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

[quote name='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.[/quote]

just internet wifi right? if it had no wifi abilities at all how could use the controllers cordlessly or use headsets?
 
[quote name='Thomas96']I wish that Sony would bring back the 60gb model, and make it available online only...[/quote]

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?
 
[quote name='lokizz']just internet wifi right? if it had no wifi abilities at all how could use the controllers cordlessly or use headsets?[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='epobirs']
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.)[/quote]

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']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?[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='galvatron2k1']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='galvatron2k1']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='epobirs']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.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

It's as if they expect it to happen eventually.
 
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.
 
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. =(
 
[quote name='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. =([/quote]
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.
 
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.
 
It will never happen.

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

I hope I'm wrong.
 
[quote name='b3b0p']It will never happen.

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

I hope I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]

QFT :oldman:
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Paying money for the privilege of buying ps2 games. Nope, I don't think so.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='drobaby']its fake, cause a patch cant make a ps3 bc[/QUOTE]

Really? How do you suppose they worked that trick on the Xbox 360, which never contained any hardware elements from the original Xbox?
 
[quote name='epobirs']Really? How do you suppose they worked that trick on the Xbox 360, which never contained any hardware elements from the original Xbox?[/quote]

Everyone knows the 360 is filled with magic.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Paco']Everyone knows the 360 is filled with magic.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='PraiseChaos']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![/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='epobirs']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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. =([/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='epobirs']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']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.[/QUOTE]


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?
 
[quote name='epobirs']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='epobirs']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?[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']I will not believe anything until Sony Computer Entertainment announces it themselves.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you should hold off a little longer than that. This is Sony we're talking about here. :D
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='Paco']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.[/QUOTE]
I know. But that's no excuse.
 
[quote name='Paco']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.[/quote]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.
 
[quote name='TimPV3']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.[/quote]

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top