Menu Close

Why I Don’t Care About Backwards Compatibility Anymore

Ben-Dutka 30 Comments

Bear with me here.

When I got the PlayStation 3, backwards compatibility was undoubtedly my most-wanted feature at the time. I got the PS3 at launch (which, by the way, I would never have done had it not been for work purposes) and besides Resistance: Fall of Man , there really wasn't anything I wanted. Plus, I still had a bunch of PS2 games I wanted to play and hell, Final Fantasy XII had just arrived. I didn't want to have both the PS2 and PS3 hooked up at the same time; I was basically out of room, what with the Xbox 360 already taking up one spot in the entertainment center.

But as time went on, the last new PS2 games I wanted to play petered out. It didn't take very long, either. Furthermore and more importantly, something else happened- I found I didn't have much desire to go back and play any games in my PS2 collection. While at the same time, I always have the urge to go back and play some of my PS1 titles. …but why? On the surface, it shouldn't make any sense. Obviously, going back and playing old games is dictated entirely by nostalgia, and I'm all sorts of nostalgic over certain PS2 titles. So what's the deal? How is this possible? Why, outside of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and Final Fantasy X , do I just not care about playing my PS2 games?

The answer is clear: Because the PS1 games I want to go back and play – mostly old-school turn-based RPGs – offer experiences I can't really find anymore. Yes, I'm aware I could turn to the PSP at times but I can never fully embrace handheld gaming; it just isn't the same to me. And for whatever reason, the turn-based games I had in my PS2 collection ( Suikoden III , Legaia 2: Duel Saga , etc.), just weren't tweaking my nostalgic heartstrings. Maybe it was the unparalleled glory of Squaresoft in those days, or the fact that even games like Twisted Metal 2 and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night are just lodged in my memory banks as being unapproachable.

Thing is, the PS3 just made a lot of what we had on the PS2 better. It wasn't about creating entirely new gameplay experiences; it was just fine-tuning the 3D action experience even more. So why would I want to play the lesser experiences when the gameplay is virtually the same? And when the PS4 gets here, I see more progression but games should play very much the same way they play now. So in looking forward, what reason will I have to go back and play PS3 games? Why? Will I really want to play Uncharted 3 again after playing Uncharted 4 on the PS4? GT5 after playing GT6? Killzone 3 after playing Killzone 4 ?

I suppose I might want to go back and play Heavy Rain again but beyond that, I can't really think of a game or gameplay style in the PS3 era that won't simply get better in the new generation. That's just how I see it.

Read more →

Report: Backwards Compatibility Returns To PlayStation Via Gaikai

Ben-Dutka 37 Comments

Remember this thing? The "fatty" PlayStation 3? The original 60GB model may have cost $600 at launch, but it played all PS1 titles and most PS2 games.

After that, each successive model cut back on the backwards compatibility (for instance, switching to software emulation, which meant only certain PS2 games would work) and now, the current PS3 doesn't support the PS2 format at all. So how would you like to get full B/C back?

According to GamesIndustry.biz , Sony will announce a cloud gaming deal with Gaikai that will allow current-generation hardware (i.e., the PS3) to play PS2 and PS1 software via a streaming solution. Both first-party and third-party games can then be available. And now it appears that we'll get this announcement during Sony's press conference on Monday at E3, which would be fantastic news for PlayStation fans.

We're not sure yet what other Sony devices will get a Gaikai-supported game streaming service, but it could very well include HDTVs and tablets. We're just wondering what people think of backwards compatibility these days; it's important to many in new machines, but for a system like the PS3 that is aging…? Well, at the very least, it means you don't need extra PlayStation systems hooked up to your entertainment center all the time.

Read more →

Gamers Want Backwards Compatibility In Next-Gen Consoles

Ben-Dutka 42 Comments

Remember when the PlayStation 3 launched with full backwards compatibility? Considering the gigantic size of the PS2 lineup and the very few PS3 titles available, it was a huge deal.

It slowly went away, though. Ensuing models of the machine began cutting down on b/c capabilities until finally, we have the machine that doesn't play PS2 games at all (although it still can play PS1 games). That being said, b/c at the start of any generation is an appreciated feature, and that point was driven home in a GameSpot survey concerning next-generation consoles.

A whopping 83% of those who participated in the survey said backwards compatibility is either "very important" or "somewhat important" when considering a new console purchase. 80% said better graphics were important and perhaps surprisingly, nearly half (49%) said the ability to download full games was a big-time plus. About 32% want "better integration of motion controls." But getting back to the b/c, although 83% want it, only 24% actually expect to see it in next-gen machines.

Well, that's understandable. Neither of the Xboxes have ever been fully backwards compatible, and it cost Sony a big chunk to make the first PS3s b/c with both PS2 and PS1 titles. It was a cost they couldn't wait to drop for the sake of manufacturing costs. After all, it was getting to the point where a lower PS3 price tag was far more important to gamers.

What do you say? Do you want b/c? Me, I just keep a PS2 hooked up…although that may prove problematic when the next generation comes. Having the PS4, PS3, and PS2 hooked up at the same time? Eh…

Read more →

Sony Files Patent For Backwards Compatibility Adapter?

Ben-Dutka 75 Comments

The original 60GB PlayStation 3, which launched back in 2006, was fully backwards compatible; i.e., it would run most all PS1 and PS2 games. It was the last model to be able to do so, as over time, Sony moved to partial compatibility for PS2 titles and eventually, removed the feature entirely.

As of now, no PS3 can play PS2 games (although they can all still play PS1 games). Sony has remained firm on the matter, saying almost from the start that over time, backwards compatibility will be less and less desired by fans. While they may be right about that, the fact remains that many PS3 owners wouldn't mind being able to play PS2 titles on their new system. This is why Japanese message boards have exploded overnight due to a recent patent filed by Sony Computer Entertainment Japan. As you can see, it appears to be an external adapter of some kind, that connects a new generation console to a previous generation console. A schematic for the intriguing device shows that it "has its own processor, a DVD decoder/emulator, sound processor, and graphic processor." This could be very big news for the PlayStation family…and has anyone thought about the idea that it might be an adapter for the PS4? So we can play our PS3 games on the new machine?

Don't forget we'll be entering the fifth year of the PS3's lifespan in 2011 and the last two gaps for PlayStations were five and six years respectively- 1995-2000 for the PS1; 2000-2006 for the PS2. True, they say the PS3 has a 10-year life cycle but that doesn't mean they'll stop selling PS3s when they launch the PS4; the PS2 went strong for three full years after the PS3 arrived, giving it a 10-year lifespan as well. But one final note about b/c, from a personal standpoint-

Even if I had kept my old 60GB PS3, I still would've had a PS2 Slim hooked up all the time, on which I'd play any PS1 and PS2 games. The reason is that no matter how good the emulation was on the PS3, there was always something missing; i.e., sound cut-outs in Castlevania: Symphony of the Night . That's just one example. For me, I really don't care if b/c comes back to the PS3; I'll just always have the PS2 ready to go.

Read more →

Are PlayStation Fans Spoiled?

Ben-Dutka 74 Comments

As far as I was concerned, one of the biggest selling points of the PlayStation 3 was it's backwards compatibility that would allow me to play almost any game I have in my PS1 and PS2 collection. This meant that early on, when the PS3 had little in the way of software, I could still choose from over 100 titles in my current collection, and still continue to play new PS2 games on my PS3. In other words, I'd have no reason to hold on to the PS2 once I upgraded.

However, as we all know, backwards compatibility for PS2 titles was one of the first features to be dropped from Sony's new machine, primarily in the interest of lowering production costs. Now, people complained, but I think they probably complained more about the $600 price tag the system sported at launch in late 2006. Besides, I started to notice that playback wasn't entirely perfect for some of my PS1 and PS2 games, and I actually started to miss my PS2 for older classics in my collection. So I got a silver PS2 Slim, which I've been using ever since. However, since it has become clear that Sony intends to release PS2 classics on the PSN alongside the existing PS1 classics, I've noticed a lot of negative feedback from supposed long-time PlayStation fans.

I understand the question, "why should I have to buy my PS2 games again?" I really do. But I think Sony's been so good to all of us over the years that we've gotten a mite spoiled… What other game console do you know of that's backwards compatible? The PS2 was entirely backwards compatible concerning PS1 games throughout its life so perhaps we all expected the same treatment this generation, but really, who else has ever given you true b/c? The Xbox 360 always had limited b/c due to its software emulation – I couldn't get most of my Xbox games to ever work well, even with the patches – and I'm not exactly seeing all the old Mario and Zelda titles readily available on the Wii. In fact, Nintendo, a pioneer of the industry, has only once delivered b/c, and that's with the Wii, and only goes as far back as the GC, so no Link to the Past and I bet PlayStation fans may want to be able to play Metal Gear Solid on the PS4. I suppose because the PS2 spoiled us we expect things to always remain the same, and I certainly can understand that.

The bottom line is that if you have old games for any other video game system (not counting PC), you need the old console for which it was originally intended. Period. And with the exception of the PS2 and the PS3 for a very short span of time, this hasn't changed. Personally, I just think it's amazing the PS3 even plays PS1 games. True, I need a PS2 hooked up so I can play PS2 games but what else is new? I always need to have my old consoles to play my old games! To denounce Sony for reissuing PS2 games on the Network – which does indeed cost them a little something and oh by the way, they're digital downloads – seems a little like a petulant, spoiled kid freaking out because one day, the teacher didn't give him a lollipop at the start of school. Nobody else ever got that lollipop but the spoiled kid ignored that and threw a tantrum because he was forced to take a step "back" to normalcy.

Read more →