Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony Addresses PS2 in PS3 Rumour

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the not-true-maybe-sorta-i-dunno dept.

109

Gamasutra addresses the rumour floating around saying that every PlayStation 3 will have PS2 hardware included. This is apparently a fast and loose solution to Backwards Compatibility. Sony says 'that news ... is just speculation'. From the article: "According to the report, the article indicates that Sony is looking to this as a temporary solution, and plans to remove the chip from future hardware PlayStation 3 models, once it is able to include a functional PlayStation 2 emulator in its place. Such a redesign would, if true, presumably drive down the console's lofty price."

cancel ×

109 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No Reuse of Hardware? (3, Insightful)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481326)

If that's the case then it means that the PS2 hardware is useless for anything but running PS2 games. At least the PS2 was able to use the PS1's hardware for other basic I/O functions.

Re:No Reuse of Hardware? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15481747)

That's not how I read it.

It sounds like the plan was for SW emu all along, and it was in risk of being late. So the hardware is a temporary fallback until the SW is ready, and will be removed in future versions of the console as soon as they can. There'd be no point in creating any way to leverage the PS2 HW from a PS3 game if it's not going to be a permanent part of the console.

It also suggests that earlier PS3's will have "more exact" emulation of PS2 than later PS3's, doesn't it? Given a choice between SW emu and HW emu, I'd pick the HW emu any day. But maybe they'll switch everybody over to software emulation once it's ready, whether you have HW emu support or not.

Re:No Reuse of Hardware? (1)

lord sibn (649162) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487895)

Not necessarily. Having the PS1 hardware present meant that PS2 games could take advantage of it. That does not ipmly that without that hardware that the PS2 games would be "useless."

But who am I to argue? To me, backward compatibility means only one thing: that I have to pay more if I want to play next year's games. After all, I already possess the hardware to play the games of this (and yester) year.

So... do I have nintendos NES hooked up? Not right now, but if I find myself aching for some Super Mario Bros 2 action, then yeah, i can make that happen. it's only slightly inconvenient, but saves me hundreds of dollars. But then again, saving you money isn't really on "their" agenda, now, is it?

Re:No Reuse of Hardware? (1)

lord sibn (649162) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487926)

Hah, and it was only on the FOURTH proofread that I noticed that I misspelled "imply".

Re:No Reuse of Hardware? (1)

lord sibn (649162) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487955)

Bonus negative points for the accidental double post. Could not even *begin* to imagine how I managed to pull that off. At any rate....

Old Hardware Price (2, Insightful)

IAmSwiftness (980193) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481343)

You'd think if they are including old hardware maybe the price would come down . . . unless, of course, they are adding this on in addition to everything else, in which case, if the speculation is true, we could see the price jump even higher for the privelege of backwards compatibility . . .

Re:Old Hardware Price (3, Funny)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481512)

The PS2's processor was just there for 'emotional' support anyway (that pun was SO intended).

Re:Old Hardware Price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15481914)

I don't think you really have a grasp of how things work.

It's that high and it currently would include it....
When it's no longer included we'd see the price drop.

Hope that clears it up.

It won't drive down the price to consumers... (4, Interesting)

SoCalChris (573049) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481355)

Sony will just lose less on each console sold once they get the full emulation worked out.

When Sony is already losing a good amount on each console, they sure won't be passing those savings on to consumers.

Re:It won't drive down the price to consumers... (1)

xiao_haozi (668360) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481460)

I would have to agree with this idea. I am all for price drops and savings... but just from a Sony perspective it would make sense for them to be simply making the console produuction cheaper and cutting the loss. However, my business/economics background is null, but maybe passing on a little savings could boost sales, especially those initially not willing to spend 600. I just wonder how much excluding such a 'chip' would alter each console production price?

R&D costs money too (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482138)

but just from a Sony perspective it would make sense for them to be simply making the console produuction cheaper and cutting the loss.

Replication is not the only expense in manufacturing a new product. Managers must also consider the cost of research and development, which is greater for a full software emulator than for including the PStwo chipset in the PS3. This cost is not only in programmer wages and benefits but also in lost sales if the emulator delays the release of the console or if the emulator is not available by the day the console's firmware goes gold.

Ouch (4, Insightful)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481356)

To me, this seems like a gamble. They need to get the emulator VERY good to be able to eventually take that chip out again. Imagine the pissed-off customers if they ask their friends to make sure their favorite PS2 game still works on the PS3, they get a positive answer, go and buy a PS3, but then it fails when running under the emulator. Of course, it's possible that they wait long enough to assume that noone will actually care about the compatibility anymore, and even skip the emulator altogether at that point, or sell it as an extra.

Re:Ouch (1)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482241)

I'm more worried about the hardware emulation. Not a lot of PSX games crashed the PS2, but the ones that did often seemed like ones I wanted :-(

With a software emu at least there'd be hope for a patch.

Re:Ouch (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482294)

XBox 360 customers don't seem to be hugely upset by this same problem.

And I'm skeptical that Sony is ever planning on removing the hardware logic, if it even exists. I could see eventually including it on the same silicon in a future chip revision to cut costs (turning several chips into one), but redesigning a motherboard and adding a software emulator sounds like a good way to increase costs.

Re:Ouch (1)

aesiamun (862627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482411)

I am an Xbox and XBox360 owner and while I'm mildly upset that I can't play some of the 15 games that I own, I would be even more upset if I couldn't play 30-40 games.

Sony's inclusion of a ps2 emulator means that there's a ps1 emulator as well. MS only has to worry about one generation. Sony has two, Nintendo has, what, 8?

Re:Ouch (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 8 years ago | (#15486987)

I am an Xbox and XBox360 owner and while I'm mildly upset that I can't play some of the 15 games that I own, I would be even more upset if I couldn't play 30-40 games.

Considering the number of titles available for PS2 vs XBox, 30-40 sounds like a much lower percentage of PS2 games than 15 is of XBox games.

Re:Ouch (1)

apoc06 (853263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488989)

yeah, luckily most of the nintendo consoles, and the older consoles are easier to emulate than say the later stuff. the NES, master system, TG-16, SNES, and genesis games should work very well. the later consoles will be a pain. if you see any working games for the system, it will only be a very select few. that is, if they get dreamcast, gamecube and n64 emulation working through software.

dont be surprised to find that the ps3 supports playing older TG-16, and sega games either. i can already see it...

Re:Ouch (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482299)

It's exactly what they did for PS1 backwards compatability on the PS2, so it probably seems more like a tried and true option than a gamble from their perspective.

Re:Ouch (1)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 8 years ago | (#15483690)

The SWITCH is the gamble, not including the hardware on the PS3. They never took the PS1 "I/O controller" out of the PS2.

Couldn't care less about backwards compatibility (5, Insightful)

eggsurplus (631231) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481358)

If it makes the machine cheaper to not have backward compatibility (which no doubt it would be) I'm all for it. I'm buying the machine for games that are designed for it. There's no problem with me with keeping an old system to play its games (except for having more clutter).

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15481443)

There's no problem with me with keeping an old system to play its games (except for having more clutter).

You guys must not have to worry about the wife-acceptance-factor or you've got your own game room. My wife won't allow me to have anything beyond what fits in the cabinet beneath the TV: digital cable box, DVD player, home theater receiver, and just barely fitting, a book-sized case for a MythTV frontend. The PS2 is not allowed upstairs. :-(

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15481591)

This is Slashdot - no such thing as Wife Acceptance Factor.

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15481615)

Wife? What is this wife thing you talk about?

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481740)

It's like a girlfriend... only more.

Surely you've heard of the mystic girlfriend creature?

-stormin

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15483145)

Surely you've heard of the mystic girlfriend creature?

Yeah, and I suppose you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster too, eh?

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (2, Insightful)

ShaneThePain (929627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482198)

You are totally whipped. What's your problem?
Let that bitch know who's boss.
(I apologize for being so blunt, but this crap pisses me off)

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (1)

soulctcher (581951) | more than 8 years ago | (#15484868)

You are either not married, or if you are, she has no idea you post things like this. If she did, the first part of this post would then become true.

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (1)

WhyCause (179039) | more than 8 years ago | (#15485285)

You just wait until your bedroom magically turns pink one day.

When you complain, that 'bitch' will certainly let you know who's boss.

(hint: It ain't you)

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (1)

zubernerd (518077) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481458)

Quite a few who buy the PS3 will have a PS2 so backwards compatability is not a big issue. It is an issue for buyers of the PS3 who never owned a PS3 (i.e. parents buy one for little billy or susie) and see a large assortment of PS2 games for sale at a cheaper price (because they are the last generation console games) and want to get those games because of a limited availability of PS3 games (which is true at the introduction of most consoles).

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (1)

xiao_haozi (668360) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481485)

maybe it's time to get out the old encyclopedia bookshelf collection next to the tv and start building some 'in-book' mods. I wonder how long it would take the 'other-halves' to recognize the radiant heat and dull purr of some of the books in the living room?!

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (1)

eggsurplus (631231) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481713)

That theory has been around for awhile now. Has anyone found out if this actually holds up in practice? If so, what kind of numbers are we talking about here in regards to buying into a console franchise for the first time due to the library from past generations?

My thought is if they are buying it for the past generation they would most likely have already bought the old system. If they are now buying the latest generation it's likely that its due to the appeal of the new generation of technology and/or games. (numbers here would show the cost effectiveness of this method)

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (2, Interesting)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481797)

1. I don't own an xbox, but I loved Halo so much I bought it (one and 2) to play on my roomie's xbox (and I figured I'd have my own one day). Now I've moved out of there (married with a house now) and so backwards compatibility on the xbox360 was a must. I don't want to have to buy both. Also, my wife tolerates a game-cube and an xbox360 but would probably be annoyed if there was a third console lurking about.

2. Another thing to realize is that consoles wear out. If you'be had an xbox since the eary days (and play a lot) chances are it's lifespan may be coming to an end. This machines are not always handled gently. In which case the new system serves not only as a new system, but ALSO a replacement model for the old system.

-stormin

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (1)

antime (739998) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481559)

The old hardware will die eventually, so backwards compatibility is a nice "insurance policy". Enhanced backwards compatibility is also nice (eg. faster loading and texture filtering for PS1 games in the PS2).

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15481823)

For me it's more about the lack of component video ports on my receiver. My current one has 3, one for xbox, one for ps2, and one for dvd player. I don't want to have to have to go back to s-video or worse. I don't want to bother with switching cables either. Considering I use digital optical cables for sound that gives me more reason not to be switching cables around just to play old games.

Backwards compatibility is big for me, and one reason why I have yet to buy the x360. If the ps3 supports full (or almost full) backwards compatibility I'll pay the extra money for it. There's still lots of ps2 games I want to play.

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (1)

joshsisk (161347) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482101)

A/V switchers cost $20-30 and can usually handle 6-8 devices. HOWEVER, you mention digital sound... I imagine switchers that handle that could be more expensive, I don't actually know as I don't use that myself. My switcher was $15 on sale and handles standard RCA-style cables & s-video for up to 8 devices... more than enough for all my consoles & my VCR. My DVD player is hooked directly into my TV.

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15488559)

"Component". He doesn't want to downgrade from component to s-video, and composite(RCA) is even worse.

You'd be pretty lucky to find video switcher with a minimum of 4 component video inputs in the $20-$30 range, or with any 2-digit price tag for that matter.

Any switcher that handles both video and digital audio would be an A/V receiver. Any A/V receiver that takes 4 component inputs will likely be over $1000. (and as he said, he's already got a receiver with 3)

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (1)

joshsisk (161347) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488967)

However, do the older consoles even use Component? I mean, I mainly use my switcher so I can still use my NES, SNES, Genesis, etc... I really doubt they even supported component output.

The JVC JX-66 AV Switcher is ~$50 bucks and can apparently switch between 3 different component devices. That turns a 3 device reciever into a 5 device one. A quick google search turned up several other models that do the same for prices that range from $50 to $150 depending on # of devices and so forth.

And, no, a switcher is not a receiver. A powered switcher does just that - switches between devices. It doesn't do any of the signal processing, amplification, or other things that a reciever does.

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (1)

RemovableBait (885871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15483295)

Backwards compatibility is big for me, and one reason why I have yet to buy the x360.

Why would you even consider buying the 360 if backwards compatibility is so important? You mention a PS2, so why do you even care? (I'm curious)

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (1)

apoc06 (853263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15489218)

he sounds like he doesnt currently own a console. if you get a next generation system and you didnt have the previous version, you are free to buy lots of great older titles for cheap, in addition to the new releases.

if you had an xbox last gen, maybe he feels like he missed out on a lot of sony exclusives. no one except the hardcore gamers truly have allegiances to any particular console. most users buy each console based on its own merit each generation.

Re:Couldn't care less about backwards compatibilit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15486546)

Except that, at the rate PS2s die off right now, you might not be able to find one a couple years after production stops. It's not going to be like with the NES, where you can find great like-new conditioned decks and the ones that aren't may only require moving the cartridge around a little or new connectors. When Sony lasers decide they're going to go, they go and there's nothing you can do about it.

What about Playstation 1 games? (5, Insightful)

BigDogCH (760290) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481421)

If the ps2 can play ps1 games, would this also mean that the ps3 can play ps1 games.............or not? I mean, if the ps1 features in the ps2 are a seperate chip, then i assume it will be dumped. If they are included in the ps2 electronics, than it should be good to go.

Re:What about Playstation 1 games? (3, Informative)

Silent sound (960334) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481456)

Sony has repeatedly confirmed [gamesindustry.biz] that the PS3 backward compatibility includes PS2 and PS1 games.

Unfortunately, they haven't confirmed this means all PS1 and PS2 games.

They also, keep in mind, haven't confirmed or even commented on the rumors in this article...

Re:What about Playstation 1 games? (1)

PhotoBoy (684898) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481998)

Unfortunately, they haven't confirmed this means all PS1 and PS2 games.


Yes, given the fact the latest slimline PS2 has trouble running Tekken 5 and Resident Evil 2 you have to wonder just how many games will be playable this time.

Re:What about Playstation 1 games? (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482315)

If it's all but a couple, I won't be losing too much sleep wondering about it. They've got a long way to go before they're as bad as the competition. Besides, the point is to keep developers interested in developing for the old platform, not to make gamers who already own a PS2 happy. Backwards compatability is all about continuing to make a profit on the older technology for as long as possible...

Re:What about Playstation 1 games? (1)

assassingod (772022) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481479)

It's for that reason I kept/updated my original PS1 for the sake that in the future I may not be able to play PS1 games on the latest Playstation Console. Using a PS2 is so hit-and-miss that i'd rather not risk never playing some of my favourite games again. Even if the PS3 did have PS2 hardware inside, and even if it was able to play PS1 games, I still wouldn't bother.

Re:What about Playstation 1 games? (1)

BigDogCH (760290) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481992)

I am keeping my ps1 as well, but it would be nice to have the backwards compatability. It is my biggest reason for buying a ps2 instead of an xbox, this summer.

Re:What about Playstation 1 games? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15484996)

Backward compatibility of PS1 in PS2 was achieved by using the PS1 processor as the I/O controller for the PS2. Compatibility was just a matter of running the PS1 games on the right chip.

It might be funny if they used the PS2 chipset for the PS3's I/O controller. You would have an I/O controller inside an I/O controller.

Um.... (4, Insightful)

Silent sound (960334) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481427)

Responding to an inquiry by Gamasutra regarding the validity of these claims, a SCEA U.S. representative responded: "At this time, that news from IGN is just speculation, and Sony has no official comment at this time. However, we will be sending out more concrete information regarding the hardware in the near future."
So... when you say "Sony addresses PS2 in PS3 rumour",

What you really mean is "Sony doesn't address PS2 in PS3 rumour", right?

Re:Um.... (1)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481664)

Exactly, this is Sony (home of the emotion engine). They are a just a few months from relese. This is the time-frame when they tell you how thier product will replace the PC, be fater than the top super computers, will clean your house for you, etc, etc, etc. Only after they have built up enough unfounded hype around the product will they want to release the disappointing actual specs and benchmarks.

Re:Um.... (1)

oc255 (218044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481686)

Well they addressed it, just not with much evidence. "It's a rumor", so sayeth us.

As much as all this bad news about the PS3 is floating around (rumors, questions, bad local memory performance, high price), it actually could speak a lot to the size of the iteration. A real jump to next-gen should be difficult with news sites covering rumors, fake demos and no real product finalized because they are doing so much work. That's a bit of a waffle (#) because you could do something easy and not deliver it...

However, I believe getting 7 cores to sing on Linux is pretty hard. I can't argue against what MS has done with the 360, but I don't think the 360 ever had the cell design where you could assign different cells different functionality per game. This might be all hype... time will tell.

Cheaper? (2, Informative)

SirBruce (679714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481430)

It took me a while to figure out what the writer meant. He doesn't mean including PS2 hardware in the PS3 now would make the price come down; he meant that in the future, when they can REMOVE the PS2 hardware from the PS3, THAT would make the price come down.

Bruce

Re:Cheaper? (1)

fastgood (714723) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481651)

they can REMOVE the PS2 hardware from the PS3, THAT would make the price come down.

Maybe Sony can REMOVE BluRay initially for a $399 model with no optical technology. A few months later
a person could buy an external drive for, say, a fifty dollar penalty over the top tier. Think of it as an installment
purchase plan ... you can still be the first on your block and have one at midnight the very day they go on sale!

Re:Cheaper? (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 8 years ago | (#15483284)

he meant that in the future, when they can REMOVE the PS2 hardware from the PS3, THAT would make the price come down.

It would make the cost of parts needed to assemble a PS3 go down by $50 or whatever it costs Sony to fabricate the PS2 chipset, but the costs involved with developing a software emulator capable of running all (or even just most) PS2 games on the PS3 would be ENORMOUS, if it's even possible.

Its part true (3, Interesting)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481440)

I was reading an interview recently with a Sony employee discussing that they need to include some of the PS2's hardware in the PS3 to handle strange timing issues for things that really shouldn't be done with a PS2 but are done by programmers nonetheless. That said, the majority of the PS2's work can be emulated with a cell processor, he claimed.

This is not equivalent to including an entire PS2 on a chip (but at $700, they could almost afford to).

Re:Its part true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15481637)

$700?

Good grief - $500 (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482123)

I know it's popular to utterly ignore the inconvienient fact that the base PS3 is in fact $500 (and can play games at up to 1080p and movies at 1080i over a component cable), but to just tack on a further $100 on top of that out of thin air is just madness.

It's not even like the more expensive model (which there is no reason for a gamer to even buy) is $699 - no, that model is $600. And again the base model is $500, not $599.

Yes we know Sony broke into your house and ate your puppies. But at least get the facts straight before you turn up the flame.

Re:Good grief - $500 (1)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482189)

Me thinks you need to check your Sony fanboyism at the door. AC was makeing a joke. At your expense none-the-less aparently.

Not a well done joke then (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482250)

Not a very clear joke, and the internet is rife with people proclaiming the PS3 is $600 as it is.

I still don't know if I'm getting a PS3, I'm probably getting a Wii. I just hate disinformation. Since when is posting an accurate correction to pricing details an instance of fanboyism? Is it the case that I don't throw myself on the sword of the Wii or 360 with every word that I am automatically chained to Sony mind and soul? Can someone not be a roice of reason admist the chaos that is the console wars without being automatically assigned to a camp?

Re:Not a well done joke then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15483451)

I think Scooby Dooby Doo has a 'Roice of Reason'

1080i vs. 540p (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482233)

but to just tack on a further $100 on top of that out of thin air is just madness.

Notice the .ca in MikeBabcock's signature. Canadian dollars are worth less than United States dollars.

the base PS3 is in fact $500 (and can play games at up to 1080p and movies at 1080i over a component cable)

No, the movies with ICT will be played at 540p. There is a difference between 1080i and 540p: The 1080i format has 1920 pixels across, and the image can vary a bit from field to field (at a slight cost in flicker unless your set deinterlaces the image). The 540p format, on the other hand, has only 960 pixels across, and the image is the same in both fields.

Re:1080i vs. 540p (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482503)

Notice the .ca in MikeBabcock's signature. Canadian dollars are worth less than United States dollars.

You and the other responder can fight it out between oyu between the post being a joke or in units that were mistakening not marked as Canadian dollars.

No, the movies with ICT will be played at 540p

Which there will never be any (movies with ICT flags) if people only buy players without HDMI support... which includes the $500 PS3.

That's why it's a far better idea to buy the $500 model than the $600 model, as in increases marketshare of players that cannot use the flag. With enough people buying movies they will not enable this flag, and as we have read on SLashdot previously there is an unofficial agreement between all the studios not to use the flag until 2010 - which makes sense since the percentgae of HDTV units in the market today (not being sold, the ones already in peoples homes) do not support HDMI either.

The rest of your post discussing lower resolutions is rather irrelevant given the context of the market, however I'll note that even that is superior to DVD resolutions.

Re:1080i vs. 540p (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487165)

You and the other responder can fight it out between you between the post being a joke or in units that were mistakening not marked as Canadian dollars.

For the record, I was cracking a joke and being accurate about canadian pricing. I can go buy a PS2 right now for about $150 so I figure the actual hardware costs are probably well under $100 for Sony. So why not release a third PS3? For an extra $100, they actually do include a full PS2 on-board :-).

(also a joke).

I'm quite positive the PS3 will have a great launch and will have lots of fun games to play and that I'll want one desperately to enjoy on my HDTV ... and that I won't be able to afford one for at least a year or two after launch (much like the PS2 anyway).

For the sake of the pricing nazis though, here's IGN's PS3 announcement [ign.com] :
Canadian Prices will be set at $549 ($493 U.S.) and $659 ($592 U.S.).

Re:Good grief - $500 (1)

sdhankin (213671) | more than 8 years ago | (#15483128)

Just out of curiosity, how likely do you think it is that EB Games/Gamestop and friends will suddenly abandon their reprehensible practice of only selling new consoles in bundles? What do you think your chances are of getting the high-end version for $600 if that's what you want?

If anything pounds the final nail in the coffin of the PS3, it'll be greedy retailers who won't let you get out of the store until you've given them $700-800 for a $600 console plus a bunch of stuff you didn't really want. Nothing would encourage me to wait for a price drop more than only being able to get a PS3 in a bundle.

Greed pisses me off.

Not everyone bundles... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15483366)

Bundling is pretty annoying I'll grant you, but even around the 360 launch not everyone was bundling. There are still options to get just the console...

Of course, you really are going to want to buy a game or two - so if a bundle is for the console plus two games (that I get to choose out of any availiable) then I don't mind so much. If they start talking forced games, or really needless extras then I have a problem!

I'm curious to see what will happen around the Wii launch, how many unit's they'll have and if there will be a rush.

Re:Good grief - $500 (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 8 years ago | (#15483914)

If you read my message history you'll find I'm a pretty big PS2 fan. I don't care about Sony one way or the other, but I do defend the SCEA for making good decisions that benefit gamers in general.

The PS2 is the first console gaming system that convinced me to buy something other than a PC for gaming.

Also, the PS3 is $600 here, but I'm not in the USA, I'm in Canada and that's canadian dollars.

Re:Good grief - $500 (1)

jclast (888957) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487737)

The version I'm eventually interested in is going to retail for $600 to start. Why? I want HDMI so that when movie companies start crippling playback over component cables, I can still watch movies in HD.

I also don't want to have to upgrade my console. The $500 version comes with a smaller hard drive and lack of peripheral support (no memory stick, SD card, compact flash card), and no wi-fi support. Why would I pay a mere $100 less for the crippled version of a console?

How long... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488922)

The version I'm eventually interested in is going to retail for $600 to start. Why? I want HDMI so that when movie companies start crippling playback over component cables, I can still watch movies in HD.

If you want to hedge your bets like that, buy a display that accepts HDMI (almost impossible to do otherwise anyway). But since there is an agreement to not enable the ICT flag until 2010 or so, why not simply buy the cheaper console now, and buy the HDMI version in four or five years if in fact they ever turn it on?

Even if you don't believe in the agreement you have to admit the sheer number of non-HDMI ready HDTV units in the market today pretty much dictate that we'll not see that flag enabled for four to five years just because of loss of market any such movie would have.

Buying an HDMI model in a few years makes sense anyway because you'll pay less of a premium for it, and get an updated model (think of like the slim PS2 they introduced a few years ago). Then you can sell the old one.

This is not one of those stupid impractical boycotts. You can have a console now, use it for many years and possibly forever without needing to upgrade. Why spend $100 now so that in five years you're not buying another console? Why support DRM when you've been given such a golden chance to reject a small and very onerous aspect of it? If you buy an HDMI model when you had a chance to do otherwise AND it saved you money in the process, then you absolutey forfiet any right to complain about any DRM that comes your way in the future, no matter how restrictive.

The people that know better should also ACT better. We as consumers are forming the future we have to live in later, we as technical consumer have the duty to drive that future to be a better one where possible. You've been given a chance, act on it.

Here's An Idea! (3, Funny)

IAmSwiftness (980193) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481481)

June 6th, 2006 - Today, in a landmark announcement that will send gamers everywhere into cheers of joy, Sony has announced that, in order to keep costs down on their new PS3 gaming console while still maintaining backwards compatibility, the company will now begin allowing consumers whose PS2s ceased to functioning due to cheaply made optical disc drives to trade in their utterly useless, junk PS2s for a full reimbursement of its original purchase price. Sony plans on using the broken PS2s for spare parts to use for backwards compatibilty in the new, outrageously expensive PS3 console.

Oh . . . how I wish . . .

My old PS2 lies in the basement in a pile of ruins . . . full of hatred at its creators from Sony who created it only to live such a wretched, miserable life, with only faded memories of its past glory rendering fights in Onimusha 2 to give it solice . . .

Re:Here's An Idea! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15481866)

This is actually what frustrates me the most about the PS3's $600 price point; in my experience both the Playstation and PS2 were crappy pieces of hardware that had life-spans in the 18-24 month range (with several dying after a year), of all the PS2 owners I know (around 15 people give or take a couple) and I can't think of any who haven't replaced their PS2 at least once. I recognize that this is not statistically significant, but (at least based on people's impressions online) may not be all that unusual.

The thing that annoys me with the price is whether you want to be the guy who spends $600 on the PS3 and then has to replace it in 6-12 months because of a Disc-Read error? Seriously, at $600 I want a 2-5 year waranty on all manufacturing defects not the shitty 3 months that Sony normally gives.

Re:Here's An Idea! (4, Interesting)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482017)

too true... I'm on my 2nd PS2. I know about 15 or so people with them and not a one of them is still on their first. Some of the more heavy players have even had to replace it 2 or 3 times. The worst part is that I barely even play mine... I own about 5 games total, and in general once I finish a game I don't ever play it again (at least none of my PS2 games). I don't even play DVDs on it yet the thing still died and when the ONE game I was waiting for came out I had to buy a new one... I also have a launch N64, a near launch Dreamcast, a near launch Xbox 1, a near launch Gamecube, and a launch Xbox 360 and NONE of them have given me any grief..
... My PS1 was replaced 3 times. I also had a Sony Trinitron Monitor that died completely after 6 months. $500-$600 is bad enough but without a lifetime guarantee that's a pretty big pill to swallow with the Sony experiences I've had.

Re:Here's An Idea! (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482381)

I'm on my second too. I needed one for the bedroom.

The first one (from release day) still works perfectly with well over 2500 hours of play time on it.

Out of the few dozen people I know with PS2s, only three have had to replace their first one... The funny thing is, all three of those people broke their second ones, and two broke the third one...

PS2s are no more fragile than CD players, Xboxes, DVD players, etc... Some of it is luck, some is that some versions of the hardware have known flaws, and some is that people are careless slobs. The fact of the matter is, though, that eventually things with moving parts wear out.

Re:Here's An Idea! (1)

IsoRashi (556454) | more than 8 years ago | (#15483129)

I bought a refurbed PS1 in '97 to play Final Fantasy VII. I ended up buying a lot more games and using it, without any problems, until 2002. The PS1 was only retired because I finally bought a refurbed PS2; I gave the old PS1 to my roommate's girlfriend. I don't think she uses it anymore, but it was in working condition when I gave it to her. Until late last year, that PS2 served as my console and also as a dvd player and cd player--I had a decent set of speakers but had never invested in separate players. (Finally went out and bought a dvd player that could read divx files so I could watch fansubs on the tv.) In fact, my roommate still uses the PS2 to play dvds because (for whatever reason) he can't be bothered to "figure out" the dvd player.

Just wanted to share... for every horror story, I'm sure there's another person who had a positive experience with little to no complaints. Oh, one of my good friends also has a PS2 from when they first came out and his works perfectly fine still. Just lucky, I guess.

Re:Here's An Idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15483204)

While I agree that for every first generation PS2 that failed, there were several that worked perfectly fine, your story does have an interesting note in it: Both of your long-lived playstations were refurbished. This means that for your two good experiences, two other people had to send their units back to the factory for whatever reasons...

Re:Here's An Idea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15489071)

Well I have just got a sony trinitron monitor with a scratch on the glass about one pixel wide and 30 tall... I hope it doesn't implode on me!

Just one question... (2, Insightful)

SimpleBinary (976656) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481609)

If you have PS2 games, that means that you have a PS2 machine...so why do you need the PS3 to be backwards compatible? Are we just to lazy to disconnect the PS3 to hook the PS2 back up?

Re:Just one question... (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481801)

This is indeed a good point, but there are the reasons like giving the PS2 to some younger (or older...) relative or outright selling it for $ 100 or so. Hardware failure is another reason. A third reason is to be able to advertise a complete and varied set of games directly at the debut of the machine, and for the store clerks to be able to tell clueless buyers that any Playstation game will work. It simply turns out that backcompat is popular. Actual usage is irrelevant.

Re:Just one question... (3, Interesting)

VendingMenace (613279) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481820)

consider this...

I do not own a PS2. Let us assume that I buy a PS3 sometime down the road. Now, I might just wish to play some PS2 games that I enjoyed playing at me friends house, but that I never owned. Backwards compatability allows me to do that.

I think that is a good reason.

I know LOTS of people that never had a PSone, but now own lots of PSone games, becuase they bought a PS2 and could play them on it. I mean seriously, if you never owned a PSone, but have a PS2, there is absolutlely NO reason why you should not have at least Castlevania: symphony of the night and Super puzzle fighter. Granted, there are other games, but those two in particular are must-haves.

Hopefully that answers your question :)

Re:Just one question... (1)

Carrot007 (37198) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482589)

Maybve because to play ps1 games on the p2 i need the impossible to find ps1 memory card?

I ended up buying a ps1 +6 mem cards + games for less that a new ps1 memory card (hard to find) on ebay.

So I ended up playing the ps1 games on my new ps1 anyway!

Re:Just one question... (1)

VendingMenace (613279) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482940)

i just looked at ebay and I saw 13 pages of ps one memory card listings that have been completed since may 22 -- not a single one went for more than $8, most were around $3.

am I missing something (i am a total ebay newb, as it turns out)

Re:Just one question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15482957)

Personally, I haven't had any trouble finding a PS1 memory card for $20.00 or so at my local gamestore any time I needed one. Sure it's used, but it still works and I haven't had any problems.

Re:Just one question... (1)

Grave (8234) | more than 8 years ago | (#15484728)

You should consider getting out more... game stores have PS1 memory cards. Ebay isn't the only (or even best) place for used gaming purchases.

Re:Just one question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15481913)

Well, some of us aren't virgins in our 30's (or above in some cases) -- we've come to realize that, to most of the opposite sex, amassing a pile of old consoles in your room isn't in any way cool, or even mildly endearing. In fact it rates only slightly below getting shot in the face as an ice-breaker at parties.

Re:Just one question... (1)

TemporalBeing (803363) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482362)

If you have PS2 games, that means that you have a PS2 machine...so why...


I, for one, do not own a PS2; however, I do own 1 8MB PS2 Memory Card, and 2 PS2 games that I use a friend's houses. I was considering getting a PS3 (that is until they announced the price and I deemed it to be way too much) to play those games and the PS3 games (if I got any) and to play DVD and BD-DVD movies. I had no intention of buying a PS2, but I might have gotten a PS3.

Now, however, I may either trade away my PS2 stuff - to get GameCube or Wii equivalents, for what I care about (really only one of the two games, I could junk the rest or give it away) - or if the PS2 becomes cheap enough, then I might buy a PS2 instead of the PS3 - however, at present I am leaning towards trading away the PS2 stuff. (I haven't decided yet.)

In summary, it would give them a larger market. Why has Microsoft made such a killing with Windows? Because every version of Windows is basically backwards compatible to most of their previous offerings (including DOS). So people see purchasing software for Windows as more of an investment that they would be able to continue using into the future, even as Windows changes. (Compared to Unix/Mac/etc where most software has to be replaced for major, and sometimes minor, upgrades of the OS. Even Linux has that occassionally, though the Linux guys have been good at keeping it to major version; however, the major versions go a lot longer than Microsoft does with Windows.)

Re:Just one question... (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15483193)

I have been a gamer all my life. I currently have an NES, Super NES, N64, Gamecube, Genesis, Dreamcast, and PS2. Having all of these machines hooked up at the same time requires a lot of space, as well as a lot of extra connectors and power strips. Backwards compatability reduces a lot of clutter. (It also allowed me to get some PS1 games that I would have never played otherwise.)

PS4 To Include PS3 Hardware? (2, Interesting)

The_Real_Quaid (892126) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481844)

This is no surprise, the PS2 architecture is wild enough on its own, but then compared to PS3 the architectures are worlds apart. It's going to be a tricky task to emulate PS2 in software mode. M$ is having a similar problem with Xbox being so different from X360, and PS2 -> PS3 is much more complicated.

They will probably need to keep PS2 hardware in there forever. Then it makes me wonder, if PS4 has a radically different architecture from PS3, will they need to keep PS3 hardware inside, and how will that affect costs? PS3 is already expensive, how much will PS4 cost, $1200?

It looks like Wii has the best solution, with it being a scaled up GameCube architecture.

Sony expects PS3 to last 10 years, but you know M$ and Nintendo will want to push their next consoles out around 2010. I expect this generation will last 4 years, not 5 like the previous generations. Technology is advancing faster than ever before, and market diversification leads to quicker updates.

I'd hate to say it.... (1)

j2crux (969051) | more than 8 years ago | (#15481916)

I'd hate to say it, but wouldn't that raise the price, not reduce it?
or do i not get my econ classes?

I like X360's backwards compatibility method (0, Offtopic)

PhotoBoy (684898) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482069)

While I am very critical of MS for basically ignoring the backwards compatibility on the X360 since launch, I must admit I really like the way it upscales all games to 720p. If you look at games like Ninja Gaiden on the X360 the graphics look almost next gen thanks to a bit of anti-aliasing and upping the res.

I was very disappointed in the PS2's backwards compatibility of the PS1, it allegedly smoothed textures but I couldn't see any difference really. I wanted something more like the PC emulators of the PS1 which run games in a higher res with a smoother frame rate (where possible) and with filtering on all the textures. It couldn't do anything about the horrid warping and tearing of polys but that was a flaw in the design of the PS1.

I find PS2 games very blurry, jerky and low-res these days, an emulator on the PS3 that runs Shadow of the Colossus in HD at a stable frame rate would be worth the exorbitant price of the PS3 IMHO.

Re:I like X360's backwards compatibility method (1)

aesiamun (862627) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482599)

They've created patches for over 200 games for back compat. I wouldn't necessarily call that "ignoring backwards compatibility"...

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/backwardcompatibil itygameslist.htm [xbox.com]

But you're right...720p is great for KOTOR :)

Re:I like X360's backwards compatibility method (1)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#15487071)

What? Have you _played_ KOTOR on the 360? I have. The game takes a two second pause about once or twice every minute, which can be a bit of a bother in a fight. It also crashes once every few hours, sometimes either the sound or the animations dissapear, there are huge issues with stuttering in the cutscenes, etc.. Overall, playing KOTOR, KOTOR 2 or Jade on the 360 is a very frustrating experience. The backwards compatibility of the 360 is a _joke_.

And the low polycounts and lowres textures of KOTOR mean that the graphical difference isn't that big, either.

Re:I like X360's backwards compatibility method (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15483239)

I find PS2 games very blurry, jerky and low-res these days, an emulator on the PS3 that runs Shadow of the Colossus in HD at a stable frame rate would be worth the exorbitant price of the PS3 IMHO.

Yeah, that would be nice. The graphics in that game are really good, but the PS2 is slightly less powerful than what (IMO) it needs.

Reading your post made me think about the Wii. With the two consoles reportedly having similar architectures, I wonder if the emulation will allow better graphics/framerate as well.

Re:I like X360's backwards compatibility method (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15483757)

Whoever fucking moderated this off-topic is a fucking moron who didn't bother to read it.

Didn't they get the PS2 down to a single chip? (3, Interesting)

arthurh3535 (447288) | more than 8 years ago | (#15482311)

I could have sworn that they had the PS2 down to a single chip quite a ways back (and the PS1 as a section on that chip.)
 
So this might be a non-news issues.

Re:Didn't they get the PS2 down to a single chip? (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15483268)

I haven't seen anything like you claim, so I can't really comment on that. However, I remember the PS1 being shrunk down to one chip for the PS2.

Re:Didn't they get the PS2 down to a single chip? (1)

Frenchy_2001 (659163) | more than 8 years ago | (#15484341)

I could have sworn that they had the PS2 down to a single chip quite a ways back (and the PS1 as a section on that chip.)

They did. They called the respin around that chip the PSTwo.
Sony did this on the PS1->PSOne-> included in PS2 and is doing it again this generation (PS2->PSTwo->included in PS3).

Backward compatibility was a big factor in the PS2 success and they will not drop it easily (especially after the MS fiasco).

Fast forward (1)

mypalmike (454265) | more than 8 years ago | (#15483598)

But I have to get through level 12 to play level 13 where the giant pretty monster of death awaits, and that's supposed to be the coolest thing ever. Excuse me, I bought the game. I'd like to go directly to the pretty monster of death.

Let me guess, you fast-forwarded through "Citizen Kane" just to see the sled at the end that everyone talks about. Because all that middle stuff is so boring.

Why do you think the slimline PS2 was created? (1)

IroygbivU (534043) | more than 8 years ago | (#15484390)

Everyone who has purchased a slimline PS2 is essentially a beta tester for Sony's efforts to reduce the entire PS2 hardware down to one chip that they will eventually be able to put into every PS3. The first few generations of slimline PS2s had major compatibility problems even with new PS2 games. These bugs are being fixed with each iteration and by the time the PS3 hardware makes its debut they should mostly be ironed out. Smart business practice!

It better emulate PS2 better than PS2 emulated PS1 (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 8 years ago | (#15484557)

The PS2 did a fair job for emulating PS1 games, but it still failed overall. Example: When playing The X-Files on PS1, the game runs as it should. On PS2, the PS2 fucks up the interface so you can't move the cursor or anything.

"Only 10.5M transistors"... it's a non-issue (1)

WoTG (610710) | more than 8 years ago | (#15485006)

I suspect that Sony will keep the hardware PS2 for "emulation" for the life of the PS3. According to my 2 minutes of research, the Emotion Engine "only" has 10.5 million transistors (at least that's what the wikipedia emotion engine [wikipedia.org] page states. This is less than the # of transistors in a single SPE of the PS3's Cell. The Cell processor has 7 SPE's, plus the PowerPC core, and an 8th disabled or "spare" SPE. Again, the wiki link [wikipedia.org] .

Assuming that both transitor counts are comparable and reasonably accurate, I don't see this being a problem in the long run. The "emulation" waste ratio looks like less than 10%, which I'm guessing is comparable to the PS1 in the PS2. Since Sony has a history of providing backwards compatibility, a few more bucks on a separate chip today and a bit of wasted wafer space in the future (after integration into a single chip), I think that a hardware emulator is the way it will be.

Re:"Only 10.5M transistors"... it's a non-issue (1)

davFr (679391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15486189)

Additionaly, the complete PS2 hardware could also be integrated in a single chip, and then the price would be tide very low. The PS2 functions can certainly use the same DRAM as the PS3, and several functions could be shared this way.

Furthermore, the PS2 hardware could also be integrated in the same chip as one of Cell's chipset. So the price jump would be ~ZERO (just a problem of chip per waffer, and production yield).

10.5M transistors (if true) is less than 3M ASIC Gates (the real unit in the EDA industry), and I can tell you it's not large at all. But it is all about speculation, as the article doesn't have any clue to support its piece of speculative fiction. So why is this news published in Slashdot, really ?

Opens door for backward-compatible Xbox 360 (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 8 years ago | (#15488727)

This gave me a great idea. I can market a TRULY backwards compatible Xbox 360. All I need is a 360, an original Xbox, and some duct tape. I'll be RICH, I tell's ya!

-Eric

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>