I was reading a thread in Marketplace, and instead of hijacking that thread, I thought starting this thread was more appropriate.
It stated in the thread that the first generation of PS3’s were backward compatible, but that feature had been taken out. Is this true? If I went out and bought a PS3, I’d have to either keep my ps2 out and ready to be hooked up to play any ps1 or ps2 games I have, or just get rid of the PS2 and all of the games I’ve amassed over the years?
If true, why? 
Yes, it is true. You had to have one of the earliest models of the PS3 to get backward compatibility.
I think it was not a perfect compatibility and wasn’t worth their effort.
However, I think they can play PsOne games. Am I right about this?
That was the number one reason I bought a 360 instead of a PS3. I still had some PS2 games I wanted to play, and the lack of compatibility was annoying.
I believe Mahaloth is correct about PS1 games, but I haven’t tried.
Because people bitched about the PS3 costing too much.
The earliest PS3s contained an actual PS2 CPU and GPU for backward compatibility, but they removed the CPU to lower production costs. The 80GB PS3 tried to use software-based emulation to make up for the lost CPU, but they could never get it working well. So for the following models they gave up on compatibility and removed the PS2 GPU as well (further lowering costs).
All PS3 models do have PSX emulation, though.
It was an absolutely perfect compatibility, as it basically contained a PS2 inside of it. This is different from the imperfect 360 backwards compatibility, which utilized an emulator you’d have to download for each game (and not every game is on the BC list).
The hardware to get the PS3 backwards compatible costs about $100. Other things that cost $100 - a brand new PS2.
So instead of two consoles (a PS3 and a PS2), you opted for the less annoying option of two consoles (a 360 and a PS2). Gotcha.
He’s probably thinking of the later software/hardware hybrid emulation. A lot of PS2 games wouldn’t work correctly with it.
Ah - I think the 80gb Metal Gear Solid console was emulation.
I’m thinking of Captain Ramius in The Hunt For Red October: ‘When he reached the New World, Cortez burned his ships. As a result his men were well motivated.’
Don’t look back, PSers. Don’t look back.
Except frankly, the PS2 has a tons better game library, and doubtless contains good titles of almost every genre that even people who were active in gaming during the console’s lifespan didn’t get a chance to play.
You can’t say anything close about the PS3, and the way things are going, it doesn’t even look like you’ll be able to say that when the PS4 comes out. The PS3 has a decent library, but it has neither the depth nor the breadth of the PS2’s, nor does it have the installed base to really make that happen.
The PS2 stands unchallenged as the best Sony console thus far.
This is one thing I never fully got my head around when the powers that be at Sony opted to remove the PS2 hardware from the PS3 in order to save costs. Sure, a new PS2 costs $100 - at retail, and also includes a bunch of stuff that you wouldn’t need as part of the PS3 compatibility package (i.e. Dualshock 2, optical drive, case, power supply). The actual PS2 chip must only cost Sony $10 at this point, maximum. Seems like a big PR hit for little actual savings.
(Says I, the owner of a backwards compatible, 60gb PS3…)
This is exactly what I was thinking when reading this thread. How much could the ps2 chip possibly cost Sony that they would chose the path they did?
The game library that PS2 has is immense. If I could play those games on the PS3, guess what? I’d buy the PS3. Now, I’m considering the purchase and may skip the PS3 altogether. I may just continue to buy PS2 games and play them instead of upgrading. Yes, I know that the PS3 has some advantages, including being able to play Blu-ray, but that’s not an over-riding factor for me.
The PS2 stands unchallenged as the best console, period.
You can’t say anything close about any other console either.
It has a larger base than the 360 does, for what that’s worth.
Sony doesn’t want you to buy a PS3 - it wants you to buy PS3 games. At $500, people weren’t buying the console quickly enough - and thus not buying games fast enough. So they dropped BC, and sales quickly picked up. People who have PS2 games tend to also have a PS2.
Ditto.
clutches PS2 games close to her
I buy games very carefully and judiciously. In about fifteen years of gaming and buying games I probably still don’t have even forty games. Half of those are PS2. I am not going to give up my PS2 games because Sony is an asshole.
So, now, about the other half of those games are 360. So be it.
As noted above, this doesn’t seem to make any sense… why is having a 360 and PS2 set up at the same time any less annoying than having a PS3 and PS2 set up at the same time?
You’re stuck with two consoles either way.
I would have had two consoles either way, yes. BUT: The PS3 cost more at the time, but if it had been backwards compatible, I would have spent the money. But it wasn’t, so it had less value to me, so I got the 360.
Put it this way. I was going to buy one of them. The backwards-compatibility thing pissed me off and alienated me, and the cost was absolutely the bottom line. If it could have played PS2 games, why I would have only had one console! But they couldn’t do that for me, and thus Sony lost me forever. Or at least until they come out with an amazing new console…that plays all of the games.
Try not to get yourself worked up. I chose the 360 because I was pissed the PS3 wasn’t backwards compatible. Sorry if your stocks took a hit though.
To be fair, had I been sure which way the bluray war was going, AND had not taken for granted that OF COURSE any current gen console would have built-in wifi, I would have bought the PS3 back then.
Also, XBOX Live Gold pricing is dog shit. So yeah, in retrospect, I cut off my nose to spite my face, though I’m otherwise happy with the 360.
Sorry, but claims of fanboyism aren’t going to fly. I’ve had all three consoles this generation, and enjoyed the hell out of all of them. If having an illogical fact pointed out to you gets you defensive, maybe this isn’t the board for you.
Yes, I was.
And the PS2 really was/is the best console ever. I love that thing.
I don’t care about blu-ray, and I never play games online with my 360. And I did have the Red Ring of Death, or more correctly, the follow-up error which only had like one red ring. Knock on wood, it happened within the warranty, and Microsoft replaced the console within a week and to be honest it hardly inconvenienced me.
I have been more than happy with my 360 and never had a reason to look back and wish for the other.