I agree completely.gof22 said:
I can't wait until one of them admits that the other one is right!
Sony: Backwards Compatibility Is Never Coming Back
- Thread starter Keane Ng
- Start date
I can't wait until one of them admits that the other one is right!
Right now a lot of people want the PS-3 so they can play collections of PS-2 games which might not be cutting edge, but are still quite fun and will probably remain that way indefinatly. The PS-2 and X-box hit a level of development where games could become more or less immortal, the graphics and music being good enough to remain tolerable (decent artwork at least) even if better stuff is out there. One of the reasons why these consoles still have so many people playing them.
Sony on the other hand has a vested interest in not making the system backwards compadible because if they can kill people being able to play the current discs, it opens the door for them to later sell the same games people used to be able to play freely as DLC *OR* in various game collections (like a next gen "Namco Museum" or whatever). Being able to resell the same product can be even better than coming up with a new one.
Plus there are of course censorship issues. With the industry being unwilling to really fight for free speech and expression, the existance of older games that people referance that included a degree of sex and ultra-violence that is currently being brutally assaulted can be a touchy subject. Removing backwards compadibility allows them to effectively bury things like the original "Manhunt" and the existance of older editions of "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" that have the "Hot Coffee" bit accessible on them.
The PS-2 dies, a lot of titles die with it or become ultra-obscure antiquities, removing the shadow from console games.
-
As far as PS-3 fans taking this kind of cr@p, what choice do we have? I mean other than finding some way to engage them violently or whatever and force them to do what we want, there really isn't anyting that is going to work... and it's not like an army of game nerds are suddenly going to find the money and desire to head down to Japan en-masse for the sole purpose of assembling as an armed mob and cruicifying Sony execs in the parking lot.
Generally speaking, if you already have a ton of PS-2 games, not buying a PS-3 isn't going to do much to let you keep playing them when the PS-2 goes out of circulation.
The bottom line is that there is no legal recourse to force a company to support these games indefinatly. Internet petitions on things like this are generall lulzworthy (especially given why in all likelyhood they are doing ot), and it's not like we're ever going to see a Rodney-King like "nerdrage" riot directed at a console company (leading to direct fear of the fans) or whatever.
Sony on the other hand has a vested interest in not making the system backwards compadible because if they can kill people being able to play the current discs, it opens the door for them to later sell the same games people used to be able to play freely as DLC *OR* in various game collections (like a next gen "Namco Museum" or whatever). Being able to resell the same product can be even better than coming up with a new one.
Plus there are of course censorship issues. With the industry being unwilling to really fight for free speech and expression, the existance of older games that people referance that included a degree of sex and ultra-violence that is currently being brutally assaulted can be a touchy subject. Removing backwards compadibility allows them to effectively bury things like the original "Manhunt" and the existance of older editions of "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" that have the "Hot Coffee" bit accessible on them.
The PS-2 dies, a lot of titles die with it or become ultra-obscure antiquities, removing the shadow from console games.
-
As far as PS-3 fans taking this kind of cr@p, what choice do we have? I mean other than finding some way to engage them violently or whatever and force them to do what we want, there really isn't anyting that is going to work... and it's not like an army of game nerds are suddenly going to find the money and desire to head down to Japan en-masse for the sole purpose of assembling as an armed mob and cruicifying Sony execs in the parking lot.
Generally speaking, if you already have a ton of PS-2 games, not buying a PS-3 isn't going to do much to let you keep playing them when the PS-2 goes out of circulation.
The bottom line is that there is no legal recourse to force a company to support these games indefinatly. Internet petitions on things like this are generall lulzworthy (especially given why in all likelyhood they are doing ot), and it's not like we're ever going to see a Rodney-King like "nerdrage" riot directed at a console company (leading to direct fear of the fans) or whatever.
You do realize that whether a piece of software is going to work or not depends on how the program is coded/whether the software is patched to work? The more you use the specific functionality of any operating system the more likely it is that the software will have to be modified to deal with changes in the later iterations. Did you miss the word specifically? Hell the problem is even worse when you start talking about hardware since drivers are not always written to work with certain iterations of an OS. My mouse for example does not possess full functionality under Vista 64 because the manufacturer does not make a 64bit driver. (While claiming Vista fully supports the device already, which is a lie.) Of course that little fact would not be a problem if the mouse configuration utility was not stuck in 1990 since the stock drivers do work.Geoffrey42 said:
In the case of a console you not only have to deal with software (OS) compatibility, you also have to deal with hardware changes. Microsoft is in no way required to preserve compatibility between OS iterations in the same way Sony is in no way required to preserve compatibility between console iterations.
i know it's not 100% accurate, i've even said it wasn't and that we would also have a higher numbers of failures because of who comes here. however the funny part about this is that if there was a lower number of failures everyone would claim the game informer thing isn't correct and they were validated by it, however when it gives credence to a claim people tend to say that the poll is skewed and very wrong. it's just the way people areGeoffrey42 said:
well it might as well have it because I have played LOADS of ps2 games and a couple of my ps1 games and they all worked fastidiously, or hopfully sony just thinks I'm awesome and elaboratly planned for me to get a uniqe model................................................yeah lets go with thatDigikid said:
YOU do realize that the majority of programs from the windows 95 era still WORK on windows xp/vista right? That they wisely included functionality and built upon existing software architecture to allow for this right?shadow skill said:
For example... go get microsoft office 95 and try to install it on your XP machine.
Guess what will happen... it'll INSTALL!
Then.. it will function.
It will look like shit and you might have the odd snafu here and there, but it'll function.
WHY? Because Microsoft didnt give the finger to old software for the sake of a new operating system.
IE7 is a new browser, designed from the ground up. But it still accesses the same websites. Hell I just found my old angelfire site from like 1996.
It was a bad example to use as an excuse for cancelling BC.
And anyway, PS2 games aren't 8 bit games from 20 years ago. The last generation of gaming wasn't that long ago for Sony. They are STILL making PS2 games. Why would you want to toss out a massive library of games like that for potential customers of your NEW console?
Thats throwing the baby out with the bathwater..
Do all of them work? Wait what's that no? Was Microsoft ever obligated to make sure that this software worked? No. The fact that the fact that software from that period does work does not create an expectation that software from that era will work in the future. Therefore to expect any software made in that era to continue to function on a system that is not Windows 95 is nothing more than foolishness. That you do not understand this is hardly Microsoft's problem or any other manufacturers problem for that matter. I have had plenty of software packages I make use of stop working because of underlying code changes that broke the compatibility. I know for a fact that certain software that works under XP does not yet currently function under Vista so anyone using these programs should find themselves a copy of XP if they want their tools to function correctly.
Vista was one giant finger to peripheral manufacturers because they changed the entire driver model! That's the reason Vista support was so goddamn shitty in the beginning, why so much did not function properly especially in the beginning. Hell even the introduction of 64bit operating systems caused problems as a good amount of software did not work on these systems without a compatibility layer or they had to be modified in order to actually take advantage of the abilities of 64bit memory addressing. Of course that compatibility layer did not do shit for some devices like my own mouse which is stuck using the HID drivers.
Vista was one giant finger to peripheral manufacturers because they changed the entire driver model! That's the reason Vista support was so goddamn shitty in the beginning, why so much did not function properly especially in the beginning. Hell even the introduction of 64bit operating systems caused problems as a good amount of software did not work on these systems without a compatibility layer or they had to be modified in order to actually take advantage of the abilities of 64bit memory addressing. Of course that compatibility layer did not do shit for some devices like my own mouse which is stuck using the HID drivers.
This five million times over. If you don't have a ps2, why are you complaining? Buy a ps2. It's so easy. Guess what? You guys say FF13 having multi disks isn't bad? THEN NEITHER IS OWNING A PS2. It's a minor inconvenience either way. I Don't see the problem. And if you really, REALLY despise Sony enough to not want to buy a ps2,then fine. Don't respond to my post though. I've heard every excuse in the book, and none of them cut it. Thank you.harhol said:
Exceeeeept...shadow skill said:
You're talking about an operating system, that lives and breathes based on the HARDWARE components of the system it's installed on. Third party hardware for the most part.
The PS2 console was concrete. Every game designer worked with the EXACT same specs, within the EXACT same architecture, which is the advantage consoles have over PC games... a game made for the PS2 is GUARANTEED to work on EVERY SINGLE PS2, period. You don't have to update your PS2 drivers, or get patches or buy an "earlier model" PS2. There are no "generic" ps2's, no third party built PS2 consoles. The PS2 is made BY SONY for SONY ps2 games.
Making the PS3 capable of being BC with the PS2 library is not the same as making some obscure third party produced graphics card work on a PC with Windows as the operating system.
AND, given enough time and effort, in most cases you CAN make that card or outdated software WORK on windows.
You CAN NOT make a Non-bc PS3 suddenly play BC games (at least not yet if the rumors of a downloadable firmware update giving the PS3 this capability are to be believed.)
Therefore your "example" is inherently flawed, period. Comparing the PS3's exclusion of BC for newer models to Windows XP's arguable/questionable functionality with older software designed for a previous iteration of Windows (not just a newer one but a FAR older one for that matter) is foolishness. Nintendo doesn't seem to have this problem with 8-bit games from a MUCH older era of gaming.
Now maybe if we were talking about the PS3 being backwards compatible with the SEGA GENESIS it might make a little sense. But in this example, AND GIVEN that for a while PS3's actually WERE 99% Backwards COmpatible with PS2 games, your example fails epically. It's not as if the PS3 never HAD BC... but that Sony in their infinite wisdom decided to REMOVE it. A better example would be if Microsoft decided that you no longer needed to access the internet and removed ALL browser support from Windows XP/Vista.
Which would be stupid.
Which is what Sony is.
Whooooa...Pendragon9 said:
HUGE HUGE Difference between swapping out a DISK and a FRAKKING CONSOLE bro.
First of all, a disk is.. what? only so large? Slips in less than 20 seconds and you're good to go.
A CONSOLE however, requires:
1. Space. Space on your entertainment center that something ELSE could be occupying. I want to take up LESS space, not more. AGAIN, I do not have a stand-alone dvd player on my entertainment center by my tv. Why? BECAUSE i have no less than 3 CONSOLES that perform that very basic function already, so it is not needed or wanted. LESS is more.
2. Tv's only have so many connections. I don't want to have a friggin pile of chords running between my tv and my consoles as if I'm running some sort of mad scientist's laboratory. Again, less is the key here, not more. I already have a PS3, an Xbox 360, a Wii, and a cable box, and a stereo entertainment system. I don't want to have to keep every console I want to play occasionally attached to my tv set because Sony feels it's better to inconvenience it's customers by removing a functionality that ALREADY existed in it's product and was a major selling point long before the Xbox fan-boys latched onto it as a reason NOT to buy the system, which they now have in spades.
3. Sony charges a friggin arm and a leg for EVERYTHING to do with their consoles and games are costly enough, extra controllers are ridiculously priced, and to transfer my PS2 memory cards to my hard drive requires a $20 friggin cable that i'll use ONE time, as well as having to buy HDMI cables to truly "appreciate" their Blu-ray movies. I'll be damned if I'm going to go and spend ANOTHER $50 to play THEIR games, putting MORE money in their pocket because they decided to shank their loyal customers in the buttocks by removing a feature that WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE in their consoles just to be dicks and squeeze out that LAST dollar from the consumers cold dead hands and FORCE us to buy PS3 games that for the most part aren't on yet on the same LEVEL of quality for the PRICE of a PS2.
4. I don't NEED to go get a new PS2. I am the CUSTOMER and Sony wants me to buy THEIR products. Well, if this is how they want to act, I'll just sell off my PS2 library, sell my PS3 60 gig on EBAY for chingos of money, and become a strictly XBOX customer. Then what does Sony gain? Nothing. The customer is always right.
Never, ever, ever, ever screw with a loyal customer with disposable income when you have a powerful competitor (microsoft) already whipping your ass in unit sales AND games. Sony wants me to move into the next generation of gaming? then FINE, I will, but it'll be on MY terms, and I'll simply choose to go into the next generation on a 360.
Making Ps2 games work may in fact be harder than making a program for a general purpose OS work precisely because the hardware figures into the equation much more prominently than with a PC. The original Ps3's BC was not even perfect, I got strange freezing with Persona 3 because the game did not handle the PS3 controller losing charge nicely. They changed the architecture of the PS3 and basically stuffed PS2 components inside the PS3's that had BC. Which did affect the cost of the system on some level. While you stupidly try to turn my words around on to me you demonstrate that you do not know what they actually mean. Eight bit games require far less technological power and are probably patched/altered to run on current systems. Functioning PS2 support is a far different matter because the games rely on some unique hardware to work.
I have used code written no more than five years ago that had to be modified to work with current versions of .net because the original code did not work and I was still using the same major version! Lord knows what would happen to my code if I tried to run it on .net 3.5, it might work; then again it might not work, should I go squeal like an idiot about how evil Microsoft is for API/ABI breakage between 1.5 major versions?
I have used code written no more than five years ago that had to be modified to work with current versions of .net because the original code did not work and I was still using the same major version! Lord knows what would happen to my code if I tried to run it on .net 3.5, it might work; then again it might not work, should I go squeal like an idiot about how evil Microsoft is for API/ABI breakage between 1.5 major versions?
Thats a very detailed reply. I appreciate it.shadow skill said:
Unfortunately it is also very MOOT.
The Playstation 3 HAD Backwards Compatibility at 99% BEFORE. This is not something that they were 'trying to figure out' or 'someday going to add', this is something that they ALREADY had. It already existed and worked like gangbusters.
So yes, squeal that microsoft is evil for API/ABI breakage between 1.5 major versions, but only if they actually had allowed this BEFORE and then inexplicably TOOK it away for NO reason with a simple update that served no other purpose but to break your code.
The issue here is that they took it AWAY with no real explanation other than "we no like our customers, their suffering gives us happiness".
This isnt about PS2 to PS3 difficulties, it's about removing an existing and proven functionality from their systems just to be dicks about it, while some of their customers try to find whatever excuse they can NOT to buy the system, while still others try to blindly defend this move as if the rest of us are throwing a tantrum over spilled milk.
For the record I OWN a 60 gig ps3 with full Backwards compatibility that I bought at launch, and this STILL pisses me off because I know that someday, if my PS3 ever breaks or fails I'm going to be left pissing in the wind by a company I once believed in.
Except I also know Microsoft and the Xbox 360 will be there to catch me and comfort me as an alternative to having to go back to Sony for more abuse.
ummm this isn't a good comparison considering the HTML standard hasn't really changed in many years, they've just added stuff to it and not taken anything awayHyenaThePirate said:
i can use lynx, which is a console based text browser to browse any web page i want. i could even use MOSAIC, which was the first browser, to browse pages like the escapist and newer. just certain things wouldn't work properly
you mean like what m$ has done to everyone for many years? why do you continue to support them?BlueMage said:
Yeah I suppose you are right. But I'm having trouble thinking of an adequate example.cleverlymadeup said:
Lets say that Toshiba made laptops with dvd drives. Then one day, Toshiba decided that downloadable content was the way to go and started producing the same laptop without DVD drives. Also that any toshiba laptop that needed to be fixed would simply be replaced with a laptop without a dvd drive.
That is the situation here. Sony made a decision to remove a function that was already available for reasons only known to themselves even though a simple poll of it's customers would show that the consensus is largely in the majority for wanting this capability.
Is that a better example? Because thats exactly what happened. Sony boned us.