Curious about "PS2 Classics" on PSN ...

[Vosse]

Obviously these games run at their standard res that they were on the PS2 like the "PS1 Classics" Do.

This made me think, "Wait, if PS1 Classics are Emulated,wouldn't this mean that PS2 Classics are emulated too? But I thought all Emulation of PS2 was removed after the first 80GB model?"

Either Sony has achieved full software emulation of the PS2 (and they have to tweak it on a per game basis, or they just don't want to give us the ability to play what we want) Or these are actual ports. But that would beg the question, why not just package them as "HD Remasters"? Would it really take that much effort for the developers to add 16:9 support with properly scaled UI elements?

With the recent Widescreen patching that has become evident lately with PCSX2(with varying degrees of success on a game by game basis), it would beg the question to me. "Couldn't these ;HD remasters; Do something similar to that but re insert the original UI material in an Anamorphic form?(since with these widescreen patches the UI is stretched)"


I am just curious, because if they have indeed achieved software emulation...Why not give it to us to use with our own games?

[HEX1GON]

I am just curious, because if they have indeed achieved software emulation...Why not give it to us to use with our own games?

Reason being if you use your own games SONY won't make 'pocket money' from it, so if you buy a $6 "classic" game you're giving them a little extra. It's all a money grab and nothing else, and I believe all PS2 games that worked on the 80GB model that are available on the PSN Store, are not modified in the slightest way.

[Lum]

There is one change. They blocked sharing save files with PS2 disc versions (in either direction). And weren't even smart enough to use compression!

PS2 classics save to their own game-specific pair of virtual memory cards. That's 17MB per PS2 classic.

[MottZilla]

Ofcourse it is software emulation if they run on all PS3 models. But their emulator may not be in the typical sense. But like many emulators, compatibility and quality will vary from game to game. If you just let people run any game they want, the results on some could be poor or crash, or just very glitchy. If you sell each game, then you've tested each game and maybe fine tuned/fixed bugs. And ofcourse, you make money off it.

Anyway, ofcourse they want to resell you games, Nintendo did it. Then Microsoft so why not Sony? Or Sony may have beat MS to it.

[Vosse]

There is one change. They blocked sharing save files with PS2 disc versions (in either direction). And weren't even smart enough to use compression!

PS2 classics save to their own game-specific pair of virtual memory cards. That's 17MB per PS2 classic.

That's inane!!

If they use their own, then why even give us the ability to create PS2 virtual memory cards on non BC models, to transfer Save data to if it can't be used with the downloadable version?

OH SONY.

Ofcourse it is software emulation if they run on all PS3 models. But their emulator may not be in the typical sense. But like many emulators, compatibility and quality will vary from game to game. If you just let people run any game they want, the results on some could be poor or crash, or just very glitchy. If you sell each game, then you've tested each game and maybe fine tuned/fixed bugs. And ofcourse, you make money off it.

Anyway, ofcourse they want to resell you games, Nintendo did it. Then Microsoft so why not Sony? Or Sony may have beat MS to it.

Yeah, that's what was one option I was considering too. Because if some of us remember, back around the 3.00 days on the PSP when PS1 games were first available,a lot of them had many issues, minor or not. Some didn't work at all. But as revisions were made to Sony's Popsloader , many things would change. And as soon as a game was officially released on the store, you knew that compatibility with the most recent FW revision meant that , that would be the one that would run that game without issue if any existed prior.


Still, I think this is a really crappy move on their part. I'd rather deal with some games not working or having minor issues until it's released as a downloadable title (Which automatically means it should be stable generally) than waiting to see if X publisher/Developer is going to release Y game on the PSN and that i'll have to pay for it.


The difference to me with Nintendo(And with Microsoft, they didn't take away the ability to play physical copies. Or did they? I dunno. I don't keep my 360 up to date and I haven't used XBL since 2006-ish), is that they dont' charge you to download something you already own that can be physically be played on the unit. They don't make you repay for your gamecube games (On GC compatible units) to be able to play them even though you can physically insert the disc. Unlike PS2 games. Which you COULD insert and play on 4 models of the PS3.


You can't physically insert say, an N64 or Genesis/NES/TG16/Etc into a Wii to play them.
Same with the 3DS you can't insert X or Y console into it and play it though they offer a downloadable version. But you CAN insert 99.99% of DS games and play them without issue.

I wish the same could be said of the Vita.

So it's one thing to offer something to download that you already own that isn't physically possible to play the actual media of. But another entirely to offer the ability to play a physical format, and then take it away partially. And then entirely. Just to offer those same games for a nominal fee to play on said console.


As it comes to stand Sony has started to irk me lately.

[angelwolf71885]

whats nice is there are almost 200 million PS2 consoles in the wild for about $50
and about 50 or 60 mill of those are FAT ps2's and with the dealextreame SATA compatible knockoff network adapters
and FMCB we have no worry nor care if SONY of publishers make PS2 classics available

[Vosse]

It's inconvenient though. I've had 2 PS2 Phats since launch and my current one's fan is really loud compared to a PS3. You can't turn it off from the controller like you can with a Ps3 too (Oh so lazy of me! XD)


I've also got a computer capable of running almost every PS2 game on PCSX2 that is compatible. But still,doesn't change that Sony is a bunch of bastards.

[angelwolf71885]

It's inconvenient though. I've had 2 PS2 Phats since launch and my current one's fan is really loud compared to a PS3. You can't turn it off from the controller like you can with a Ps3 too (Oh so lazy of me! XD)


I've also got a computer capable of running almost every PS2 game on PCSX2 that is compatible. But still,doesn't change that Sony is a bunch of bastards.

well you can install a quieter fan into the fat the origanial fan is a 3000 CFM the fan used is a common type 3 lead fan and you can install a 2000 CFM fan
and it be wispier quiet combined with a sata SSD and its a dream

its true sony is a bunch of bastards repacking games in an emulator package and not letting us run or legacy disks

but thats why we can stick it to them with emulators on the PC or drive emulators for origanial hardware :D

[root670]

It's not like they're just going to sell a universal emulator to play all the PS2 games you've already bought. The profit margin would be very low, while selling games individually with their own emulators would yield higher profits. Plus it's much, much easier to bundle a game with an emulator instead of recreating it entirely to be a native PS3 game. I saw a video about the development of the Jak Collection and they mentioned many times that it was considered to be the "impossible port", due to the game's reliance on using the PS2's hardware in obscure ways that were difficult to mimic on the PS3. I guess it's usually not worth the trouble of porting the game just to get higher resolutions, achievements, etc.

[brendand]

I don't really like Downloadable games unless they are roms of unreleased games and homebrew etc.I much rather hold and own a Physical copy if possible simply because you cannot trade or resell downloadable games after you purchase them from PSN or xbox live etc

[Keberasky]

That's inane!!

If they use their own, then why even give us the ability to create PS2 virtual memory cards on non BC models, to transfer Save data to if it can't be used with the downloadable version?

OH SONY.

As I understood it Sony didn't want to mess with the code that handles virtual memory cards and since all PS3 can play PS1 games it stayed with both options are there. Of course that's a typical Sony response. I'd put it up there with the vibration control is last generation, dropping Other OS, and any executive's answer on the PSN breach in terms of stupid responses.

Ultimately I don't think Sony really understands its customers, and it's in trouble business wise so it does what all great businesses do: Milk everything and anything you can out of what's left of your customers.

[Vosse]

*Sigh* that's absolutely true. It's a shame too.

[pool7]

Ultimately I don't think Sony really understands its customers, and it's in trouble business wise so it does what all great businesses do: Milk everything and anything you can out of what's left of your customers.

Trust me, every company understands their customers, and are always aware of what their customers want... they just don't care, since they know they'll keep on selling. If sales would have dropped enough when they removed BC and OtherOS, I'm sure they would have added these back... even if that meant several development days.