The Shrine

I hope for their sake this is true. There's absolutely NO reason for the PS3 not to be fully backwards compatible

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/999/999829p1.html

Too little too late.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too late!

Actually, it's well timed if it matches up with their price drop. It's the price that's been keeping people away, not lack of backwards compatibility. When they drop the price and then throw in "you can play all of your PS1 and PS2 games as well" into the equation with their marketing, it'll do nothing but increase the perceived value of the system.

I figured they would go for software emulation when they dropped the PS2 chip to cut production costs.

Kupek wrote:I figured they would go for software emulation when they dropped the PS2 chip to cut production costs.

The real question is why they took the software emulation out to begin with. Only the 20GB and 60GB models had the Emotion Engine. The first wave of 40GB and 80GB models (including the Motorstorm and MGS4 bundles) had software emulation. They took it out of those models after MGS4 was released and never included it in the 160GB model. Now they're going back and including a firmware update to make all of them backwards compatible? Sounds like they realized a mistake to me.

Sounds more like the software was flawed, and they have been working on it and finally have it right.

Good Seek Hunting wrote:Sounds more like the software was flawed

Sounds like a running theme with Sony software...

Good Seek Hunting wrote:Sounds more like the software was flawed, and they have been working on it and finally have it right.

Nope, it works perfectly fine on the games I've tried. I even tried Chulip and it worked perfectly (I have one of the Motorstorm 80GB PS3s)

It's the fact that they didn't want to eat into the PS2 sales since that's what was helping them stay afloat while they figured out how to decrease production costs while refusing to drop the price of the PS3 to return to some level of profitability. That same person who may get a PS3 still has a huge library of PS2 games (tons of Sony bitches, don't forget) so why not make them buy both?

Now that the PS2 is really dying off (the spike from the drop to $100 wasn't that much and sales are already back down to near 100k and dropping) and they finally got the production costs down and are readying for the price drop (later this year with the PS3 slim that's coming), it's a perfect thing to bring back to increase the perceived value of the PS3 coupled with the drop in price.

That way they get the image that they're giving you more when they in fact actually took it away from you before while they're competitors had it included. Nice little bit of marketing on their part

Zeus wrote:Actually, it's well timed if it matches up with their price drop. It's the price that's been keeping people away, not lack of backwards compatibility. When they drop the price and then throw in "you can play all of your PS1 and PS2 games as well" into the equation with their marketing, it'll do nothing but increase the perceived value of the system.

Well timed? Four years ago would have been well timed. They would have gotten all of the PS2 gamers to buy PS3, since hey, it's a Blu-Ray player, a PS3, and a PS2 in one.

Now, everybody has forgotten about the PS2. All of the games that people wanted to play on the PS2 have already been played.

Zeus wrote:It's the fact that they didn't want to eat into the PS2 sales since that's what was helping them stay afloat while they figured out how to decrease production costs while refusing to drop the price of the PS3 to return to some level of profitability.

Dammit, Zeus, you're an economist. That's a dumb statement. Obviously, the more PS3s sold, the more PS3 GAMES sold, which is where they make their REAL profitability. And if they had PS2 support, they would have got more PS2 GAMES, which equals MORE profit. What's key in console wars is that YOU SELL MORE CONSOLES!

Instead, Sony makes very few PS3s at a launch, due to an extremely stupid profit model of "well, if we create demand...", which does not work, much to nobody's surprise. (Insert VGCats comic on subject here.)

Yes, well timed. It's not by accident that this is coming out at the same time the PS3 Slim is going into production and they've finally got their production costs down to stop bleeding money. The past is the past, can't do anything about it anymore. Timing it with the drop in price is perfect to increase the perceived value of the system for the holiday season.

There are a ton of people with a library of PS2 games who are just waiting for the PS3 to drop to under $300. You spend nothing extra to give them the ability to play those games and it makes the system that much more appealing. Even if it only makes a different with 5-10% of the people it's worth it.

That's right, I'm an economist. Maybe you should trust what I say every now and then when it deals with stuff like this rather than just arguing for the sake of argument. In this particular case, you're not looking at this the right way. You're thinking long-term not short-term. Sony was much, much more concerned with the short-term (they are a public company after all) and that's what drove their behaviour to eliminate the software emulation. Removing the EE from the system was a no-brainer to reduce production costs. The software emulation elimination was one of the ways they decided to try and help their bottom line now.

Their problem is that the system was way too fucking expensive to make since they're including the Blu Ray. They planned it on a 10-year lifecycle to make their coin back, that much is fact. They've said it many times. So they planned the cycle of realizing their economies of scale and technological efficiencies accordingly. With the company hitting hard times, they actually didn't WANT to sell more consoles at the time (ie. for that fiscal year) since they were losing a bunch per unit sold (between $200 and $300 until recently, wasn't it?). It would actually hurt their financials even more which wasn't a good thing considering the pounding they were taking. On top of that, they had a pretty weak software lineup, particularly in the exclusives category which is where the real differentiator is to consumers when making a decision on which console to buy. You think during that fiscal year or even in the first half of the next they were going to recoup the losses of selling the system? No chance.

On the other hand, you've got a 9 year-old cash-cow of a system that's far reached its economies of scale. Each system sold is making them good coin as are the games sold. Wouldn't you want to try to increase those sales if you can? Wouldn't having the software emulation on the PS3 eat away at those sales since they don't need both a PS2 and PS3 anymore? Regardless of how small that effect may be, it's still enough of a factor for them to remove the emulation for no reason.

Now they've realized some level of economies of scale and technological efficiencies and there's enough of a library to increase the possibility of a shorter break-even on the less amount they're losing per unit with the price drop. So now they want to sell more systems and putting the emulation back in only increases the value of the system in the eyes of the consumer.

I understand all of that. But who won? Sony didn't. Sony still won't. Obviously, all of that was wrong because they lost. If they had the PS2 support then, the 5-10% would have turned into 20-30%.

Losing BILLIONS doesn't matter to a huge company like Sony, as long as the end goal is victory and profit. Microsoft spent incredible amounts of cash on their console. They forked over about a billion dollars in the RROD mess alone. Yet, they are one of the winners.

When you don't think long-term, you don't gain long-term profits.

That's why it's a little more complicated than that. They ARE thinking long term, as in 10-year lifecycle long-term. They just did that as a short term measure which is why they're rectifying it.

They still think they will win at the end and they likely will.

Zeus wrote:That's why it's a little more complicated than that. They ARE thinking long term, as in 10-year lifecycle long-term. They just did that as a short term measure which is why they're rectifying it.

They still think they will win at the end and they likely will.

Really? Do they win at losing? Best company to lose the most money and have the least amount of console sales.

Sony can't win unless they bring out a new console. Microsoft has the, in the words of Ballmer, developers, developers, developers! Sony is going to have an extremely hard time pulling that away, and any price drops will be matched for the 360.

Sine, Zeus's point was that Sony had a cash cow, and they were scared of killing that cash cow even if it would benefit them in the long run. That cash cow was the PS2, which was selling more than the PS3 and PSP combined up to last yearl

Of course it was selling more. They were afraid of killing it. That fear ends up being their downfall.

The goal of a next-gen console IS to sell more than the previous one. Microsoft had no such cash cow to kill, so they took the risks and long-term thinking to make the console they have now.

Once Sony's at the point of introducing a new console, they should have stopped living in the past with their previous console. When Intel makes a new chip, they don't think "gee, if we release this to the public, this might kill sales for our older chip". They just release it.

Even with the loss on each system, a missing sale from the PS2 would have mean a gain of a PS3. Yes, they're not making money. Yes, it's eating through their reserves. However, Sony is a fucking HUGE company. They can take the hit.

Microsoft lost $125 per console for a while. That's $3 billion dollars out the door, gone, just during launch. That's not even counting the R&D money, and the RROD money.

I think you're confusing Zeus and I for defending Sony's actions. We're just explaining it.

Kupek wrote:I think you're confusing Zeus and I for defending Sony's actions. We're just explaining it.

Thank you. That's what I've been trying to say

Zeus wrote:They still think they will win at the end and they likely will.

Sounds like you were defending them to me. I already knew the explanation, but their reasoning is wrong. To quote House: "I'm sure this goes against everything you've been taught, but right and wrong do exist. Just because you don't know what the right answer is — maybe there's even no way you could know what the right answer is — doesn't make your answer right or even okay. It's much simpler than that. It's just plain wrong."

SineSwiper wrote:

Zeus wrote:They still think they will win at the end and they likely will.

Sounds like you were defending them to me. I already knew the explanation, but their reasoning is wrong. To quote House: "I'm sure this goes against everything you've been taught, but right and wrong do exist. Just because you don't know what the right answer is — maybe there's even no way you could know what the right answer is — doesn't make your answer right or even okay. It's much simpler than that. It's just plain wrong."

Defending? No. Stating a likely possibility based on historical fact? Yes. Like Kup said, it was an explanation not a defense. Look at my very first post in this thread, I'm all but berating them for taking out the backwards compatibility in the first place

I don't think Sony will be able to gain any more ground in the gaming market until they replace most of the management responsible for that division. So many dickish, ignorant, and insulting comments and decisions made... the only way I can see it being fixed is to replace those in charge.

The SIXAXIS vs Rumble fiasco, this whole mess with backwards compatibility, Home being an utter flop, etc.

"We know what you want regardless of what you say and shout to the contrary-- trust us, we're Sony"

I don't think backwards compatability factors into the minds of people as much as the price of the console. While Sony may have ended up with the biggest system in terms of specs, the fact that they're 30 million+ consoles short of initial sales expectations at this point is a clear indicator that the console was over-powered and with too many features for its time.

Sony lost the battle doing the opposite of what they did to win it in the first place: match or beat the price of the cheapest system; a large factor in the PSX winning was that it was cheapest for consumers and developers/publishers alike. The PS3 is not this, it is the most expensive console for both consumers and developers.

Tessian wrote:I don't think Sony will be able to gain any more ground in the gaming market until they replace most of the management responsible for that division. So many dickish, ignorant, and insulting comments and decisions made... the only way I can see it being fixed is to replace those in charge.

They did get rid of Kutaragi -- and getting rid of Kaz Hirai MIGHT do something -- but at the same time if the company's Playstation division is still being run by old, stubborn Japanese men, they'll never get it. That was why Phil Harrison left the company. Had he had more power in the company outside of Europe, the brand would probably be doing much better now.

Yeah, because Phil Harrison has been SO much more successful as president of Atari =P

Good Seek Hunting wrote:Yeah, because Phil Harrison has been SO much more successful as president of Atari =P

Better than what it was. ATARI has some decent IP.