Sony's wants PS2 BC after all.

[A. Snow]

As long as they can charge extra for it.

http://www.1up.com/news/sony-patents--backwards-compatibility-attachment

[ASSEMbler]

YO DAWN I HEARD YOU LIKE PS2 SO I PUT A PS2 IN YOUR PS3, TOOK IT OUT AGAIN AND NOW PUT IT BACK.

[MottZilla]

I hope it's true. Not really that I want it, just because it would be interesting.

[WolverineDK]

Is it okay, to say Fuck you SONY !?

Since to me it is really like they are wanking it first, and then tossing it, anyway it really does irk me in the long. No wonder I buy my "shit" used.

[Borman]

Its a patent. One of tons that they file. People who get their panties in a bunch over a patent are ridiculous.

[1080Peter]

Its a patent. One of tons that they file. People who get their panties in a bunch over a patent are ridiculous.

This.

However, kudos to bringing this news up. At least we won't be so taken by surprise with whatever Sony decides to do with the BC...


EDIT: Err, I just saw the article. Well, I'll wait until further notice. :X

[DPyro]

Just wait for the PCSX2 port which does actual up-scaling and forget about Sony's lame emulators.

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/2125/ffx.jpg

[A. Snow]

Truth be told I would rather have a PSP attachment.

[ServiceGames]

WTF would the point be? Seriously it would just be a PS2 with no drive that attaches to your tv through the PS3... At this point you would be a moron if you didn't just buy a PS2 instead.

[la-li-lu-le-lo]

I would buy it for the simple reason that even if you connect a PS2 to an HDTV via component it still looks like shit. Sure, you can use an emulator like PCSX2, but it probably won't be as accurate as an official Sony emulator - especially if it uses real PS2 hardware as that patent suggests. But as Borman pointed out, it's just a patent, so I'm not going to get my hopes up.

[CRTGAMER]

WTF would the point be? Seriously it would just be a PS2 with no drive that attaches to your tv through the PS3... At this point you would be a moron if you didn't just buy a PS2 instead.
THIS. Then combine with in HDAdvance/HDLoader.

[APE]

Didn't Sony mock Microsoft for not having complete backwards compatibility at launch for the 360? And wasn't rumble sooo last gen? And wasn't the PS3 due to have dual HDMI 1080p outputs? And weren't multiple SKUs going to confuse the consumer?

Oh wait...

[subbie]

Just wait for the PCSX2 port which does actual up-scaling and forget about Sony's lame emulators.

I'm sorry but that emu will never ever be in a good enough state to really use on a PS3. No coder is really going to dedicate the amount of time it would take to rewrite a emu from scratch to fully use the SPUs. A straight up port of PCSX2 will run like dog****.

[Hellcat]

Mooh?

Of course Sony wants PS2 BC.... but not as long as the original PS2 still sells! (consoles and games)

[MottZilla]

I'm sorry but that emu will never ever be in a good enough state to really use on a PS3. No coder is really going to dedicate the amount of time it would take to rewrite a emu from scratch to fully use the SPUs. A straight up port of PCSX2 will run like dog****.

Exactly. Without some sort of hardware solution you will never have very good BC with PS2 on PS3. The PS3 is powerful sure, but emulating complex machines well is extremely demanding. Just look at BSNES. It's still not perfect, but as close as you will get on an emulator. And it's requirements are a far cry from what people thought was the norm of ZSNES/SNES9X needing something like a Pentium II.

While it is just a patent, it does suggest their intent to do something.

[karsten]

it loks too cumbersome to be true...

Talking about the emulation, i'm sure that Sony could do it if they really wished to. PCSX2, no matter how much i like it on pc, won't run on ps3. Figure that it can't even use more than 2 cores on pc! what use would it make of the cell?

[GaijinPunch]

Truth be told I would rather have a PSP attachment.

I'd rather just play Mame and GBA.

[graphique]

Alternatively, Sony could be planning to make a PS3 backward compatibility attachment for the PS4. Or maybe just trying to stop competitors from doing something similar.

[7Force]

So basically, it's a PS2 without a DVD drive that plugs into a PS3? Of course, they could release it separately, make the price higher than a regular PS2's, add Wi-Fi and call it the PS2 Go. What could possibly go wrong?

[graphique]

It's not even that, if you look at the pictures from the patent. It's just a box that plugs into a "new generation game console" to allow backward compatibility. Everything is completely generic, other than that it has a DVD decoder emulator rather than Blu-ray or CD or anything like that.

[Taucias]

I don't get the negativity. Everyone pissed and moaned about the PS3 being so expensive. When they removed the PS2, they dropped the price. Anyone that didn't buy a PS3 with PS2 emulation had their chance. Then everyone whines about the PS2 hardware being removed. If they do end up offering it as a plug in box, surely this is a good thing?

It seems Sony cannot win with most of you guys.

[Treamcaster]

It seems Sony cannot win with most of you guys.

Maybe that's because, and just because the major percentage of the assembler forum members are Sega fanboys...


Maybe that's because, and just because the major percentage of the assembler forum members were Sega fanboys...


Fixed + :confused:

[sayin999]

Well like everyone said it's a patent. And often companies experiment with backward compatbility devices. I know nintendo was doing a survery in which they asked if people would be interested in an attachment for game cube that would allow you to play your 64 games on it and what would you be willing to pay. So I would imagine they had developed a device and decided not to fully go through with it. I'd imagine sony is doing the same and just filing a patent just in case.

[Johnny]

To be honest, i think this is a bad move. Sony could just put some PS2 games on the PlayStation Store as "PS2Classics". God of War Collection and Ico / Shadow of Collosus collection is just that, but on disc and with trophy support.

I bet they can just re-code the games to work as PS3 software, instead of making a PS2 emulator. It could take more time? Probably yes, but it's better than creating an add-on that most people won't get. And i won't even mention the costs of R&D for that add-on.

[MottZilla]

Given how many PS2 games exist, you'll never get them all ported. Plus just as in the old days, lots of projects after going into production have their source files lost or destroyed. I think it's a good idea. Even if every PS3 owner doesn't run out and buy it doesn't mean it can't be viable as a product. Considering how much they already invested in PS2 type hardware I doubt they'd really be throwing that much money at this problem as it can't be that hard. Also they could always sell ISOs (obviously not calling them that) on PSN and just note that it requires you to have the addon to play them.

Sure the 360 has per title backwards compatibility with Xbox 1 but the quality varies. Some games have what I consider to be serious issues which will never be addressed. I'd rather the PS2 be supported by hardware in some fashion.

[7Force]

I don't get the negativity. Everyone pissed and moaned about the PS3 being so expensive. When they removed the PS2, they dropped the price. Anyone that didn't buy a PS3 with PS2 emulation had their chance. Then everyone whines about the PS2 hardware being removed. If they do end up offering it as a plug in box, surely this is a good thing?

It seems Sony cannot win with most of you guys.

The reason why I was pissed that they removed the BC was that it was convenient to have one machine to play both PS2 and PS3 games. If you have to plug in a box that presumably is at least as big as a slim PS2, then that's not very convenient at all.

[Johnny]

Given how many PS2 games exist, you'll never get them all ported. Plus just as in the old days, lots of projects after going into production have their source files lost or destroyed. I think it's a good idea. Even if every PS3 owner doesn't run out and buy it doesn't mean it can't be viable as a product. Considering how much they already invested in PS2 type hardware I doubt they'd really be throwing that much money at this problem as it can't be that hard. Also they could always sell ISOs (obviously not calling them that) on PSN and just note that it requires you to have the addon to play them.

Sure the 360 has per title backwards compatibility with Xbox 1 but the quality varies. Some games have what I consider to be serious issues which will never be addressed. I'd rather the PS2 be supported by hardware in some fashion.

Again, not all PS2 games must be ported. For comparision, lots of great PS1 games aren't avaiable on the PSN to this date.

Santa Monica Studio was making God of War III, and let Blue Point games port God of War / God of War II.

And to be honest if a company destroys / lost the source files of a succesful and profitable game, they should be out of the business.

[Demo]

Is that even possible? I don't think that USB is fast enough for this. =/

[MottZilla]

What are you talking about? USB 2.0 should be plenty fast to transfer the required data. The PS2 DVD access speed is not that high, and the required bitrate for transferring video and audio can't be that much. It might be a problem if we were talking the old USB 1.1 but USB 2.0 should be fine.

[Taucias]

The reason why I was pissed that they removed the BC was that it was convenient to have one machine to play both PS2 and PS3 games. If you have to plug in a box that presumably is at least as big as a slim PS2, then that's not very convenient at all.

But, like I said, you had the chance to buy a PS3 with PS2 hardware. They existed for over a year.

[Twimfy]

I would happily buy this add on. Seems like it would be a pretty cool and unique novelty.

[ServiceGames]

Maybe that's because, and just because the major percentage of the assembler forum members are Sega fanboys...



Fixed + :confused:

That or maybe we're against removing a feature and then selling an add on that adds the same feature for an additional price.. Kinda seems funny that some people are enjoying this feature at admission price, while others would be paying extra for it.

You can suck Sony's cock for all I care, just don't complain later that they're charging you for the pleasure.

[Gaming]

As much as I would love to play PS2 games on my PS3 slim, I feel the only people that would buy this would be those with obsessive compulsion disorders. Seems to me that Sony took one step back on this issue but they did state it would lower the price, either way I'd rather just play PS2 games on my fat PS2.

[CRTGAMER]

What are you talking about? USB 2.0 should be plenty fast to transfer the required data. The PS2 DVD access speed is not that high, and the required bitrate for transferring video and audio can't be that much. It might be a problem if we were talking the old USB 1.1 but USB 2.0 should be fine.
I think internal would be faster.
A hard drive analogy look at HDAdvance vs USBAdvance.

Oh wait a minute, HDAdvance/HDLoader is the best reason to keep the old Fat PS2!

[7Force]

But, like I said, you had the chance to buy a PS3 with PS2 hardware. They existed for over a year.

First of all, they never existed in Europe. Second of all, the PS3 with just the software compatibility was expensive as fuck and there were barely any games back then.

[WanganRunner]

I would rather just use one of my 5 PS2's, thx.

This thing had better be both cheaper and much smaller than a PS2 Slim.

[Taucias]

First of all, they never existed in Europe. Second of all, the PS3 with just the software compatibility was expensive as fuck and there were barely any games back then.

I believe the first European unit had the GPU in it. Correct me if I am wrong.


That or maybe we're against removing a feature and then selling an add on that adds the same feature for an additional price.. Kinda seems funny that some people are enjoying this feature at admission price, while others would be paying extra for it.

You can suck Sony's cock for all I care, just don't complain later that they're charging you for the pleasure.

They removed the BC AND dropped the price. They removed a feature and did not charge for that missing feature. Now, potentially, you can buy that feature for a price. It's really a simple logical thought process. You don't want to pay for it, then don't. If you want it, you pay what early adopters paid.

[Barc0de]

I would pay actual money for such an attachment, up to 70 euros actually, including tax.