European PS3 not so backwards compatible

"its good you at least realize Sony's motives Figboy. Sony may have pushed the technology envelope in other areas, but name one GAMING innovation they have introduced (not copied)."

um, what does innovation have to do with my enjoyment of Ico? Shadow of the Colossus? God of War? Rogue Galaxy? Ratchet and Clank? Jak and Daxter? Sly Cooper?

are you saying that in order for something to be worthwhile or notable, it has to be innovative? that sounds like Nintendo talking.

i bet your gaming library is really small if that's the case.

i enjoy fun games, innovative or not. is RE4 innovative? no, it simply took the formula and controls from previous Resident Evils and put in in 3D, with an over the shoulder camera and context sensitive actions. hardly innovative, but RE4 is kickass nonetheless.

i fail to see what Sony's lack of "innovation," has done to my enjoyment of the many games they've put out. last i checked, God of War 2 was getting spectacular reviews, and that series doesn't have an innovative bone in it's body, but it's still terribly fun.

"the PS2 was great because it was powerful, affordable, and intended as a game machine first and foremost. even you can agree not all of that can be said about the PS3."

the PS2 is a great machine, but what you seem to be forgetting at the time was that people heralded it as being expensive as well. people all over claimed that DVD was an unnecessary addition to the gaming also. we all know that wasn't the case, as DVD allowed gaming to grow.

i don't know what the future holds for Blu Ray, but i won't dismiss that the added capacity will be beneficial for HD gaming. hell, Blue Dragon is already on 3 discs, Dreamfall on my PC takes up 8 gigs, and it's hardly a visual masterpiece, or pushing any gameplay envelopes.

i imagine the sandbox genre will benefit most from the added space, and you don't really hear many developers complaining about the extra room.

thanks for the quote, as you can see in that quote i said "before fall". which excludes most of the big games on your list. hell, i'd be interested if they could get some of those this YEAR.

the reason i give this timeframe is because i think it's going to be crucial in the whole console war. it's going to be when many 3rd parties decide what console they'll be delivering to.

again, i'm a big fan of Sony's 1st party games, its why i bought this $600 hunk of metal. but i bet if you asked Sony's own in-house developers themselves, off the record, they would tell you how wrong big Sony corporate got this launch. it's THEM who didn't care enough about games, not their developers.

yes, good exclusive games for PS3 *will* come, but how many millions of cheaper 360s will be sold by then, and how many good 3rd party games will there be for it instead of the PS3?



.

look at all the sony haters

Figboy, relax, I was saying corporate promises are worth pointing out when they are consistently not reached, but yet people like you still defend them like you are the president or CEO.

My main point was you wrote a dissertation about how great the PS3 is and glossed over the actual topic of the posting. And please point out the bias in the article, not being a smart ass just wondering

and please do not tell me I don't know what I am talking about, that makes no sense in the context you put it

if you think the ps3 price is to much then dont buy it. stop complaining about the price and really like any of you care about what they have to pay. if you really cared that much then why don't you help them buy it

re: innovation: i was responding to your fervent praising of Sony "pushing the envelope" in the technology space, which i thought didn't really apply for the PS2 as great as that system was.

Resident Evil 4 was a terrible example by the way since it wasn't Sony who made it, and was actually a downgraded version of the Gamecube original (speaking of nintendo)

regardless, Ico, Turismo and such were all super innovative SOFTware for their time, but again, honestly ask those same developers what they think of the PS3 machine and launch and you'd be discouraged by their answer.

of course i can't give you proof, they would lose their jobs, but all you have to do is listen to all the 3rd party developers who have spoken up and/or taken their previously exclusive PS3 games to 360.

note: as expensive as the PS2 was, it wasn't prohibitively more expensive than it's competition. not the case this time, if only. and swapping discs? is that really worth the cost? come on. again with the stretching.



.

"129.

hell Afrika intrigues me too. as does fl0w. but i certainly didn't pay $600 for my PS3 for these kind of experiences. i paid for games i couldn't play on my 360 - or if i took Sony's word for it, "not possible on 360".

looking at the release list by summer it's going to be to a grand total of maybe 3 games i remotely care for. not good.

having a 360 as well, i'd be stupid to buy a worse performing, rumbleless, weaker online PS3 version of a multiplatform game."

Digi, since when are your specific tastes indicative of every gamer's taste?

sure, you may not find the games i've listed above terribly interesting, but that doesn't mean gaming as a whole doesn't.

that's the beauty of variety (something the Playstation brand excels at), there is something for everyone.

sure, it's "not good" to you if there are only 3 games worth your while, but out of the list of 20 games i posted, 15 personally appeal to me, hence, a PS3 purchase was completely justified. and those titles are just First Party.

i didn't even list MGS4, or both FFXIII games, or LA Noire, or Heavy Rain, and any other 3rd party titles (like VF5, which i already have and thoroughly enjoy).

as a point of interest, Mercenaries 2 was developed for the PS3 first, then a 360 and PC version were created based off of the core design template they had for the PS3. check out the ign article where they interview Pandemic about it. they say that the PS3 was the lead SKU.

as to the comment about not wanting to buy a "a worse performing, rumbleless, weaker online PS3 version of a multiplatform game."

how do you know the game will be worse performing? according to Bethesda, for example, the PS3 version of Oblivion is running better than the 360 version, and better than most PC versions. this tells me that, at the least, the console is capable of performing code rather well, when the developer takes the time to learn the machine (such as Bethesda's case).

as for rumble, seriously, are you going to go there? rumble is not a be all, end all of gaming. sure, it sucks that it's gone for those that like it, but i don't find it terribly necessary, and it's rather bothersome when it is turned on. but again, that's just me. i feel for the people that love rumble and can't have it, but it's not hurting me none.

weaker online? i think 40 players simultaneous online with no lag whatsoever trumps 8 players with a slideshow framerate anyday. weaker online, we've barely seen what the PS3 can do online, considering that only one game truly utilizes it well (that'd be Resistance: Fall of Man). and again, online appeals little to me (i hate playing with people online unless they're my friends, as most people on the internet are obnoxious assholes and suck the fun out of an online game. this is, of course, only based off of my personal experiences playing online).

you're going by an awful lot of assumptions (excluding the rumble) you're assuming that the PS3 version of a game will perform weaker, based off of what? a few shitty videos on Youtube from hackjob game publishers like Activision? hardly conclusive there.

you're also assuming that online is weaker, also based off of what? a bunch of blogs on the internet?

i'd suggest getting some hands on time with the PS3, or better yet, give the damn thing some time, as it's only been out on the market for 3 months.

i'd much rather have a solidly built piece of hardware that doesn't need to be returned every few months with countless upgrades and add-ons and very limited backwards comp anyday(the PS3 still trumps the 360 in bc over on this side of the pond).

and this is based off of actual experience with both the 360 and PS3 (we have two PS3s in the house; my roommate's and mine, and one 360; my roommates).

figboy,
you obviously didn't finish reading the Mercenaries 2 thread (OR interview):

" We started from scratch to program for the multiprocessors on both machines. They were both in mind when we were writing the text, so we didn't want to create a PS3 engine, which was and has been, and is, our lead SKU, but we didn't want to ignore the Xbox 360. Even though we're just now announcing the 360 version, we have been working on it for quite some time. Really, for development processes, we wanted to make sure one didn't lap the other. "

thats from SCRATCH. and if it was really "made for PS3" why isn't it taking advantage of blu-ray, cell, or the "better online" as you call it of the PS3? why is it even possible on the 360? it was conceived for both, thats why.

yeah i stated my tastes, and you stated yours. many of yours were downloadable games and games that won't show up until 08. it's feburary. maybe the "4D" Sony was taking about was anticipation. enjoy that.

online is much more than just numbers of people playable, but i can see your observations are way beyond reason on this one. as are the universally higher reviews of all PS3 multiplatform games vs. their 360 counterparts..

VF5 is ok. its my second PS3 game. also coming to 360, rumble would probably be good for a fighter. huh?




.

"re: innovation: i was responding to your fervent praising of Sony "pushing the envelope" in the technology space, which i thought didn't really apply for the PS2 as great as that system was."

at the time the PS2 was considered to be a very powerful piece of techonolgy. it wasn't until a year later, when the X box and Gamecube came out, that the PS2 was considered "weak." considering how amazing games like MGS4 and FFXII are, i don't see it as being anything of the sort.

"Resident Evil 4 was a terrible example by the way since it wasn't Sony who made it, and was actually a downgraded version of the Gamecube original (speaking of nintendo)"

i was referring to the Gamecube version. on either system, RE4 is a great game. i've played through both versions, and the gameplay is practically identical. the point wasn't to spout of a bunch of Sony titles, but to point out that a good game is a good game, even if it's not the most innovative title out there (ie, RE4). it was simply an example.

"regardless, Ico, Turismo and such were all super innovative SOFTware for their time, but again, honestly ask those same developers what they think of the PS3 machine and launch and you'd be discouraged by their answer."

what does the launch have to do with much of anything? the PS2 had an atrocious launch. low unit availability (much lower than the PS3), and shitty, shitty launch titles. it wasn't until March of 2001 that it got something quality with a port of Resident Evil: Code Veronica, and Devil May Cry, Onimusha, and Zone of the Enders were released. prior to that, the PS2 had ass for games. funny, kind of like the PS3, but at least there is Resistance.

this March we have some quality ports (F.E.A.R., Oblivion), and some good first party stuff (Motorstorm, Calling All Cars for the network).

my ultimate point is that most games have shitty launches (the 360 was not immune in the least). this stage usually lasts for a few months, until around March or April (when did Oblivion on the 360 come out again?), from then on, things get better (as listed by the May-December lineup for the PS3 and the other consoles)

hell, i know the PS3 launch wasn't spectacular, but i'm looking beyond that. outside of Sony fans, there's not much reason for anyone to buy a PS3 now. much like it was for the PS2 before it. this period will go away, and soon. the first year of a console's life is never for the casuals, so they are a non-issue until at least 2008.

"of course i can't give you proof, they would lose their jobs, but all you have to do is listen to all the 3rd party developers who have spoken up and/or taken their previously exclusive PS3 games to 360."

my view on this is simply that, as long as the PS3 is getting a title, who cares if it's multiplatform or not.

does the Wii have Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Mercenaries 2, Stranglehold, Dark Sector, Heavy Rain, Mass Effect,

"note: as expensive as the PS2 was, it wasn't prohibitively more expensive than it's competition. not the case this time, if only. and swapping discs? is that really worth the cost? come on. again with the stretching."

it goes so much beyond swapping discs that i'm really tired of hearing that excuse.

tell me, would GTA 3, for example, have been possible on one CD? or a cartridge? certainly not. the point is that every time a new storage medium has been introduced to gaming, it offered experiences that just weren't possible on the previous generation of storage medium. this is an undeniable fact.

we have yet to see the true advantages of Blu Ray, just like 7 years ago we couldn't see the true advantage of having DVD in the PS2. i'm simply giving it the benefit of the doubt for games.

what, exactly, am i stretching? i'm just noting the trends in the industry. with new technology come more than just the usual graphical upgrades. gameplay changes also.

or do you remember when we used to play Gears of War or Shadow of the Colossus back on our NESes?

aside from eliminating disc swapping, a 25/50 gig disc naturally allows for higher quality textures for those that have HD sets (which is slowly becoming the new standard in television sets), and a lot more room for more content in game, adding value to your buck).

i'm not going to dismiss the inclusion of Blu Ray, as, if i didn't have an interest in it, i wouldn't have bought my PS3 this year. i would have waited for the price to go down, and we all know it will. i just don't see the point of jumping down Sony's throat everytime something like this pops up when the simple answer would be to just not buy their products? easy as pie, really.

more memory on disc sadly won't increase the texture memory in the PS3. you may be able to get more LEVELS out of a blu-ray, but it won't make the PS3's RAM magically increase. again, nothing another disc on a long game wouldn't fix. and you brought up disc swapping not me.

as for multiplatform, it should matter greatly that people spent $600 to play an inferior version of a game released on a considerably cheaper system.

as "bad" as 360's launch title line-up was, there wasn't ANY competition, cheaper or otherwise. it was trailblazing HD games. Sony brought absolutely nothing new to the table. even after march.



.

We're gonna need Blu-Ray to back-up this comment thread

d'oh!

"156. that's the beauty of variety (something the Playstation brand excels at), there is something for everyone."

No, that's something that the PS1 and PS2 excelled at. The PS3 is difficult to develop for, and thus developers will have a tougher time turning a profit. Perhaps you didn't see Namco's estimate a while back that games would have to sell at least 500,000 units just to break even?

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6162509.html?sid=6162509

Combine that with low install base compared to the 360 and Wii, and something tells me third parties aren't going to be quite as eager to develop PS3 exclusives as they were with Sony's previous consoles.

Because, you know, software ran-BC has worked so well for microsoft... And most PS3 games are shit or are better on the 360. I've spent far more time with PS2 games on my PS3 than PS3 games thus far. I'd say by a factor of at least 10 to 1. On the other hand, I've played less than half an hour of xbox games on my 360, and I bought it at launch. Part of that though is that there is no easy way to transfer saves to the 360, unlike the PS3. The save system for PS1/2 games on the PS3 is something sony got dead-on. FAR better than MS's solution, or lack there-of.

@DigiS #146

"Tony Hawk in fact ran worse and had NO online at all vs. the 360 version."

I've played both and I didn't notice it running worse on the PS3.

TH is the worst online title out there. Each one always has been. I don't miss it for a second.

I don't care about BC, i got a ps2.
BUT theres no way in hell that i'm paying more to get less... Wake me up when the Ps3 hits 300 euro, then i'll might consider to buy one...
For now i'll just go and get myself another 360, just to be a friggin ahole

Hmmm.... No sir, I don't like it *FNWARP*

Im one of the few folks that want to play my vast back catalogue of PS1/2 games without having to worry about half of them not working. I own particularly odd gmaes too, the ones that might be classed as "poor" because they sold very little. Its one of the features i've championed the PS3 for, now I am GUTTED!

I´m really starting to look at a possible US/Jap Machine purchase. But then there are all the region problems (with PS1/2 games and DVD/Blu-Ray). But maybe a chip will appear to allow at least multi region (Im no pirate BTW, I'd only want a chip to make the machine multi region).

I´ve already plumped down 200Kr for my PS3 here in Denmark though to pre-order (and "save" 500Kr off the 5,500Kr price).

But I can easily sacrifice that as its also CHEAPER for me to buy a machine in US and get it shipped all the way here. thats crazy when you think about it. I think Denmark must be the only place Sony actually make a PROFIT on every PS3 sold (5500Kr = $970 USD).

What sucks about this is that software emulation can change on a regular basis. Yes, that means that compatibility may improve over time, but it also means the compatibility list will always be inconsistent, so nobody can really gauge just HOW compatible it is.

So, the burning question, "How compatible is it?", probably won't ever be answered directly. That's just annoying. When people buy products, they expect them to just work, or at least, be aware of its disadvantages ahead of time.

On the other hand, if the PS3 can now run PS2 titles with anit-aliasing, that would be cool. But, emulation can be downloaded at any time. Getting rid of the PS2 chip SO EARLY is clearly a mistake... if nothing else, just for PR reasons.

The funny thing with this is that Sony Fanboys actually expect SONY....a NON-Software company.....to actually have good emulation for BC....

If MICROSOFT...a REAL Software company.....can do it....expect SONY's output to be about 60% of them.

Sorry but our European brethtren just got screwed....fortunately it makes the earlier models of the PS3 more valuable...rewarding us early adopters......even if we have ZERO games to play.

I dont get it, how can Sony justify this BS!!!!

1) They rip on Microsoft for using software emulation while saying they use hardware emulation.
2) at the SAME time as point 1, they also say they intend to switch to software emulation!?!?!
3) I hate being a gamer in UK for this reason we always get teabagged! Remeber when the Wii was meant to launch with free Wii points for EU gamers? and when the Xbox 360 launched for some mad mark up compared to US and Japan.

I say F*%k Sony for this one. Everyone move to PC gaming. lol. Ive got a wii and a 360 and if theres a price drop (+ some worthwhile games) i might get a PS3..... maybe.

and some of us wanted a PS3. got one. and are starting to regret it.

Sony Developers make good games, and Sony Corporate make bad hardware and business decisions.

Microsoft Windows team make unoriginal, monopolistic computer OSes, Microsoft Entertainment Division make awesome online console OSes.

there are such things as different TEAMS within companies you know.

and i'm pretty sure the rule is, you have to WRITE IN ALL CAPS AND KEEP SAYING FANBOY to BE a fanboy.


.