Rumor: Sony is preparing PS2 emulator for PS3

[Jeremy Ricci]

Yes. But if I understand the article correctly, they will sell the games straight from PSN, so they must include a software emulator for the consoles that don't have one.

No. If they begin to sell PS2 games on PSN, it will not be in emulated form. They will be ported and the code will be altered to run on PS3 hardware as it's own executable file. It will work just the same as any other PSN game. There is NO CHANCE for PS2 emulation on PS3. The hardware is not capable of emulating PS2 hardware. There is no debate about this.

 

[Tornado]

Sony will never recoup their losses this console generation on the PS3.

Never.

That's how much money they've lost.

I don't understand what you expect the reaction to be to this. Sony knew full well what they were doing, and they did it on purpose. I hardly think a company should get sympathy for playing for long-term profit rather than short-term gains, and it isn't as if they sold the PS3 at a loss just because they love their customers that much.

No. If they begin to sell PS2 games on PSN, it will not be in emulated form. They will be ported and the code will be altered to run on PS3 hardware as it's own executable file. It will work just the same as any other PSN game. There is NO CHANCE for PS2 emulation on PS3. The hardware is not capable of emulating PS2 hardware. There is no debate about this.

Of course, we don't actually know this. Sony isn't stupid. They know full well what would happen if they started selling PS2 games for PSN only, regardless of all of the stupid things they have done in the past with the PS3.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Actually I do know it. The bus on the EDRAM in the PS2 far exceeds any bus speed on the PS3. To put it simply, there is no way that a PS2 game can function correctly on PS3 through software emulation without all of the components. The PS3's that were backwards compatible were so because they actually had the components necessary to do so. The ones that were missing the Emotion engine still had the Graphics Synthesizer in them, to include the EDRAM and the necessary bus speeds to run that software. Without that, it is technically impossible for them to do it at this point.

Even emulators on PC's with specs that far exceed that of the PS3 have difficulty running PS2 games. It's not going to happen, and I know this to be fact.

 

[Tornado]

Thanks for the information. I was wondering what role the eDRAM played in the GS.



So, Sony just lost the entire generation if they even dare to start selling PS2 games on PSN. Assuming Microsoft comes back, probably the next one too. Lets hope they don't do that, then.

 

[Robin]

Sony will never recoup their losses this console generation on the PS3.

Never.

That's how much money they've lost.

I'd appreciate it if you'd not use hearsay, rumors, and other FUD when you discuss things of fact. You look foolish if you do otherwise.

And you know this how? You work for Sony as their accountant? Wheres your hard FACTS on that statement? Oh wait, you can see the future and guarantee Sony won't ever become profitable on the PS3 right..

As it is they have already shifted over a million Slims which are still sold at a loss but if this upward trend keeps going it is not impossible to see Sony at least breaking even on the console project at the end of its 10 year lifespan. The PS1 and 2 have all been very profitable after loosing a substancial amount of money in the first 4-5 years.

Oh and if you are a fan of making your voice heard on "hearsay, rumors and other FUD" you should check out the Gran Turismo 5 forum at the moment because im sure you would find plenty to moan about in there.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

And you know this how? You work for Sony as their accountant? Wheres your hard FACTS on that statement? Oh wait, you can see the future and guarantee Sony won't ever become profitable on the PS3 right..

As it is they have already shifted over a million Slims which are still sold at a loss but if this upward trend keeps going it is not impossible to see Sony at least breaking even on the console project at the end of its 10 year lifespan. The PS1 and 2 have all been very profitable after loosing a substancial amount of money in the first 4-5 years.

Oh and if you are a fan of making your voice heard on "hearsay, rumors and other FUD" you should check out the Gran Turismo 5 forum at the moment because im sure you would find plenty to moan about in there.

1) Financial reports are released to the public quarterly and annually. The losses Sony posted from 2005 (when PS3 production began) through 2009 are far greater than they can recover from, considering they have already wiped out their profit from the PS2 era (this is fact).

2) In order for Sony to become profitable, they will have to establish an install base of 100+ Million before the end of this console generation, and their 1st party software will have to break 2 Million units each during their initial price point ($60).

3) I'm just trying to help members of this forum avoid the gratuitous amounts of misinformation you have seen fit to provide everyone with. Don't you think they are entitled to factual information, as opposed to the "I read this on a forum" info that you have been providing?

PS: Yes, I do know people both in Game Development and at Sony Computer Entertainment. I met a lot of people during my trip to visit Insomniac Games, many of whom are developers for SCE and Insomniac, and we talked extensively about Backwards Compatibility.

Anything else you'd care to ask me?

Edit:

Tornado - What do you mean Sony will have "Lost this generation"? Technically, they already have since it is unlikely they will become profitable. If you want to be technical about it, no one has won a Generation since the SNES except Nintendo. They have been consistent in being the most profitable company of the 3, despite user base.

Sony has wiped out their earnings from the PS2 Era, and Microsoft is still recovering from all of the money they lost last generation. "Lost" is really a broad term that doesn't necessarily mean anything to Sony, MS, or Nintendo, it only matters to people who are actively involved in "console wars" discussion.

 

[Tornado]

And you know this how? You work for Sony as their accountant? Wheres your hard FACTS on that statement? Oh wait, you can see the future and guarantee Sony won't ever become profitable on the PS3 right..

Sony was losing something like $4 billion+ a year for the first two years or so the PS3 was out, and they still haven't even broke even on development costs for the system due to the price drops. No system has ever had such a problem with this before, not the PS2, not the Saturn, not even the original Xbox cost anywhere near as much to make and develop. They intentionally gave the system's profitability away so they could raise the stakes on the Blu-Ray gamble, so I think its fairly safe to say the the PS3 will never make money.

Tornado - What do you mean Sony will have "Lost this generation"? Technically, they already have since it is unlikely they will become profitable.

If, after trying so hard to reinvent the PS3 brand this year, Sony was to announce that they would be selling PS2 games on PSN, I'm almost certain the fallout would kill the system. Sony would be fighting consumer mistrust (whether its their fault or not is irrelevant) even stronger than what Sega had in 1995 (though probably not "Atari in 1984" bad), and it would probably take them years to get rid of it. That's what I mean. Nothing along the lines of "OHMIGOD SALES!," more along the lines of consumer confidence.

If you want to be technical about it, no one has won a Generation since the SNES except Nintendo. They have been consistent in being the most profitable company of the 3, despite user base.

Surely Sony eventually made money on the PSX and PS2. I mean, even if PS3 costs wiped the coffers clean, the PS2 surely had to turn a profit for them, didn't it?

 

[danjama]

.. 60gig ftw. <_< lol

haha 👍

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Sony made plenty of money on the PSX, most of which was used to fund PS2 development. After 6 years of healthy sales, the PS3 began development, and unfortunately, that wiped out all of their profit and them some from the PS2.

Also, I don't think that selling PS2 games on the PSN Store will create any kind of consumer backlash at all. They've already taken that hit when they removed backwards compatibility. The introduction of PS2 games on PSN would have a negligible negative impact, if any, on consumer mindset.

 

[Robin]

In order for Sony to become profitable, they will have to establish an install base of 100+ Million before the end of this console generation, and their 1st party software will have to break 2 Million units each during their initial price point ($60).

Sony has sold over 1 million Slims in 1 month. If they kept that rate up (which could very well happen as the price falls which it obviously will over time) they could establish an install base of around 60-70 million by 2015 based ONLY on the Slim.

Also you are not taking into account accessories that do make a profit. For all you know the upcoming motion controller could be a massive hit and could alone sell many bundles or even consoles.

As for the first party titles again you dont know if something in the future is going to come along a be a massive hit. GT5 for one could sell very well as well as the exclusive Rockstar games which are in development.

Besides, were are you pulling this REQUIRED targets from anyway?

PS: Yes, I do know people both in Game Development and at Sony Computer Entertainment. I met a lot of people during my trip to visit Insomniac Games, many of whom are developers for SCE and Insomniac, and we talked extensively about Backwards Compatibility.

You realise what you just said is a good as saying "I know some guy in a pub"! For all I know you could be making all of that up, at GTP information from "this mate I know who works at X developer" means nothing as has been stated many times by moderators and it adds no arguement to your point. If you have a valid point you don't need to back it up by how hooked up you claim to be!

Sony was losing something like $4 billion+ a year for the first two years or so the PS3 was out, and they still haven't even broke even on development costs for the system due to the price drops. No system has ever had such a problem with this before, not the PS2, not the Saturn, not even the original Xbox cost anywhere near as much to make and develop. They intentionally gave the system's profitability away so they could raise the stakes on the Blu-Ray gamble, so I think its fairly safe to say the the PS3 will never make money.

I don't dissagree that the PS3 has had the worse start of any console in history but that does not mean that the console can be guaranteed as written off right now, only a few years into its life. Also they have not 'given away' the consoles profitability, consoles themselves are never profitable (apart from the Wii because its so simple). The launch PS2's costed just as much as the launch PS3's per unit.

The Slim is a result of Sony's desperation to rectify the situation, if Sony knew that they could truly never turn this issue around, even in 10 years time, they would have just dropped the console like Sega with the Dreamcast. A company will never support a dead and buried console for 10 years, thats a fact!

Robin.

 

[Tornado]

Also, I don't think that selling PS2 games on the PSN Store will create any kind of consumer backlash at all. They've already taken that hit when they removed backwards compatibility. The introduction of PS2 games on PSN would have a negligible negative impact, if any, on consumer mindset.

The industry has already been putting up with Sony's blatant hypocrisy over the mess for quite a while now, probably only because of misinformation and Sony's doublespeak over the matter. They already admitted straight up that they removed BC purely so people would buy PS3 games instead, so if they were to start selling PS2 games on PSN after the fact, it almost certainly will reach a breaking point. In essence, every single interview they have had over the matter would have been a complete lie; and quite frankly, I see a lot of people having a big problem with that.

A company will never support a dead and buried console for 10 years, thats a fact!

They would if the company as a whole would benefit long term. That's why Sony's losses on the PS3 aren't as serious as Microsoft's.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

You misunderstand a lot of things Tornado.

The "We removed PS2 BC so people will buy PS3 games" was what many would call "PR Spin".

The truth is, Sony removed PS2 BC for 1 reason. To lower the cost of manufacturing the console in order to give them a little breathing room to lower the price and remain competitive in the industry.

By removing PS2 internals in the PS3, Sony was able to cut down on manufacturing costs by about $27.

That means Sony saves approximately $27,000,000 for every 1 million consoles they manufacture, vs spending that additional $27 million while still losing money.

It had nothing to do with the purchase of PS3 games.

In short though, you are incorrect. While some may say it's a "breaking point", they are just an extremely vocal minority. I understand your position, but it is important you not extrapolate your own experiences and thoughts and apply that to the general populous. There will be no "consumer backlash" at all that is even remotely perceivable if they sell PS2 games on the Playstation network.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Sony has sold over 1 million Slims in 1 month. If they kept that rate up (which could very well happen as the price falls which it obviously will over time) they could establish an install base of around 60-70 million by 2015 based ONLY on the Slim.

Also you are not taking into account accessories that do make a profit. For all you know the upcoming motion controller could be a massive hit and could alone sell many bundles or even consoles.

As for the first party titles again you dont know if something in the future is going to come along a be a massive hit. GT5 for one could sell very well as well as the exclusive Rockstar games which are in development.

Besides, were are you pulling this REQUIRED targets from anyway?



You realise what you just said is a good as saying "I know some guy in a pub"! For all I know you could be making all of that up, at GTP information from "this mate I know who works at X developer" means nothing as has been stated many times by moderators and it adds no arguement to your point. If you have a valid point you don't need to back it up by how hooked up you claim to be!



I don't dissagree that the PS3 has had the worse start of any console in history but that does not mean that the console can be guaranteed as written off right now, only a few years into its life. Also they have not 'given away' the consoles profitability, consoles themselves are never profitable (apart from the Wii because its so simple). The launch PS2's costed just as much as the launch PS3's per unit.

The Slim is a result of Sony's desperation to rectify the situation, if Sony knew that they could truly never turn this issue around, even in 10 years time, they would have just dropped the console like Sega with the Dreamcast. A company will never support a dead and buried console for 10 years, thats a fact!

Robin.

Not even Nintendo sold 1 million Wii's per month during it's peak selling periods, and it was more popular than the PS2. Your logic is flawed (considerably so).

Secondly, you can question my acquaintances all you like. I don't mind. I have no need to prove anything to you personally. I've been here on GTP for quite sometime, and have in many instances provided information that was not generally known to the public, which later turned up to be correct. I have no reason to provide you with names, or any other information, especially since protecting their reputations and careers is far more important to me than a quarrel with a forum goer who's information is consistently incorrect.

You can continue to provide misinformation and spread your own interpretation of a Press Release all you want. I will continue to correct you. See you around.

 

[NLxAROSA]

No. If they begin to sell PS2 games on PSN, it will not be in emulated form. They will be ported and the code will be altered to run on PS3 hardware as it's own executable file. It will work just the same as any other PSN game. There is NO CHANCE for PS2 emulation on PS3. The hardware is not capable of emulating PS2 hardware. There is no debate about this.

Assuming this is correct, that might severely limit the number of PS2 titles coming available through PSN. I would presume porting and altering some of the more complex titles would be time (and thus money) consuming.

 

[Pierced Lead]

Not even Nintendo sold 1 million Wii's per month during it's peak selling periods, and it was more popular than the PS2. Your logic is flawed (considerably so).

I've read in many places that the Slim sold 1 million units in 3 weeks.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

I've read in many places that the Slim sold 1 million units in 3 weeks.

Yes, it sold 1 million units, world wide, in 3 weeks on launch. I was speaking in reference to North American Numbers.

Even So, Nintendo was breaking nearly 1.5 to 2 million units world wide with an insane amount of hype (and a $250 price tag).

Sony, frankly, doesn't enjoy either of those. It is entirely possible that they will finish this generation with an install base of 60 to 70 million users, however, that is still not enough for them to recoup their losses.

NLxAROSA - This is true. Unfortunately, if we do see PS2 titles on PSN, they will be as few and far between as PS1 games. The bright side is, they will most certainly have to have trophies (though, again, this would limit the number of titles we see on PSN). I can certainly see a lot of top classics making their way to PSN though (GTA titles, Metal Gear titles, etc).