 would've been a no go on an adapter.

I've rarely paid over $10-15 for an older system and I never did like those 'adapters'.

Backwards compatability on the newer systems on the other hand, is a nice addition and SHOULD be included in the price, considering what these fuckin' contraptions cost nowadays.

I cringed when I paid $299.99 for a year from launch PS2 last gen and I winced when I paid $399.99 this gen for a PS3. I wanted both, but I also wanted a BC PS3 so I could dump my PS2 and not have 2-3 things cluttering up the house to play games on.

However, paying $600 for the privilege was a joke because in my eyes by doubling what their system cost from one gen to the next Sony had dug their own grave and would be joining Sega soon enough.

[rickonker]

I will not believe anything until Sony Computer Entertainment announces it themselves.

Maybe you should hold off a little longer than that. This is Sony we're talking about here. :D

[rickonker]

Sony really fucked this up. With how much more powerful the PS3 is than the PS2, they should have had an all-software emulator a long time ago.

[Paco]

Sony really fucked this up. With how much more powerful the PS3 is than the PS2, they should have had an all-software emulator a long time ago.

Do you have any idea how much of that proprietary weird ass hardware sony did on the PS2? It's far easier to emulate the regular xbox on the 360 despite the xbox being far more powerful then the PS2 simply because everything on that is STANDARDIZED industry components. The PS2 was a mess of proprietary tech with weird ass theoretical and actual performance along with weird non standard ram, a gpu that's more powerful and less powerful then the xbox and some freakishly fast embedded ram with a cpu that's a literal wtf. The PS2 is no easy task when emulating.

[rickonker]

Do you have any idea how much of that proprietary weird ass hardware sony did on the PS2? It's far easier to emulate the regular xbox on the 360 despite the xbox being far more powerful then the PS2 simply because everything on that is STANDARDIZED industry components. The PS2 was a mess of proprietary tech with weird ass theoretical and actual performance along with weird non standard ram, a gpu that's more powerful and less powerful then the xbox and some freakishly fast embedded ram with a cpu that's a literal wtf. The PS2 is no easy task when emulating.
I know. But that's no excuse.

[TimPV3]

Do you have any idea how much of that proprietary weird ass hardware sony did on the PS2? It's far easier to emulate the regular xbox on the 360 despite the xbox being far more powerful then the PS2 simply because everything on that is STANDARDIZED industry components. The PS2 was a mess of proprietary tech with weird ass theoretical and actual performance along with weird non standard ram, a gpu that's more powerful and less powerful then the xbox and some freakishly fast embedded ram with a cpu that's a literal wtf. The PS2 is no easy task when emulating.Once again, if I can play my PS2 games on my PC online with people using REAL PS2s with an emulator some hobbyists, not full time employed coders but HOBBYISTS wrote, then the PS2 isn't that fucking complicated.

Feel free to correct me.

[Paco]

Once again, if I can play my PS2 games on my PC online with people using REAL PS2s with an emulator some hobbyists, not full time employed coders but HOBBYISTS wrote, then the PS2 isn't that fucking complicated.

Feel free to correct me.

Are you ignoring something, or are you just on the Evander Holyfield plan of getting your head punched in well past your prime? Either way, the hobbyists have been doing this since 2001-2002 just looking at the PS2 and piecing it together through code. It wasn't until fairly recently that they even got something that can play some games. Can Sony do the same and make it compatible with certain games? of course. Make it custom tailored for each game. BUT what Sony is trying to accomplish which is full emulation of the system and with most of the games is where the difficulty is. Hobbyists are no doubt making strides, but the general public would NOT accept a Sony made emulator at that level and Joe Blow and Mary Jane Rottensnatch would NOT tolerate a substandard emulator that doesn't play as good as their old Playstation 2.

What I'm saying is that game by game isn't that much of a problem. Full Emulated hardware for something that was incredibly complex and runs a majority of the games is a completely different matter. Here's a question. If the Saturn was so much inferior to the Playstation hardware wise, why did it take almost ten years MORE to properly emulate it?