PS2 backwards compatibility not dead yet
by Majed Athab 
{ Feb 13th 2008 at 5:00PM }
Gamers disappointed with the PS3's backwards compatibility (or the lack thereof) might find interest in reading the latest issue of EGM. In the mag, an interview with SCEA senior marketing VP Peter Dille and director of PSN operations Eric Lempel hints that PS2 backwards compatibility isn't completely down and out.
When asked about the lack of bc support possibly crossing out chances of ever having downloadable PS2 games via the PSN, Lempel answered back with "there are possibilities through technology and software emulation to make that happen." Lempel refused to talk about any specific plans, but hasn't flat-out denied that it isn't something being worked on.
On another note, Peter Dille states that PS2 backwards compatibility is still important to Sony. He reconfirms what we already know, that the removal of PS2 backwards compatibility helped lower the overall price of the PS3. However, consider the fact that Sony has cut production costs for the PS3 by half, and then the reason not to have "expensive" emulated bc seems a little moot. If Sony does decide to support downloadable PS2 games playable through emulation, it's very very possible that the software emulation could also play that precious PS2 disc collection of yours.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
DMeisterJ @ Feb 13th 2008 5:07PM
Could it be that the nixing of the 80 gig for a 160 GB hard drive PS3 could be for downloading PS2 games on the PS3, akin to Microsoft and the whole XBOX Originals concept? Maybe I'm grasping at straws here, but I feel like that could be it.
upz @ Feb 13th 2008 5:12PM
I agree. It would be on a title to title basis. The amount of effort needed to get single titles working via software emulation is significantly less than that needed to get the entire library working. You'd probably be able to download a perfectly emulated God of War one day, but that doesn't mean your disc copy of FFX with work.
Player1 @ Feb 13th 2008 5:27PM
Let's be clear here that the reason the 80 gig can emulate the PS2 games is because it still has the PS2 GPU hardware, so it's a matter of emulating that. The 40 gigs do not have that hardware.
Also, I love in that interview that when they are discussing backwards compatability, they say "nobody has done it". And they say that right after a question regarding the Wii.
Carlton @ Feb 13th 2008 7:44PM
The wii doesn't use emulation though, it can run gamecube games natively because it uses almost identical hardware.
aaron_k7 @ Feb 13th 2008 5:43PM
Computers can play PS2 games provided they have the correct (and illegal) program. Couldn't Sony utilize one of these programs or a similar one in order to get from A to B?
Disclaimer: I don't support said illegal programs for PS2 emulation.
Alex S. @ Feb 13th 2008 6:22PM
Emulators aren't illegal; unauthorized copies of game data are.
And there are no decently working PS2 emulators out there.
The thing is Sony built the GPU on the PS2 from the ground up, and I doubt it would be any huge feat for Sony to write a working PS2 emulator for their own PS3.
Sony nixed BC on the newer models mostly because they wanted people buying and playing PS3 games. They need to show investors there's money in the next generation of gaming, so they're using anyone who buys a 40GB PS3 to act as their proof of PS3 game demand.
upz @ Feb 13th 2008 6:29PM
Uh...actually, emulators are illegal too if you don't actually own the system. Hence, why the emulators don't come packed with the system BIOS.
aaron_k7 @ Feb 13th 2008 6:34PM
@upz
You're right, BIOS is key, and most people just download it from somewhere since they can't use the one from their PS2 that they own (or they don't own a PS2).
badaro @ Feb 15th 2008 12:31PM
The emulator is still legal, downloading a copy of the BIOS isn't. It's quite possible to implement emulators that don't require the BIOS, or even reverse-engineer the BIOS to make a legal "alternative" BIOS.
aMIGA_dUDE @ Feb 13th 2008 5:47PM
Just read something written on some unknown web site from last year.
http://playstation.joystiq.com/2008/01/17/curious-job-listing-found-on-the-scei-website/
This PS3 Fanboy site look interesting, have you ever looked there?
The Sound @ Feb 13th 2008 6:18PM
Meh, Bc is waayyy overrated. The last ps2 game I played on my PS3 was NCAA '07, and that was a month and a half ago.
Tranando @ Feb 13th 2008 6:26PM
Don't get too excited 40GB owners, this is not PS2 emulation making a reappearance. I suspect this is select PS2 games being compiled using the PS3 SDK and offered for digital download. Totally different to onboard PS2 emulation.
ComicShaman @ Feb 13th 2008 6:31PM
I wondered about this when they first eliminated backwards compatibility. The idea of taking select games and offering them for download on the PSN with game-by-game emulation has a lot of upsides for Sony. Not the least of which is they actually get money for the games in question.
I'm not talking about piracy, but rather used games. Just look at GameStop's business model and how much they make off used game resale (there was a graph up on Joystiq not too long ago about that -- it's pretty huge). Those are games that nobody gets money for except GameStop.
Reselling PS2 titles on the PSN with individual emulation starts to divert money back to Sony and the developers. It's not a bad strategy to take away backwards compatibility for the PS3 if that's the goal.
TinyTim121 @ Feb 13th 2008 7:29PM
A bit off topic here but i'm a bit confused
The 40gb model has no backwards compatibility, so you can't play PS2 or PS1 disks on it. What about downloaded PS1 games? Can you play those?
Carlton @ Feb 13th 2008 7:44PM
It is still backwards compatible with PS1, just not PS2.
TinyTim121 @ Feb 13th 2008 7:46PM
is that PS1 disks?
And what about the downlaoded PS1 games?
pwtf3290 @ Feb 13th 2008 7:31PM
I think Sony should make a software emulator like Nintendo has been doing for their systems for years, and release it for free so everyone can play their PS2 games.
dartmerc @ Feb 13th 2008 9:07PM
umm.. when has Nintendo created hardware emulators (I know you said software emulator.. but that's incorrect, we're talking about emulating the HARDWARE to play software).
FatalisticDread @ Feb 13th 2008 7:57PM
That entire interview was corporate double-talk bullshit fluff! I read through the whole thing dumbfounded that the interviewer didn't call B.S. on every single answer given.
...sorry, my eloquence was lost in a fit of "are-you-shitting-me?" rage!
phileoca.com @ Feb 13th 2008 8:35PM
Backwards compatibility isn't necessary. I have 60gb, so yes I have BC. But for anyone who doesn't have BC and still wants to play PS2 games more than likely already has a PS2.
Then there are the DDR games on the PS2 that you can't even play on the PS3 anyway.
BC is not important, especially when you buy a PS3 to play HD games. Playing retro games has a better retro feel when played on a retro system.
Raise your hand if you still have your Atari 1600. :-D
Phileoca @ Feb 13th 2008 8:37PM
Backwards compatibility isn't necessary. I have 60gb, so yes I have BC. But for anyone who doesn't have BC and still wants to play PS2 games more than likely already has a PS2.
Then there are the DDR games on the PS2 that you can't even play on the PS3 anyway.
BC is not important, especially when you buy a PS3 to play HD games. Playing retro games has a better retro feel when played on a retro system.
Raise your hand if you still have your Atari 1600. :-D
dartmerc @ Feb 13th 2008 9:07PM
I still have my atari 2600 which is what I assume you mean..
dartmerc @ Feb 13th 2008 9:07PM
2600...
dartmerc @ Feb 13th 2008 9:02PM
Emulators are not illegal. How can any peice of software written from scratch by someone and released with the required license be illegal?
The BIOS is illegal to distribute because that isn't created from scratch.
pwtf3290 @ Feb 13th 2008 9:32PM
Hardware emulation is when you have the actual hardware doing the emulation work like the 60 GB PS3, while a software emulator is when you have a piece of software emulation said hardware, Virtual Console NES, SNES, N64 games, and the Xbox 360 backwards capablility.
pwtf3290 @ Feb 13th 2008 9:37PM
Sorry haven't figured out how to use this comment system yet. This was supposed to be a reply to #17 dartmerc.
dartmerc @ Feb 13th 2008 10:41PM
Yeah sorry, got my terminology mixed up, spent way too much time with MAME lately, they're always refering to emulating arcade hardware as hardware emulation.
Organic_Shadow @ Feb 14th 2008 12:42PM
The good thing about this, is that since most PS2 games don't dip below the $20 mark at retail, even the ancient titles, expect the PSN versions to cost around $12 or so. That's IF they do this...
Eddie @ Feb 14th 2008 2:53PM
So, are you saying my lovely 40GB might be able to play PS2 games in the future?
Poddie @ Feb 14th 2008 6:57PM
BC IS importtant. I could see myself picking up a PS3 someday, but only if it can REPLACE the PS2 (next to my XBox 360). I'm not sure why people don't see the value of not being forced to maintain 10 different systems. Seems crazy to me.
And given the apparent reluctance of publishers to release any good 2D games on PS3/360, my PS2 collection will be in service for a long time... nearly all the important Capcom fighters are on it, as well as many collections of games that are important to me.
Juanking @ Feb 21st 2008 12:37AM
I think Sony should let the customer have the option of paying 600 dollors for full backward campatible PS3.When I paid for mine I was just interested in fully funtional PS2 capebilities.
Tenor @ Feb 22nd 2008 10:20PM
I like my PS3 which I jsut purchased but I don;t love the the fact that I have to buy a new guitar controller if I want to play GH3 and it's download content. I have all versions of GH and now I'm forced to spend another $70-$100 for a new guitar and game. Besides the bundle that came with the 80 gig is hard to find.
therefore PS2 compatabilty should be a must and is important.