Playstation3 and PS2 games

  • Thread starter Thread starter Road Rash
  • 11 comments
  • 562 views
So this means the 20 and 60 gig systems will play PS2 but the 40 and 80 gigs willnot. Just to clarify. I'm getting ready to buy a system.
 
The 20GB and 60GB will pretty much play ALL PS1/2 games and the 80GB will play most but not all (because it uses software emulation).

The 40GB will not play any...

Robin.
 
I'm sorry but that's just stupid, why on earth can't companies just make their product backwards compatible? I have the same issue with the 360 as well and it annoys me. I have to imagine it isn't that hard for them to do so, but I guess they would lose money in their respective stores from downloads.
 
They can its just they feel its too expensive for the reward they are going to get out of the customer.

They if the put the EE/GS on board it add's costs, the user can then play the PS1/2 games that they already own..

This means (in most cases) that BACKWARDS COMPATABILITY WONT MEAN NEW SALES OF PS1/2 GAMES so in Sony's eyes why bother, they wont get the investment back.

Which is why most console companies start with promises of backwards compatibility to attract people, deliver it for a while then quietly kill it off so you have to buy their new £40 games instead...

Plus it makes you then have to by old games from the PSN store at inflated prices which you could probably get on ebay in hard copy form for a lot less.

Its just economics...

Im glad I got my original 60GB with all the bells and whistles! :sly:

Robin.
 
It might be economics but it's pretty crappy that I spent $600 on a system (or $300 in the 360's case) and it only plays a handful of the last generation games. I want to get rid of my PS2 but I like games like Dark Alliance 1 & 2, GT3, etc. and they look like crap when I play them on the PS3. I have the 80GB which shouldn't really pose a problem but I just think a both Microsoft and Sony should show some love to their loyal fan base that has been with them since the beginning.
 
It's so obvious to me why Sony got rid of backwards compatibility.

1. It wasn't a main interest of customers.
2. Sony have plenty of PS2 consoles, with backwards compatibility, to sell. So why suffocate their sells?
3. It was a pain to get working properly and wasn't worth the effort.
4. It was costing too much without any real worth.
5. Games that did work looked like crap.
 
i actually tried playing the ps2 version of TDU and it didn't look too bad, but i look at it this way, and that's looking forward to the new games to play the console with and enjoy the new technology, and my second guess is that it will give them more sales with the new games. i mean, why bother with old games when you have a new console that could provide a better picture ? you might as well just stick to the ps2 if you're gonna play the old games anyways.
 
It may be an issue with HDMI. My component setup makes my PS2 games look better than they do on PS2. I love my BC 60GB system.

Anyway PS1 games have never run on Hardware, they've been software from day 1 and all ps3's play them.

i actually tried playing the ps2 version of TDU and it didn't look too bad, but i look at it this way, and that's looking forward to the new games to play the console with and enjoy the new technology, and my second guess is that it will give them more sales with the new games. i mean, why bother with old games when you have a new console that could provide a better picture ? you might as well just stick to the ps2 if you're gonna play the old games anyways.

Thats a very shallow way of looking at it. Some of us enjoy games in general, not the the hottest newest thing to burn through till the next fix. I'm 29 and I've been through every console and still like to pick up a classic every now and then. But i dont want to fiddle with switching consoles.

I disagree with the image quality of PS2 as my games look better on ps3 via component.
 
Back