CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/08/04/news_6104095.html

I dunno about you guys, but I was hoping the PS3 would be backwords compatablity with PS1/2 games... less incentive to buy it if it does not have backwards compatablity.

if it's not backwards compatible...then I highly doubt we'll be owning one. at least not for a long long time.

In my mind, it would be a mistake to not do this, as I think their marketing executives know people would buy it for that reason.

Though it does make me think back to the oldest days of video games... back when you bought a system for a single game. Makes me feel a bit more grateful.

Hmmmm. Well, I have both a PS1 and a PS2 so it wouldn't be the end of the world if the PS3 wasn't backwards compatible, but it would be slightly annoying.

I read the article, and it does not say that the system will not be backward compatible with PS2/PS1 games. I agree that it would be a mistake not to make the PS3 backward-compatible, and hopefully the system will be backward compatible.

However, I can see why Sony might not make the PS3 backward compatible, even if it is possibly. Sony officials have commented that the PS2 will have a "10-year life cycle," which could mean that they want the PS2 and PS3 to overlap in the same way as the PS2 and PS1 (although the PS2 was still backward compatible ).

At any rate, we still have over six months until the system is actually unveiled (March 31, 2005 according to the article), so it is entirely too early to obtain many details.

Frankly, from my experience as a computer engineer listening to announcements from electronics companies, I do not see this as an indication on whether there is backwards compatibility on the PS3. This is a strategical announcement. It is typical for asian electronics companies to not reveal more than they feel is necessary for their advantage.

This has more to do with the Blu-Ray disc format, which is more like Sony's baby in the optical medium market. They are trying to make this the next standard in optical medium after the DVD format. They are trying to use their leverage as the current dominant console player to force other companies to adopt their Blu-Ray disc format. If they can do that, then they are in a great position to dictate the next step in the optical medium market.

However, their leverage is based on keeping their market share of the console business. This means they have to keep the large number of PS2 owners with them in their next console. Therefore, it makes sense to stick with backwards compatibility from the business perspective. It would be stupid to abandon that precedent.

Furthermore, technologically, backwards compatibility is not an issue. Chip-making technology has advanced tremendously since the PS2 release. Also, I remember reading an article a long time ago where Sony demonstrated a prototype Blu-Ray Disc player that can also play DVDs. If we take this with the fact they have already implemented backwards compatibility in the PS2, there is really nothing to worry about, unless Sony executives have lost their sanity, which I seriously doubt will happen in less than a year from now.

This announcement is about applying pressure to competitors who are not adopting the Blu-Ray format and to the other console companies who will not be able to show their new console next year. That is what my computer engineer instincts are telling me.

I remember when Super Nintendo came out. I wanted one sooo bad, but my parents couldn't afford it. A couple christmases went by, no SNES. When I'd talk to them about it, they would say. "We've spent so much money on games for that Nintendo. Why couldn't they have an adapter on that like the atari (5200) did?"

She was so afraid that because it wasn't backward compatible, that all my NES games would go to waste. It took a while, but I eventually assured her I could hook both systems up. I was able to, and I did. I got a lot of use out of my NES long after I got my SNES, and my Mother's fears subsided.

It would be a mild nuisance if PS3 isn't backward compatible. I mean, it was a huge draw for PS1, but frankly backward compatibility isn't that important unless you plan on giving your PS2 away. It's easy to switch back and forth between PS3 and PS2, although I heard PS3 may be HD only, so i guess that would be complicating things... Hopefully, by that time, HDTVs will be a manageable price (I'm not talking about the plasma ones, those ones are sorta like Jaguars in that they're very flashy but much too expensive and not as reliable as cheaper ones) so I hope to be able to buy one then, too...

Of course, PS2 also has HD connections, even though it can't take full advantage of it in most games. You will have to play most games in standard definition and it will be in letterbox (or, whatever it would be called when it was on the sides instead of on top).

In any case, backward compatibility isn't my top priority.

Bobtheduck wrote:although I heard PS3 may be HD only

That will just never happen man. We're talking about a 2006 release here not 2020. And what do you mean support HDTV? Because you can hook a PS2 to an HDTV no problem, that in itself won't do anything to 99% of your games over a standard CRT. Do you mean progressive scan? The only games I know of that support that are Prince of Persia and SOCOM 2, but I believe there are others. PS3 will obviously support progressive scan like Xbox does now.

The backwards compatibility would not be a big deal for me as I down own a PS2 or any PS2 games right now anyway. But it would be nice to have it, in the event that I would want to buy an older game and play it. Maybe they'll do like Nintendo and release some of their older games in PS3 format.

Bobtheduck wrote:It would be a mild nuisance if PS3 isn't backward compatible. I mean, it was a huge draw for PS1, but frankly backward compatibility isn't that important unless you plan on giving your PS2 away.

Actually, I'm counting on the backwards compatibility. I was hoping that it would have PS2 compatibility and PS1 emulation. I plan on dumping my PS2 in favor of a PC upgrade, and buying PS3 when it comes out.

No backwards compatability would be a big mistake IMHO. That was why I got a PS2 the first time around instead of a 'Cube, simply because there was a large library of PS1 games available until the PS2 games came down in price. It will be a long time before I get a PS3 anyway, a lack of backwards compatibility will just lengthen that time.

I have a Cube and PS2 ... some gr8 games are supposed to come in the fall for the former, and the latter has a whole bunch of games already. The only thing I don't like about the PS2 is that you need a PS1 memory card to play PS1 games (10 bucks can be pretty expensive)

[b]What's the

Blu-Ray? o_O Wow. that's some powerful hardware! What its it, liek 20 gigs on a Blu-Ray disc? Man. I'm starting to twitch. I jsut hope Nintendo uses Blu-Ray discs too, or their new system will have to be the 1337 uber pwnage to compete with Ps3. What am I saying? OF COURSE Nintendo's new system will be teh 1337 uber pwnage!

Volt wrote:What's the big Deal?

PSone games look like "C.R.A.P." on the PS2 because of different specs. PSone games play better and the visuals are smoother on a PSone. PS2 probably had to comprimize it's own graphics just so it could play PSone games. (? probably not)

But I really Don't Care. It's a PS3! Who cares if it can play 10+ year old games that you will NEVER want to play again. unless you are me... I'm buying classics NOW so I can have them when I retire But I like playing PSone on Psone and PS2 games on PS2, etc...

Actually PS1 games play either idenctical or even smoother on the PS2 if you turn on texture smoothing, trust me, I'm someone who primarly plays PS1 games on his PS2 and I have no gripe with it.

Likewise, I am pretty certain that the PS2 did not weaken its primary graphics configuration by accomodate for PS1 games.

No it didn't.

[quote="Lightbringer"][

Yeah what Volt said. And memory cards will probably last as long too.