PlayStation 3 not 100% backwards compatible?
Sony London has been hard at work on some
very hush-hush PlayStation 3 goodness. According to sources close to GamesIndustry.biz, Sony's UK studios are
hard at work on both the PlayStation Network (codenamed "PlayStation HUB") and backwards compatibility
software for PS2/PSOne emulation.If the sources are correct, then the PlayStation 3's backwards compatibility is not as certain as it once was. Software emulation is the same trick being used by the Xbox 360 to play original Xbox title, and Microsoft is still trying to get its back catalogue to function properly (as of today, our beloved Psychonauts is still not playable on our shiny 360 consoles). The source claims that "a surprising number of PS2 titles are already working on PS3 prototype hardware." Sony must get the majority of its back catalogue compatible with the new PlayStation or they will lose one of their key speaking points.
Say Sony does manage to get all (or a majority) of its PSOne / PS2 games compatible with the PlayStation 3 -- how much space is that going to take up on the recently-confirmed 60 GB HDD? And what about imported PS2 titles?
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in!]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Uglypimp @ Apr 24th 2006 8:44PM
I'm surprised they're taking the software emulation route. Didn't the PS2 have the PS1 chip embedded in it for direct emulation? Perhaps the PS1 and PS2 chips would push the price too far?
tcc3 @ Apr 24th 2006 8:46PM
Sony not deliver on a promised feature? Thats unpossible! =)
You'd think Sony was run by politicians or something.
Paul Gale @ Apr 24th 2006 8:46PM
Sony started having problems with its software compatibility with the white colored Slim PS2 in Japan. It wouldn't play all existing PlayStation 2 titles. Hopefully Sony's PlayStation 3 will be able to play most of its predecessor's past titles, if not all of them.
Paul Gale
1up.com
AVB @ Apr 24th 2006 8:48PM
Honestly, argue and speculate, but this won't be answered until November 2006.
Jason W @ Apr 24th 2006 8:48PM
I thought the XBOX 360s backwards compat thing was an issues when i biught my 360, but to tell the truth, once I got a few games (18) I rarely go back the the old games. As long as the PS3s games are there after the first few weeks, most will not even play the back catalog anymore. How many people play PS1 games on the PS2 now anyways?
metaly @ Apr 24th 2006 8:50PM
My burning question about the PS3 is: If there's not going to be a region lock for PS3 games, is that going to carry over to the older titles? Should I start picking up some of the weird Japanese PS2 games I want to try now, because I'll be able to play them on my American PS3?
Sizer @ Apr 24th 2006 8:59PM
Yes, you remember correctly - the PS2 IO Processor is basically a PSX on a chip.
And even that wasn't 100% compatible. Though certainly much more so than the XBox 360 or the PS3 will be.
Exbzurg @ Apr 24th 2006 9:03PM
to number 3(jason)
its not really about playing the back catalog as your main gaming activity its about being able to buy an old game you might have missed out on, or perhaps you waited for a next-gen price cut on games(im sure weve all done this, you know waiting for old tech to lower in price), or perhaps dusting off your collection for the occasional nostalgia(sp?) run.
nizzy1115 @ Apr 24th 2006 9:05PM
#5: "And even that wasn't 100% compatible. Though certainly much more so than the XBox 360 or the PS3 will be."
Of course, everything about the ps3 has to be better than the 360. It just HAS to be...
pr0cs @ Apr 24th 2006 9:06PM
The "region lock" thing is more Sony propaganda and will work on the same level as the XBOX360 in that its up to the publishers to determine if the content is region locked or not, not the console itself.
Is anyone really surprised by this? They're having problems getting the PS3 itself inside that tiny box, did you really think they were going to be able to fit and PS1 and PS2 chipset in there as well?!?
The PS3 is going to have the same compatibility problems that the XBOX->360 has. Probably less issues because Sony owns all the hardware rights but because of their HUGE software library expect a lot of titles to be missing initially on the list.
nizzy1115 @ Apr 24th 2006 9:07PM
woops misread that one...disregrad my anti-ps3 fanboy rant...
MaX PL and the 360 r4pe Tr4iN @ Apr 24th 2006 9:17PM
#7
that sarcasm?
anyhow, I can already predict Sony's "speaking point" at E3. "We can officially announce that the PS3 is backwards compatible with PS2 and PS1 catalogue."
yet the truth is that at launch they'll make a revision to this announcement and only X ammount of titles will be BC.
Sony is sad when it comes to Playstation.
ry @ Apr 24th 2006 9:22PM
To anyone thinking of playing a PSone game on a PS3: Welcome to 2006 already.
aka Bitter @ Apr 24th 2006 9:25PM
re: #3,6
In Sony's case, it's not so much about back compat for old PS2 titles as it will be compatiblity for new PS2 releases.
Microsoft has pretty much closed the door on the old Xbox, but Sony shows no intention of doing the same with PS2. Especially with God of War 2 as a 2007 PS2 release along with a unknown number of others(my guess is a substantial amount).
Andy @ Apr 24th 2006 9:31PM
Sony overpromises and underdelivers... big surprise.
Pince @ Apr 24th 2006 9:33PM
@ #3
I think you greatly underestimate the power of backwards compatability. Just because we are ushering in a new generation of consoles and games does not make the older generations obsolete. I can't speak for everyone, but at least for myself and amongst my friends, we love digging through bins of old ps1 games looking for those games we never beat back in the day.
Of the last 5 games I've played through on my ps2, three of them were ps1 games that I found buried in used bins at a gamestop over the summer (alundra, tomba, and FFtactics). And dare I say, as I was playing burnout revenge, I kinda got bored and wanted to go back and play more FFtactics. The point is, there are tons of kickass games for ps1 and ps2, and it would be nice if they were compatable with the ps3.
Secondly, for someone who is just getting in to games, backwards compatability gives them the ability to buy a ps3 and still be able to go buy older games that they've heard about and always wanted to play, without having to buy a ps2 as well (thats just seem silly in a way). There are just some games (many in the ps1 and ps2 catalog) that cannot be missed no matter what generation of gaming you are getting in on. Also, even with a great launch, there is a somewhat slow period at the beginning of a new generation of gaming, so it is nice to have that backwards compatability and ton of old games that you can go pick up to hold you through the wait. Waiting for MSG4? Well how bout pickin up of MSG for ps1 and making the wait worhtwhile...etc etc.
Lastly, it is still nice to throw in my old copy of
CastlevaniaSOTN or THPS2 or whatever and be able to play a couple of masterpieces again.
Do not underestimate the benefits of backwards compatability.
B @ Apr 24th 2006 9:33PM
How many weeks to you-know-what? Three?
The1 @ Apr 24th 2006 10:00PM
I sent this to Joystiq early this morning and its just being posted. :(
kandy neko @ Apr 24th 2006 10:16PM
I play lots of Playstation 1 titles on the PS2 still. Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy 7 and Final Fantasy Tactics, and Castlevania SOTN don't get old do they?
RP @ Apr 24th 2006 10:20PM
Sony has pretty much admitted it would have limited BC all along ... are people so glazed over they can't decipher interviews anymore ... they have always sidestepped the BC question and never admitted it would be fully compatible.
nojok3 @ Apr 24th 2006 10:28PM
Microsoft really blew it with their backwards compatibility. When they announced the initial list of 200 something games, they said the top selling, most difficult to emulate and the most played on xbox live would be first to be BC. About 7 of the top played xbox live games that week made the BC list, with Halo 2 being the only one that was in top 10.
Still waiting to be able to play Counter-Strike on my 360, no other game matches it.
Sir Skillz @ Apr 24th 2006 10:34PM
I think the software is there to "trick" the CELL into running the PS1/PS2 cpu's. Since All of the PlayStation's cpu's are based on RISC architecture
dan @ Apr 24th 2006 10:39PM
well they are having a hard enough time squeezing the ps3 chips into the ps3 box, so they wont be putting the ps2 hardware in there.
Enigma @ Apr 24th 2006 10:44PM
"I think the software is there to "trick" the CELL into running the PS1/PS2 cpu's. Since All of the PlayStation's cpu's are based on RISC architecture"
That is exactly what they are doing. It was mentioned in the past. Not the same as "emulating" like the 360 does.
Seer S @ Apr 24th 2006 10:50PM
PS3 Emulation != Xbox 360 emulation, because all the playstations used the same architecture (RISC) while the Xbox used x86 and the 360 uses RISC. Backwards compatibility really shouldn't be a problem?
"18. well they are having a hard enough time squeezing the ps3 chips into the ps3 box, so they wont be putting the ps2 hardware in there.
Posted at 10:39PM on Apr 24th 2006 by dan"
Off really? What are you basing that off of?
Mullinator @ Apr 24th 2006 11:33PM
I can definitaly see a lot more difficulty for Sony than Microsoft to get backwards compatability. The CPU architectures of the Xbox and the 360 are at least not vastly different the way the PS3 and PS2 CPU's are.
Brandon @ Apr 24th 2006 11:40PM
To #20, he's basing it off of every developer in the industry stating they can't fit the ps3 inside the george foreman grill. I'm sure that they will have as many games on there as the 360, and I'm also sure they will do updates alla MS to add to it. As for the guy that commented on ps1 games on the ps3, I would like to play some of my ps1 games on the ps3 in two years when i get one, Bushido Blade in particular.
Eric @ Apr 25th 2006 12:20AM
#11--I don't see your point. I have played through all of my PS1 games on my PS2 for love of the games that I have, and for that good ol nostalgia--And I will keep playing my PS1 games many years from now.
You must be a pretty young kid not to appreciate older games, and PS1 era games aren't what I consider that old. I still play emulated Atari 2600 games that I played back when I was 7. Just because there have been insane advances in gaming tech doesn't mean old games aren't good anymore...idjit.
epobirs @ Apr 25th 2006 12:21AM
#20
You've really misunderstood what RISC means. It is solely a design philosophy. It contributes nothing whatsoever to making any two processors have greater binary compatibility. Getting the MIPS CPU in the PS1 and PS2 emulated on the Cell is not especially less difficult than the problem of Xbox emulation on the Xbox 360's PPC CPU core set.
Emulation of the Xbox's Pentium III CPU is actually the simplest part of the task. The architecture is extremely well documented and detailed. Far more problems come from the lesser known Nvidia chips and the myriad tricks coders use to get their desired effect. Better still, the emulation isn't real-time. The process at Microsoft's end translates the bulk of the x86 code to PPC code and retains it. This is a small part of the game but the most critical part of making it work on the 360. Much of the download needed for each game is this pretranslated binary code. Data, such as graphics, audio, text, etc. can run as is with little effort if the code is already native.
Getting that code translated and running at full speed is the heart of the problem. Systems like FX!32 on the DEC Alpha did a good job of running x86 Windows apps with increasing speed as the binary translation base increased. This was for business and engineering applications that lacked a native Alpha version. Real-time performance was less of an issue and users understood that the first time they accessed a part of an app the code was getting translated for the first time and would run slow.
That won't work for games. It has to be up to snuff the first time it runs. So the lengthy playtesting is not just to verify a game's correct operation but also to generate the pretranslated binary for later distribution to 360 owners.
Doing the entire PS1 emulation in real-time may be viable on the PS3. We've seen it done pretty well on PC based systems years ago without Sony's inside knowledge of the hardware. The PS2 emulation, though, is a lot tougher due to the greater complexity of the machine and will likely use pretranslated binaries like the Xbox 360 approach.
Jed Merrill @ Apr 25th 2006 12:39AM
If the PS3 can't even play PS2 and PS1 games, that is pathetic! Nintendo's console can do that...
epobirs @ Apr 25th 2006 12:40AM
#21
Not really. The Cell, at heart, is a PowerPC CPU. Pretty much the same one used in triplicate on the Xbox 360. It won't be any more stressed to emulate a MIPS CPU than an x86 CPU. (Less depending on how long numbers are stored. Some PPCs used in Macs had hardware functions solely to improve x86 emulation by handling the -endian issue in hardware.) The emulation environment will map functions to the host platform as best suits that host. For instance, the Cell's SPE units should serve very well to take on the role of processing code intended for the PS2's vector units on the EE chip. Where applicable on both the PS3 and Xbox 360, the GPU will take on translated versions of tasks performed by the older platofrms' hardware. On the Xbox 360 the additional CPU cores can be enlisted to speed up processing of Xbox code that cannot be directly mapped to any 360 hardware, just as Sony will enlist the SPEs on the Cell.
I/O functions, like the USB ports used for the controllers on the Xbox and for occasional roles on the PS2, will be mapped to hardware serving simlar roles in the new machines. Sony will likely follow the course of the PStwo and forget the 1394 port ever existed, leaving just a vestige in the emulator to insure that games that try to poll it don't just crash.
In either case, the CPU architecture of the original platform won't matter much. The PS3 won't spend much time looking at native MIPS EE code. That will be processed in advance and downloaded as needed, much as the Xbox 360 handles Xbox games.
Sanana @ Apr 25th 2006 1:14AM
This is FUD.
The PS2 was only 99% backwards compatabile with the PSone. Some PS1 games with odd programming techniques weren't compatabile I remember, something like 20 games, but the vast majority was compatible.
Not like the 360, where most games aren't compatible.
Sucker @ Apr 25th 2006 1:57AM
#27. You don't know what you are talking about.
> Pretty much the same one used in triplicate on the Xbox 360.
Actually they aren't identical. They share a similar front end but back ends are different, one being significantly more powerful per cycle than the other.
> It won't be any more stressed to emulate a MIPS CPU than an x86 CPU.
I doubt it is the CPU that is in emulation. Makes no sense when you could fab the EE for $15 nowadays.
> Some PPCs used in Macs had hardware functions solely to improve x86 emulation by handling the -endian issue in hardware.
That's the legacy of NT support on PowerPC. G5 and PPE removed little endian support.
> Where applicable on both the PS3 and Xbox 360, the GPU will take on translated versions of tasks performed by the older platofrms' hardware.
RSX cannot emulate GS properly. GS's way of multitexturing requires massive bandwidth and will easily criple bandwidth startved RSX.
The way I see it, GS emulation is going to be the biggest headache.
> On the Xbox 360 the additional CPU cores can be enlisted to speed up processing of Xbox code that cannot be directly mapped to any 360 hardware,
No you cannot. Most Xbox titles are single threaded and you cannot use multiple CPUs to accelerate single-threaded code. This is why MS paid extra for higher backend performance than SCEI did, to ensure that their core could emulate P3-733.
Sucker @ Apr 25th 2006 2:00AM
#27. You don't know what you are talking about.
> Pretty much the same one used in triplicate on the Xbox 360.
Actually they aren't identical. They share a similar front end but back ends are different, one being significantly more powerful per cycle than the other.
> It won't be any more stressed to emulate a MIPS CPU than an x86 CPU.
I doubt it is the CPU that is in emulation. Makes no sense when you could fab the EE for $15 nowadays.
> Some PPCs used in Macs had hardware functions solely to improve x86 emulation by handling the -endian issue in hardware.
That's the legacy of NT support on PowerPC. G5 and PPE removed little endian support.
> Where applicable on both the PS3 and Xbox 360, the GPU will take on translated versions of tasks performed by the older platofrms' hardware.
RSX cannot emulate GS properly. GS's way of multitexturing requires massive bandwidth and will easily criple bandwidth startved RSX.
The way I see it, GS emulation is going to be the biggest headache.
> On the Xbox 360 the additional CPU cores can be enlisted to speed up processing of Xbox code that cannot be directly mapped to any 360 hardware,
No you cannot. Most Xbox titles are single threaded and you cannot use multiple CPUs to accelerate single-threaded code. This is why MS paid extra for higher backend performance than SCEI did, to ensure that their core could emulate P3-733.
Nico @ Apr 25th 2006 2:44AM
@ 16. "I sent this to Joystiq early this morning and its just being posted. :("
No kidding. I sendt in this tip and some tips about the new eye toy to both joystiq and ps3fanboy. Its like they are sleeping.
PS3fanboy has not been updated in ages even though ive sendt them lots of tips about the eye toy, this story, some confirmed launch titles and some news on exclusives. Those stories are apprently not as news worthy as nothing is.
Lekko @ Apr 25th 2006 2:49AM
The main reason BC is so important is because they don't want to suddenly drop support for their current userbase. You get a sudden massive lull in games.
Take the 360 for example: MS dropped production of the xbox, and basically threw everything they had into the 360, and pulled everything that was going towards xbox to the 360. No more good xbox games will be made for a basically dead system because all the focus is on the new machine. Then you also have a new console that not everyone has. Your returns on a 360 launch game are going to be slim because there aren't many units available, and you return on an xbox game is going to be small because you are putting the game out on a system that is basically dead (with no to shoddy BC, new xbox games are targeting a sinking ship.)
With good BC, developers working on Xbox titles see a larger userbase instead of a sinking ship, and will make better games for those who do not yet have a 360.
Think about all those people out there who do not yet have a 360 that love their xbox. They want a 360, but can't find one or afford one. No more good games for those gamers.
Sony understands this far better, and that's why BC was so important for them when the PS2 came out. I wonder if the 360-less xbox community will ever figure out they're getting screwed because of the shoddy BC and MS's tactic to force everyone into buying a 360 by starving their userbase of new games.
Ichabod13 @ Apr 25th 2006 4:11AM
I wonder if owners of the PS know that they're getting screwed for each and every promise sony makes. 100% BC promised and not delived. Not we know sony is doing emulation. 20gb hdd on the xbox becomes 13 after emulation software takes up like 4gigs and each update is like 200mb. So sony wants 100% bc...gl with that haha, you'd be left with no hdd.
Xbox still has games being released for it btw...black was one of the most recent top sellers. Oh and guess what, it works great on the 360.
obione @ Apr 25th 2006 5:32AM
I believe article is abit misleading. The original article can be found here http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=16310. There is nowhere on this page where it is mentioned that sony is having problems with the "BC" issue, infact the contrary is the case.
Da'Cheez @ Apr 25th 2006 5:54AM
All the more reason to check the facts yourself before you believe what somebody tells you.
Lee @ Apr 25th 2006 6:42AM
#31, they're just emphasising something that might not happen, due to the nature of the BC. Like when they said SE was "snubbing" 360, and you had all the 360 boys crying out about not wanting the stupid company, when really they'd just announced a single game for PS3/PC.
They can put what spin they like on it really...it's their own inference of the article that makes the blog worthwhile, otherwise this place'd just be a series of links to other articles around the net.
don_sf @ Apr 25th 2006 11:16AM
yes this joystiq article is a bit mis leading, especiialy because its work in progress and you dont get these sort of things over night.
but yes if backwards compatibe is not there then there will be a big loss in sales. think back to ps1 and ps2, if u had a collection then selling your ps1 and buying a ps2 left u with no loss what so ever. this isnt the case with xbox.
and the other thing, microsoft are focusing so much on the 360 now which is putting xbox 180 ppl under problems. if u are a small developer, u r not completely sure if u should make it 4 xbox 180 or 360. where as u can comfortably and happily make ps2 games for another 3 years at least.
and as a business dicision, its a must. theres about 200 million xbox games out there. theres around 2 billion ps1 and ps2 games out there. so u can clearly see microsoft are not loosing as much as sony would loose, therefore sony will prioritise this and make ensure its there.
Sean @ Apr 25th 2006 11:27AM
#31: Microsoft did release an updated version of the XDK before the 360 came out which was specifically intended to help developers ensure that their new Xbox releases would function in the 360's backwards compatibility mode.
IMO this shows that they're not abandonning the Xbox platform, but I will admit that the backwards compatibility at this point probably has enough "quirks" that many developers aren't willing to build their games around it.
As for dropping the original Xbox hardware, all I know is nVidia stopped making the nV2X chips (northbridge/GPU) many months ago. Whether that was nVidia's choice (remember there has been some battling between nVidia and Microsoft over pricing, which is why the 360 is ATI powered) or Microsoft's choice I do not know, all I can say is that original Xbox production is logically either stopped or winding down without any more of those chips being produced.
SuicideNinja @ Apr 25th 2006 11:50AM
Personally, I'd rather not incur any more costs of unnecessary hardware (which they are already doing). Embedding OLD chipsets just for backwards compatibility is stupid. I'd give Sony more credit if they went software emulation, because it really is more sensible for the future. You don't want the Cell and the Emotion Engine side-by-side, do you?
don_sf, why do you continue to comment about the 360 when it's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about? Developers can develop for the Xbox, XBLA, or the 360 all of which support HD. If they are concerned about BC, they can work with MS on it. It's their choice.
Should I say, "With Sony, the developers won't be able to program at the lower tier because the Cell is so complicated. Translation: they may never get the most out of the processor." But we won't talk about that, because I'm sure that's not considered fair. I love how over-estimated Sony is by its supporters (I used to be there, too).
Mal F4ci0n @ Apr 25th 2006 12:17PM
Article does not say 100% of those titles adhering to Sony's TRC are BC, but that they hope they will be by November otherwise it will be embarrassing to Sony as that was something touted of PS3's capabilities over the 360.
Anyhoo, I read this as a red flag that you can't believe everything Sony tells you. Mmmmm, will their online service be free? Yeah, Sony won't charge you, but will you be forced to play a monthly subscription to the developers? Awesome, instead of one yearly fee that equals out to be $7 a month for Xbox Live, I pay $9.95 a month to the developer for each game I want. Not bashing Sony, just warning you Fanboys to think or you may get burned.
I am waiting for PS3 and the truth before I buy one or the other.
Oh yeah, and Seer S (#23), RP (#18) is basing that off of Sony saying that they are having trouble getting everything to fit in the case.
MS abandoned XBox @ Apr 25th 2006 12:20PM
Anyone who thinks MS didn't abandon the Xbox (at least initially) wasn't at E3 last year. Despite having no real 360s to show, and only about 6 or 7 games 360 prototype games playable at the show, it was clear the shine was off Xbox.
Despite MS' booth having about 200 Xboxes, there were no innovative Xbox games being shown. And there were few "blockbuster" (top-line) Xbox titles being shown, regardless of whether they were innovative or not.
Quick, name two Xbox top-line titles released after E3 last year? I can maybe do it. GRAW was shown at MS' booth, in a prototype form. Full Spectrum Warrior: Twelve Hammers also came out, but I don't remember it being shown.
Since E3 2005, it has been sleepy-time for Xbox. And it's clear that's what MS wanted. Can you blame them? Would you keep pushing a console that you lose money on each time you sell it? Why convince a customer they need to buy an Xbox, generating a loss for you, and then buy a lot of $20 Platinum hits titles when instead you can cajole them into getting a $400 360 and several $50 or $60 titles?
SuicideNinja, Sony is using software emulation. You claim you would give them more credit if they did so. But will you do it? It seems more to me you made that comment because you just plain don't give Sony any credit at all and wanted to justify it.
And it's amazing how you write off the Cell already. Do you have a lot of experience programming for it?
MS' claims of Xbox 360 backward compatibility disgust me. Very few games are compatible, and many of them don't even work well. I sure do hope PS3 does better, but I have to say I'm nervous about it, having written several emulators myself. It's not an easy task emulating hardware that is anywhere close to current, because you can't fully emulate it, you have to cut corners and try to interpret the actions of the code you are emulating and reproduce similar actions on the hardware you have. This means you aren't doing a true emulation, instead just the "gist" of the hardware. And that means much lower compatibility.
Lee @ Apr 25th 2006 12:40PM
SuicideNinja, as ignorant as don_sf may or may not be about the consoles he's talking about, he's undeniably right. Xbox has been far from the focus of any real developer, and there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. The evidence is numerous and reasons abundant (many stated here already).
Siraris @ Apr 25th 2006 2:38PM
Was the gameindustry article even read by whomever posted this? I read the article yesterday, and it clearly states that they are working very hard, and have a majority of PS1 and PS2 games running in emulation.
Ross Miller @ Apr 25th 2006 3:17PM
Siraris -- I sure did, and I fail to see your point. Saying "they are working very hard, and ahave a majority of PS1 and PS2 games running in emulation" is not the same as saying they have all ... and furthermore, "a majority" can be very subjective ... 51% is a majority.
Call me a cynic, but if we are dealing with software emulation, I am not as confident at their BC as I once was. I feel I have every right in my post to doubt it.
Pedro @ Apr 25th 2006 5:06PM
Another PS3 rumor don't these people making up this shit have anything better to do. People are not believing this crap and we are still going to buy a PS3 not matter what you make up. The Xbox 360 is as good as dead.
Siraris @ Apr 25th 2006 8:00PM
I understand if you have speculation Ross, but speculation isn't news, it's just speculation. Why fuel the fires of the internet with speculation, that is completely unsubstantiated? Were there backwards compatibilty issues with the PS2 -> PS1? Did you have a lack of faith in Microsoft to do the same?
People come to you for the news, and although 51% is a majority, I think we both know that there will be substantially more than 51% of the back titles playable on launch day on the PS3. Considering there are over 13,000 PS1 and PS2 games worldwide, if 95% of the games were backwards compatible on launch day, do you really think it would be a big deal, considering they can easily patch the systems at a later date?
I just don't see where in this article anyone has cast any doubt on the backwards compatibility of the PS3? There's 6-7 months until the PS3 launches, and the article clearly states that this inside source is commenting on how incredibly well the progress is going. For whatever reason, you take this positive comment reported in Gameindustry.biz, and spin it into doubt that every PS2 and PS1 game will be tested and ready to go at launch. Considering millions of people read your site, and the vast majority will read what you have to say instead of reading the direct source, I find it strange that you would twist what the original article said and look for more reasons to bring the trolls out of the woodwork.