Is backwards compatibility an issue? Analysts debate

by Andrew Yoon { Oct 9th 2007 at 7:45PM }

So, the 40GB PS3 is losing backwards compatibility with PS2 games. Is that a big deal? You voted, but let's hear what the analysts have to say. From a business perspective, it makes sense for Sony to remove the feature. "Cost is hard to gauge, probably $30 - $50 per unit," Wedbush Morgan Securities' Michael Pachter told GameDaily. A significant savings, when one considers the thousands of systems Sony must sell. Will the lack of PS2 support affect PS3 sales? "I thought lack of backward compatibility would hurt the Xbox [360], but it really didn't," Pachter noted.

However, NPD analyst Anita Frazier has some data that might concern Sony. "Nearly 70 percent said that [backwards compatibility] was an important feature to them."

Regardless, when it comes down to the choice between backwards compatibility and saving $100, the choice will be clear for most consumers. Colin Sebastian, an analyst at Lazard Capital Markets noted: "It appears that pricing is becoming more of a priority, which makes sense given where the PS3 is selling in terms of market share. I don't believe removing backwards compatibility is a huge deal, considering that most people who want to play PS2 games will continue to do so on their PS2s."

Tags: 40gb, analyst, backwards-compatibility, pachter

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Yellowmc @ Oct 9th 2007 8:03PM

This is just Sony's response to the demands. Obviously now, atleast for a short while, you can choose whether you want the cheaper version with no BC or the more expensive version which does have BC.

I for one applaud Sony because I can now finally afford one!

animekid3515 @ Oct 9th 2007 8:04PM

well i think they really thought about it, and anyone who wouldnt want to get the full 60 gig package most likely doesnt have any ps2 games. if you want the full package, get the 60 gig model, at least they're giving consumers a choice in the matter. for 360 users, its the 360 standard, 20 gig hard drive, or the 360 elite, which as far as i can tell doesnt have anything different from the standard one except for a 120 gig hard drive, but :P coz we ps3 users get to use any 2.5 inch hard drive, and around where i live they go up to around 500 gig.

ruibing @ Oct 9th 2007 8:06PM

@1
Though I hold no love for hypocrites and find some of Sony's business decisions peculiar, I don't understand your point about the close marketing. Sony has done a bad PR for awhile now but they have not been misleading the public though. I've seen the 40GB boxes and they clearly state that they can't play PS2 games, while the 80GB said its limited. And as for how you'll never trust them again, it must mean you actually trusted them once, either with the PS2 or MDs, which means for people like you backwards compatibility shouldn't be an issue.

I think Sony just needs to have two SKUs, the 40GB and the 80GB, one for people who want to play PS2 games and the other for people who already have a PS2 or just don't care.

Jason @ Oct 9th 2007 8:21PM

sure BC isn't a requirement....

once sony actually releases some games for the PS3 that are worth sticking with, and not the tripe that's currently on the system...

for early adopters, BC is still important seeing as how there is lots of quality games still being released on the ps2, and the lack thereof on the PS3...

hence why it's not as important on the 360....the 360 has a solid library of quality games that people are able and willing to play...

solve the library issue, BC will be cease to be an issue

--j

Da @ Oct 9th 2007 8:53PM

Sony hasn't removed BC... you can buy a 60GB or an 80GB and get it.
Sony is giving you the choice, and where the surveys say 70% think it's important, they are most likely already PS3 owners.. and guess what.. they have BC.
So stop winging, it doesnt effect you, and if it does then congratulations on making the decision to save the money at the expense of BC. Not a decision i'd make, but that's why i've got a 60GB.

SKI @ Oct 9th 2007 8:53PM

PS3 BC VS. 360 BC

On the 360, you can still play Halo and... that's really all you would still want to play.

On the 40gb PS3, you can't play GoW, Metal Gear, Katamari, Okami, Ratchet and Clank, and a myriad of other AAA games that still are just as good.

Tim @ Oct 9th 2007 8:54PM

if the 80 GB outsells the 40 GB by a large margin and consumer studies show that it's because of the lack of BC, then I imagine sony will go back to pushing models with BC. But if the 40 GB model sells better then they'll decide that dropping the price was worth the sacrifice, and they'll probably start to phase out the BC models entirely (as they've already decided to do in Australia)

Vote with your wallet.

The1 @ Oct 9th 2007 9:06PM

Its best to have and not need, rather than need and not have. Say what you want, Sony did this to make sure that all new PS3 purchases include a game to help their game sells which are horrible.

Starfire @ Oct 9th 2007 9:12PM

The best bet is 2 SKUs, then people who want to pay the extra can have the BC, which will hopefully grow. As more games come out you'll hear less about it, especially since the newer versions will look (not necessarily play) so much better on a big TV. Sony really had little choice but to lower the price and this is one way to do it. I just hope they keep BC in at least one of the models, as it's a great feature to have and keeps games alive that are still well worth playing.

OrganicShadow @ Oct 9th 2007 9:11PM

I think it's hard to compare to Xbox because it's not like Xbox had nearly the game library nor popularity that PS2 had, so it's not like there are 110 million Xbox users that need to hang onto their machines. With PS2 owners they are going to need to be aware of the 40gb's lack of BC and hold onto those machines.

The biggest issue here is that it's breaking PlayStation tradition by ending the BC factor it's always had.

Mr.X @ Oct 9th 2007 9:39PM

For those guys who can afford the 40gb and can't afford 60gb when it $100 dollar more but doesn't have ps2 when it only around $150, I think because they are cheapo, those guys can buy a ps2 and 40gb version, I mean if you can buy ps2 and the 40gb why don't just buy the 60gb version when it the same price or cheaper because it come with bundle and I just heard that the 60gb version have price cut so why do you complain, it like people can never satisfied with anything, did you know that it also a blue-ray player the most popular of next gen format and gaming, how can you not satisfied with it, maybe it have not as much games compare to it rival at the moment but just a wait for few more months it just 1 or 2 months when great games hit.

Skyfire360 @ Oct 9th 2007 10:16PM

I don't think Pacher has ever been right about anything. Why does he still have a job as an analyst?

Barndo111 @ Oct 9th 2007 10:25PM

Sooo....any chance I can rip the emotion engine and graphics synthesizer out of my ps2 and stick it in a PS3 myself? It would give a use to any PS2's that aren't "with us anymore."

Easo @ Oct 9th 2007 10:36PM

I made a post on joystiq today about this. In my opinion, backwards compatibility is only important to ps3 users because it really doesnt have a good game selection. I say this because MS hasnt updated the 360 b/c list in almost a year and no one has complained.

Still, its good to see sony addressing their 800lbs gorilla. Now they need to address the 500lbs gorilla, delays. I would seriously like to think that after 6 months of delayed ps3 games, that sony is asking why and incorporating a solution into their dev tools. However that doesnt seem to be the case as even the newest ps3 games are suffering from delays.

babash @ Oct 9th 2007 10:56PM

People seem to forget that Sony has had trouble selling these things. All i've heard for the last 2 year is "oh its too expensive" now they have gone and dropped $200 off of the price of the thing within the last 5 months and people still complain.

I am sure that Sony wanted to continue offering BC but hey if people aren't picking up the systems they had to find a way to make the price competitive or they'll be screwed BC or no BC.

plus its really not going to be an issue a year from now.

rock

Matt B @ Oct 9th 2007 10:57PM

Actually, once again Microsoft put the price on BC with the core. Sony is just following in their footsteps. If you bought a Core, you would need a 20GB HD($100) to get the BC. If BC is an issue to you, keep your PS2 or pay the same $100 for a BC Ps3.

The only difference is the double standard.

jae29one @ Oct 10th 2007 12:42AM

Ima make this simple.. The PS2 is the best selling console in gaming history... Which in turn would be safe to say that almost everyone has a PS2.. If you have PS2 games to play, then you have a PS2..So if you want to get a PS3, then you have a great chance to a PS3 at a resonalbe price.. And you can play your PS2 games on your PS2.. If you currently have a PS3 then you have B/C so whats the problem?? Oh.. You say that you dont have a PS2 b/c you sold it to get a WetSox 360 or a Wi Wi.. Then you dont have PS2 game to play.. So whats it going to be??? Either way I think that people are making too much fuss about this issue when there really is no issue..

omega15 @ Oct 10th 2007 12:12AM

@19 The same as: "1080p is impossible" "HDMI is unnecessary", Microsoft is the worst in making useless comments.

joon @ Oct 10th 2007 12:42AM

sony said bc is very important to playstation brand but now it is gone.
sony said rumble is last gen but it is coming next year.
what wrong with this

Vasco @ Oct 10th 2007 1:06AM

how does this make sense if 40 gbs can't have bc why does 80 gbs units have it. neither have the EE chip. its software emulated which to me, means they will be cutting out of all future models in the long run. they'll just release all their titles again on psn and charge you for them again. like the lemming that sony fanboys are they'll buy them too.

Consolcwby @ Oct 10th 2007 2:12AM

Um, for those who complain about Sony's decision I would like to remind you of something that has been forgotten on these internets:

Ken Kutaragi was the one responsible for BC with the PS2 - in fact he fought tooth and nail with Sony to get it in. He then did the same thing for the PS3 - BUT he retired (was removed) from his position for various reasons. So is it ANY wonder that Sony would then reverse his decision on BC? I'm not surprised. Many people here who are commenting were happy when "Karayzee" Ken left - but you never realised how important he was to the PS brand. Until now.

rainking187 @ Oct 10th 2007 3:06AM

I mean really, who cares about BC? What possible reason would I have to play my 100 PS2 games when I've got my 4 PS3 games?

steve @ Oct 10th 2007 7:29AM

I really don't understand what the whinging is about, the vast majority of people that care about backwards compatibility already have a PS3 that supports it, if you haven't bought a PS3 and you want the compatibility then spend the extra money.
I'm glad the new model has come out, i can finally afford to buy one!

TRUTH @ Oct 10th 2007 7:42AM

Just what I like to see Choice!!!

Sony's just gotta get there foot outta there mouth now! Dum Dum

ryan @ Oct 10th 2007 8:17AM

guys sony has esentially stopped production on at least the 60 gb... when the supply that was already shipped runs out then there will be no more 60 gb

fergy9901 @ Oct 10th 2007 8:24AM

Sony is not that daft; I reckon if enough people dig their feet in about this, they will probably do an 'all software' emulator. I mean, its not as if there is a lack of processing power in the PS3, and considering a half decent PC can emulate a PS2 in software I am sure they can go the extra mile. They could even charge for the feature by making the emulator a download of the PSN.

tuco @ Oct 10th 2007 9:13AM

I didn't use bc much on the 360. Really, only for Halo 2. When I got the PS3, I caught up with some old titles like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear. But overall, games age badly. Even from one generation ago, you don't get the wow factor in graphics and playability that you do had you played it when it came out. Sure, classic games deserve their praise. But most games from the last generation aren't classics yet. In fact, xbox may have it right. Just make sure your best games are compatible and toss the rest. Afterall, is anybody really itching to play Robocop again?

RankHypocrisy @ Oct 10th 2007 10:31AM

The PS3's two main problems right now are lack of games and high price. Sony is doing what they have to do to get the price down. If they can get more quality games released (and this Christmas season looks to be a step in the right direction) then they will be in good shape.

As far as PS2 games go, they can morph the PS2 into a PSTwo which they can sell cheaply to people who want to play those games.

I understand the desire for a system that does everything (that's why I bought a 60gb PS3 myself) but the masses have spoken, and they do not want an expensive all-in-one box. They want a cheaper machine with more games. Period.

Corey B @ Oct 10th 2007 12:40PM

I think it's terrible PR after their ridicule of Microsoft for limited BC, and it makes no sense since it is done via emulation on newer models, meaning it requires no new hardware expense. I understand not adding new titles but if the work to get emulation working is done....why not just make it available?

All that to say I have never played a PSone (except downloaded titles) or PS2 game on my PS3, so it may not be THAT big of a deal breaker.

EricDJ @ Oct 10th 2007 1:25PM

I bought an early one to avoid this. Would be nice if they had a higher model permanently available with backwards compatibility for those willing to pay extra.

FD @ Oct 10th 2007 2:01PM

I agree with previous post 34.

I don't own a console yet and think BC is very important! At least in my case. There are still so many awesome PS2 games out there that i never had the chance to play and that i would still want to check out! There's no way i would buy both a PS2 and a PS3. I'm planning on getting the 60Gb one and hope Sony is not gonna kill the functionality of the emotion chip with a new firmware that will only allow software emulation or that might even remove BC completely.

I think it's good they give people the choice right now to buy a cheaper model that doesn't include BC. But i also hope they keep respecting the users that deliberately buy the more expensive ones especially for the BC, and not try to screw them over in the near future like #23 writes... They would deliberately be disabling the PS2 games that I would have bought to use with my PS3.

Scott Krueger @ Oct 10th 2007 3:08PM

NOT LOSING Backwards Compatibility.
Changing Backwards Compatibility.

The 60 Gig has the PS2 Chip Built In.
The 40 Gig will do Backwards Compatibility via Software which is what the 80 Gig does...

The 60 Gig is 99.9% Backwards Compatible.
The Other versions are somewhere around 80% compatible.

Comparably the 360 is only about 10% compatible...
I have the 60 Gig which is nice because the Backwards Compatibility is REALLY important to me. It is nice to know I can pop any PS2 game in and it will work.

TRUTH @ Oct 10th 2007 4:12PM

@ Scott Krueger, Stop Talking Out ur @zz. Try 42%

Microsoft continues to expand on the number of Xbox games available for use on the Xbox 360, eventually hoping to make the vast majority of original Xbox titles backwards compatible. The last update for backwards compatibility in the US was July 12, 2007, raising the total number of Xbox games compatible with the Xbox 360 to 394. Approximately 42% of the original Xbox library is now compatible with the Xbox 360

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_games_compatible_with_Xbox_360

welshgamer100 @ Oct 10th 2007 4:51PM

I havent got a ps3 yet, i will probably get the 40gb model, as i am not bothered about missing features (most can be added via USB), as for the bc issue, it really doesnt bother me, i had a ps1 and had lots of games for it and then i got a ps2 when it was launched and i have NEVER played any ps1 games on it, i traded all my ps1 stuff in to put towards more games. It's amazing how people complain about the price, but as soon as sony finds a solution to cut the price, people moan about that. Get over it people!!! At least both sony and nintendo make consoles that work unlike microsoft, my bro's on his 3rd 360 in just 2 months!

ninjagamer32 @ Oct 10th 2007 5:40PM

Lack of BC isn't the problem in and of itself.
Yes it a nice feature but I could live without andjust play my older games on the ps2.
The problem is they are stripping the features down and the system is still overpriced.
I could understand dropping BC if the price would come down to something a little more competitive like
$250. to $300.-- range.
But they are still asking $400.00 for a system with inferior capabilities to the premium 360 package.

Anthony Pittarelli @ Oct 10th 2007 5:35PM

i think people like to know they have backwards compatibility, but in practice it doesnt get used for more than %3 of the consoles usage a year into its lifecycle

techyted @ Oct 10th 2007 6:40PM

I have been thinking about this for a while and this is what I have to say. The answer is NO, I had a dozen or so games on my PS2 and out of that dozen, I only want to play the God of War series on my PS3. I tried to play GTA 3, Vice City, but the graphics frustrate me. I am a HD kind of guy and I want my games to look good. Then there is my dad, we plan on getting him a PS3 for Christmas and he doesn't even play games, but he wants a Blu-ray player and the rumored 40GB PS3 will be a good price for a great DVD/Blu-ray player. So, my answer is NO.....