PS3 to Launch in Europe with Limited PS2 Backwards Compatibility

The PS2 hardware (EE+GS) found in the US and JP PS3s won't be in the EU PS3s (and probably some NA and JP PS3s not long after that), so Sony will be going for software emulation of all titles. This allows for less compatibility of course. How much less won't be known for another couple of weeks I guess:
http://www.scee.presscentre.com/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=4331&NewsAreaID=2

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4793&Itemid=2

 

This was the original plan for the PS3, so it was going to happen eventually; this does seem a little too early IMO though. Without knowing for sure how limited the BC is, it is hard to say how big of a deal this is. Given their comments, it certainly doesn't sound very good. You'd think they would say something like "slightly less", "almost on par", or something like that if it wasn't a big deal. Then again, Sony seems to have high standards for BC (check out their BC page for PS2 and PS1 games on the PS3), so I guess limited BC could range anywhere from 70%-90% or so. Or it could be less than 50%. Hopefully not less than 10%.

In the long run, it will be nice for both Sony (really nice cost savings here) and consumers, assuming Sony does continue to update the BC with firmware updates (particularly if they can add some enhancements...maybe IGN was right about GoW 2 being in 720p on the PS3 ). Not sure how it will work exactly, but it will be interesting to see how those with a launch PS3 will be able to play PS2 games once this revision is used with US PS3s. It would be nice if you could have the option of using hardware or software emulation (if there weren't any enhancements, you probably wouldn't want software emulation of course).

I will say that this move came at a pretty bad time, something Sony seems to be getting pretty good at.

 

What fiasco was that?

I don't recall what every PR guy at Sony said about BC, but software emulation has been in the works with the PS3 for a long time. Technically, they've already started using it since PS1 emulation is software-only; I think the later PS2 revisions might have used software emulation too (I recall them replacing the IO chip, which was the PS1 chip). The issue isn't with software emulation. That is great, and the much-preferable method of doing emulation. The problem is having limited backwards compatibility (like 10%-20%, or something like that) due to the decision to go with software emulation.

If they can end up with a decent level of compatibility (say 70% or so I guess), then there's really not much comparison. I'm afraid that this won't be the case though, given the comments. But I'll wait to find out for sure.

 

Are you talking about when Peter Dille (IIRC) mixed up MotorStorm with GTHD at CES (or something stupid like that, can't remember)? Talking about it being 1080p/60 FPS and stuff like that?

That's the first and only time I've ever heard of MotorStorm supporting 1080p...and it came after the game was already complete and on store shelves (in Japan anyway).

Wonder if there will be a Lair 1080p fiasco too...

Again, I don't think the point was whether the emulation was hardware or software based. The point was whether the BC was at an acceptable level. I don't recall exactly what Sony said about MS and their BC, but I'm guessing they would have said something about MS failing to give gamers proper BC (which, in this case, could have been provided had they put in hardware to emulate the Xbox).

They basically did what they said MS should have done. Sony planned on using software emulation (just like MS), but since it wasn't up to par, they decided to put in some hardware to emulate the PS2 to get 98% BC (or whatever). So the reason they promoted this move was to show how much they cared about giving gamers proper BC, unlike MS. Here's an IGN article here about that if you missed it the first time around:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/711/711242p1.html

Now this is all kind of a moot point since it seems like they'll be using software emulation that may not be ready to allow for "proper" BC (IOW, they may be providing the same crappy BC they criticized MS about). That's what I'd be criticizing Sony about...and I probably will once I learn more about this issue (I probably care about this more than the average gamer). Good idea to make this info public after the PS3 launches in Europe. I'm sure would-be PS3 owners there just love that idea.

 

This is 100% influenced by costs reductions I'm sure (not sure how much sales really have to do with it). The EE+GS (plus 32MB of RAM) in the PS3 is probably costing Sony around $30-$50 (maybe even more when you consider these make up the bulk of the costs for the PS2) just for the chip itself. The only function of this chip is to provide a hardware-based solution for BC (unlike the PS1 chip in the PS2, which doubled as the IO processor...though even that was replaced). Obviously, if Sony has a software-based solution that can offer a similar quality of BC, then there's no need for the hardware and Sony would like to get rid of that ASAP.

I'm curious to see if these PS3s for Europe will also include the 65nm Cell CPUs. Might make a little more sense in that case (two revisions in one).

I was referring to Sony's inclusion of the PS2 hardware when I said "this move," not what they're doing now. Adding $30-$50 in costs (or more) to get 90+% compatibility as opposed to say 10% compatibility if they went with software from the beginning. In that regard, they seemed to "care" more.

Now that they appear to be limiting BC with PS2, they're doing pretty much exactly what they criticized MS of doing (as you said). They don't seem quite as caring anymore.

There would be little point in not going this route in the future for the US systems. I suppose Europe could be sort of like an experiment, but it would be in Sony's best interest to get just one revision of hardware (preferably the cheapest), and manufacture that to be sold around the world. It would be difficult to manufacture and manage PS3s with the EE+GS, and PS3s without them (as well any other differences between them, if there are any...perhaps more along the lines of firmware I guess).

I wouldn't doubt it if we got the PS3s before the end of the year (perhaps even in the months following the EU launch). I was actually guessing that this would happen before the end of the year, although at a time where the software emulation would be close to perfect (sounds like it is far from perfect at the moment). I'll wait until I can get more info, but since I'm not getting a PS3 anytime soon, I'll be pretty disappointed if a number of my PS2 games won't play on the PS3. My PS2 won't make it much longer, and I was really looking forward to playing some niche PS2 titles on the PS3.

 

This decision was probably made when sales for the PS3 weren't really bad, or only shortly after things started turning ugly (too soon to make a decision in that case). Revising the hardware, manufacturing the new parts, getting the new firmware ready, etc., takes some time, and I think they've already started shipping PS3s to Europe (maybe even for a couple of weeks by now).

As I said earlier, if these new PS3s contain the 65nm Cell processors, I wonder if Sony decided to make 2 moves at once. That would probably have a larger impact on this move than sales IMO.

If the compatibility is really poor, I also wouldn't quite understand why they just didn't do it from the start, but I don't really think sales had much to do with the decision. Probably a number of other things that would have equal or greater influence on the move IMO.

When you're losing money on every system sold, you're always in a rush to reduce costs ASAP.

Still can't believe they're doing that. I don't know if there are that many Europeans that would only buy a PS3 if it has decent BC, but it can't feel good knowing that you're putting down ~$800 on a system and you don't even know exactly what it can do.

Then again, I forgot that Sony didn't put up BC information on the PS3 until after the launch either. Of course, we didn't have announcements prior to that saying that the PS3 would offer "limited" PS2 BC either (we had 98% BC, not 98% non-BC).

 

Minor update with a correction:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/767/767810p1.html

Given this, I wouldn't think it would be as difficult to provide BC. The GS would probably be the harder of the two to emulate. Cell and the EE are similar in a lot of ways, so hopefully Sony has been able to get good results in emulating the EE with Cell.

It seems like this move wouldn't really reduce costs that much though. Maybe not even reduce costs at all. Unless it is already apart of RSX or something like that (another mystery solved?). BC better be pretty good, or this would all be a pretty stupid move by Sony (extra costs to provide BC, yet those costs could be removed and have a minimal effect on BC).

 

http://www.threespeech.com/

There are ~2500 PS2 titles that were released in Europe (about 1400 in NA if that is relevant), so 40% BC with those titles it seems. Not what I was hoping for exactly, but I guess the amount of games is OK. Obviously, if FF, MGS, DMC, GOW, Ico, etc., are included in that 1000+, while crappy, shovelware games aren't, then I'd be a little more happy with this. Especially if Sony is keeping their usual definition of compatible (20% chance that the screen might flicker in disc two at a save point? Incompatible).