Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Sony Addresses PS2 in PS3 Rumour 109

Posted by Zonk
from the not-true-maybe-sorta-i-dunno dept.
Gamasutra addresses the rumour floating around saying that every PlayStation 3 will have PS2 hardware included. This is apparently a fast and loose solution to Backwards Compatibility. Sony says 'that news ... is just speculation'. From the article: "According to the report, the article indicates that Sony is looking to this as a temporary solution, and plans to remove the chip from future hardware PlayStation 3 models, once it is able to include a functional PlayStation 2 emulator in its place. Such a redesign would, if true, presumably drive down the console's lofty price."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Addresses PS2 in PS3 Rumour

Comments Filter:
  • by twistedsymphony (956982) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @01:39PM (#15481326) Homepage
    If that's the case then it means that the PS2 hardware is useless for anything but running PS2 games. At least the PS2 was able to use the PS1's hardware for other basic I/O functions.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      That's not how I read it.

      It sounds like the plan was for SW emu all along, and it was in risk of being late. So the hardware is a temporary fallback until the SW is ready, and will be removed in future versions of the console as soon as they can. There'd be no point in creating any way to leverage the PS2 HW from a PS3 game if it's not going to be a permanent part of the console.

      It also suggests that earlier PS3's will have "more exact" emulation of PS2 than later PS3's, doesn't it? Given a choice between S
    • Not necessarily. Having the PS1 hardware present meant that PS2 games could take advantage of it. That does not ipmly that without that hardware that the PS2 games would be "useless."

      But who am I to argue? To me, backward compatibility means only one thing: that I have to pay more if I want to play next year's games. After all, I already possess the hardware to play the games of this (and yester) year.

      So... do I have nintendos NES hooked up? Not right now, but if I find myself aching for some Super Ma
  • Old Hardware Price (Score:2, Insightful)

    by IAmSwiftness (980193)
    You'd think if they are including old hardware maybe the price would come down . . . unless, of course, they are adding this on in addition to everything else, in which case, if the speculation is true, we could see the price jump even higher for the privelege of backwards compatibility . . .
  • by SoCalChris (573049) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @01:42PM (#15481355) Journal
    Sony will just lose less on each console sold once they get the full emulation worked out.

    When Sony is already losing a good amount on each console, they sure won't be passing those savings on to consumers.
    • I would have to agree with this idea. I am all for price drops and savings... but just from a Sony perspective it would make sense for them to be simply making the console produuction cheaper and cutting the loss. However, my business/economics background is null, but maybe passing on a little savings could boost sales, especially those initially not willing to spend 600. I just wonder how much excluding such a 'chip' would alter each console production price?
      • by tepples (727027) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .selppet.> on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @03:10PM (#15482138) Homepage Journal
        but just from a Sony perspective it would make sense for them to be simply making the console produuction cheaper and cutting the loss.

        Replication is not the only expense in manufacturing a new product. Managers must also consider the cost of research and development, which is greater for a full software emulator than for including the PStwo chipset in the PS3. This cost is not only in programmer wages and benefits but also in lost sales if the emulator delays the release of the console or if the emulator is not available by the day the console's firmware goes gold.

        • Managers must also consider the cost of research and development, which is greater for a full software emulator than for including the PStwo chipset in the PS3.

          Got any evidence to back up the cost comparison? They can't just superglue the chips to the board. And they certainly developed simulation tools before making final PS2 hardware, so there's sure to be code they could start from.
          • Got any evidence to back up the cost comparison? They can't just superglue the chips to the board.

            But they can solder the slimline PS2's chipset onto the PS3 circuit board and then include the equivalent of a KVM switch.

            And they certainly developed simulation tools before making final PS2 hardware, so there's sure to be code they could start from.

            Do you know the difference between Nesticle and Nintendulator? Both claim to be NES emulators, but Nesticle emulates the NES hardware just enough to get

  • Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cnettel (836611) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @01:42PM (#15481356)
    To me, this seems like a gamble. They need to get the emulator VERY good to be able to eventually take that chip out again. Imagine the pissed-off customers if they ask their friends to make sure their favorite PS2 game still works on the PS3, they get a positive answer, go and buy a PS3, but then it fails when running under the emulator. Of course, it's possible that they wait long enough to assume that noone will actually care about the compatibility anymore, and even skip the emulator altogether at that point, or sell it as an extra.
    • I'm more worried about the hardware emulation. Not a lot of PSX games crashed the PS2, but the ones that did often seemed like ones I wanted :-(

      With a software emu at least there'd be hope for a patch.
    • XBox 360 customers don't seem to be hugely upset by this same problem.

      And I'm skeptical that Sony is ever planning on removing the hardware logic, if it even exists. I could see eventually including it on the same silicon in a future chip revision to cut costs (turning several chips into one), but redesigning a motherboard and adding a software emulator sounds like a good way to increase costs.
      • I am an Xbox and XBox360 owner and while I'm mildly upset that I can't play some of the 15 games that I own, I would be even more upset if I couldn't play 30-40 games.

        Sony's inclusion of a ps2 emulator means that there's a ps1 emulator as well. MS only has to worry about one generation. Sony has two, Nintendo has, what, 8?
        • I am an Xbox and XBox360 owner and while I'm mildly upset that I can't play some of the 15 games that I own, I would be even more upset if I couldn't play 30-40 games.

          Considering the number of titles available for PS2 vs XBox, 30-40 sounds like a much lower percentage of PS2 games than 15 is of XBox games.
          • How many PS1 games don't work on the new Slim PS2? How many of them don't work on the Old brick PS2?

            I don't know, I don't own either. All I know is that of my 15 xbox games only 2 do not work on my Xbox360 at this point.
        • yeah, luckily most of the nintendo consoles, and the older consoles are easier to emulate than say the later stuff. the NES, master system, TG-16, SNES, and genesis games should work very well. the later consoles will be a pain. if you see any working games for the system, it will only be a very select few. that is, if they get dreamcast, gamecube and n64 emulation working through software.

          dont be surprised to find that the ps3 supports playing older TG-16, and sega games either. i can already see it...
    • It's exactly what they did for PS1 backwards compatability on the PS2, so it probably seems more like a tried and true option than a gamble from their perspective.
      • The SWITCH is the gamble, not including the hardware on the PS3. They never took the PS1 "I/O controller" out of the PS2.
  • by eggsurplus (631231) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @01:42PM (#15481358) Journal
    If it makes the machine cheaper to not have backward compatibility (which no doubt it would be) I'm all for it. I'm buying the machine for games that are designed for it. There's no problem with me with keeping an old system to play its games (except for having more clutter).
    • Quite a few who buy the PS3 will have a PS2 so backwards compatability is not a big issue. It is an issue for buyers of the PS3 who never owned a PS3 (i.e. parents buy one for little billy or susie) and see a large assortment of PS2 games for sale at a cheaper price (because they are the last generation console games) and want to get those games because of a limited availability of PS3 games (which is true at the introduction of most consoles).
      • maybe it's time to get out the old encyclopedia bookshelf collection next to the tv and start building some 'in-book' mods. I wonder how long it would take the 'other-halves' to recognize the radiant heat and dull purr of some of the books in the living room?!
      • That theory has been around for awhile now. Has anyone found out if this actually holds up in practice? If so, what kind of numbers are we talking about here in regards to buying into a console franchise for the first time due to the library from past generations?

        My thought is if they are buying it for the past generation they would most likely have already bought the old system. If they are now buying the latest generation it's likely that its due to the appeal of the new generation of technology and/or
        • 1. I don't own an xbox, but I loved Halo so much I bought it (one and 2) to play on my roomie's xbox (and I figured I'd have my own one day). Now I've moved out of there (married with a house now) and so backwards compatibility on the xbox360 was a must. I don't want to have to buy both. Also, my wife tolerates a game-cube and an xbox360 but would probably be annoyed if there was a third console lurking about.

          2. Another thing to realize is that consoles wear out. If you'be had an xbox since the eary day
    • The old hardware will die eventually, so backwards compatibility is a nice "insurance policy". Enhanced backwards compatibility is also nice (eg. faster loading and texture filtering for PS1 games in the PS2).
  • by BigDogCH (760290) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @01:49PM (#15481421) Journal
    If the ps2 can play ps1 games, would this also mean that the ps3 can play ps1 games.............or not? I mean, if the ps1 features in the ps2 are a seperate chip, then i assume it will be dumped. If they are included in the ps2 electronics, than it should be good to go.
    • by Silent sound (960334) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @01:53PM (#15481456)
      Sony has repeatedly confirmed [gamesindustry.biz] that the PS3 backward compatibility includes PS2 and PS1 games.

      Unfortunately, they haven't confirmed this means all PS1 and PS2 games.

      They also, keep in mind, haven't confirmed or even commented on the rumors in this article...
      • Unfortunately, they haven't confirmed this means all PS1 and PS2 games.


        Yes, given the fact the latest slimline PS2 has trouble running Tekken 5 and Resident Evil 2 you have to wonder just how many games will be playable this time.
        • If it's all but a couple, I won't be losing too much sleep wondering about it. They've got a long way to go before they're as bad as the competition. Besides, the point is to keep developers interested in developing for the old platform, not to make gamers who already own a PS2 happy. Backwards compatability is all about continuing to make a profit on the older technology for as long as possible...
        • if they have any business sense [which is debatable...] they would include the original hardware. since they have a harddrive now, make additional emulator profiles for "trouble" games so that they could run as well.
    • It's for that reason I kept/updated my original PS1 for the sake that in the future I may not be able to play PS1 games on the latest Playstation Console. Using a PS2 is so hit-and-miss that i'd rather not risk never playing some of my favourite games again. Even if the PS3 did have PS2 hardware inside, and even if it was able to play PS1 games, I still wouldn't bother.
  • Um.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Silent sound (960334) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @01:50PM (#15481427)
    Responding to an inquiry by Gamasutra regarding the validity of these claims, a SCEA U.S. representative responded: "At this time, that news from IGN is just speculation, and Sony has no official comment at this time. However, we will be sending out more concrete information regarding the hardware in the near future."
    So... when you say "Sony addresses PS2 in PS3 rumour",

    What you really mean is "Sony doesn't address PS2 in PS3 rumour", right?
    • Exactly, this is Sony (home of the emotion engine). They are a just a few months from relese. This is the time-frame when they tell you how thier product will replace the PC, be fater than the top super computers, will clean your house for you, etc, etc, etc. Only after they have built up enough unfounded hype around the product will they want to release the disappointing actual specs and benchmarks.
    • Well they addressed it, just not with much evidence. "It's a rumor", so sayeth us.

      As much as all this bad news about the PS3 is floating around (rumors, questions, bad local memory performance, high price), it actually could speak a lot to the size of the iteration. A real jump to next-gen should be difficult with news sites covering rumors, fake demos and no real product finalized because they are doing so much work. That's a bit of a waffle (#) because you could do something easy and not deliver it...

      H
  • Cheaper? (Score:3, Informative)

    by SirBruce (679714) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @01:50PM (#15481430) Homepage
    It took me a while to figure out what the writer meant. He doesn't mean including PS2 hardware in the PS3 now would make the price come down; he meant that in the future, when they can REMOVE the PS2 hardware from the PS3, THAT would make the price come down.

    Bruce
    • they can REMOVE the PS2 hardware from the PS3, THAT would make the price come down.

      Maybe Sony can REMOVE BluRay initially for a $399 model with no optical technology. A few months later
      a person could buy an external drive for, say, a fifty dollar penalty over the top tier. Think of it as an installment
      purchase plan ... you can still be the first on your block and have one at midnight the very day they go on sale!

    • he meant that in the future, when they can REMOVE the PS2 hardware from the PS3, THAT would make the price come down.

      It would make the cost of parts needed to assemble a PS3 go down by $50 or whatever it costs Sony to fabricate the PS2 chipset, but the costs involved with developing a software emulator capable of running all (or even just most) PS2 games on the PS3 would be ENORMOUS, if it's even possible.
  • Its part true (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MikeBabcock (65886) <mtb-slashdot@mikebabcock.ca> on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @01:51PM (#15481440) Homepage Journal
    I was reading an interview recently with a Sony employee discussing that they need to include some of the PS2's hardware in the PS3 to handle strange timing issues for things that really shouldn't be done with a PS2 but are done by programmers nonetheless. That said, the majority of the PS2's work can be emulated with a cell processor, he claimed.

    This is not equivalent to including an entire PS2 on a chip (but at $700, they could almost afford to).
    • I know it's popular to utterly ignore the inconvienient fact that the base PS3 is in fact $500 (and can play games at up to 1080p and movies at 1080i over a component cable), but to just tack on a further $100 on top of that out of thin air is just madness.

      It's not even like the more expensive model (which there is no reason for a gamer to even buy) is $699 - no, that model is $600. And again the base model is $500, not $599.

      Yes we know Sony broke into your house and ate your puppies. But at least get the
      • Me thinks you need to check your Sony fanboyism at the door. AC was makeing a joke. At your expense none-the-less aparently.
        • Not a very clear joke, and the internet is rife with people proclaiming the PS3 is $600 as it is.

          I still don't know if I'm getting a PS3, I'm probably getting a Wii. I just hate disinformation. Since when is posting an accurate correction to pricing details an instance of fanboyism? Is it the case that I don't throw myself on the sword of the Wii or 360 with every word that I am automatically chained to Sony mind and soul? Can someone not be a roice of reason admist the chaos that is the console wars wi
      • but to just tack on a further $100 on top of that out of thin air is just madness.

        Notice the .ca in MikeBabcock's signature. Canadian dollars are worth less than United States dollars.

        the base PS3 is in fact $500 (and can play games at up to 1080p and movies at 1080i over a component cable)

        No, the movies with ICT will be played at 540p. There is a difference between 1080i and 540p: The 1080i format has 1920 pixels across, and the image can vary a bit from field to field (at a slight cost in flicke

        • Notice the .ca in MikeBabcock's signature. Canadian dollars are worth less than United States dollars.

          You and the other responder can fight it out between oyu between the post being a joke or in units that were mistakening not marked as Canadian dollars.

          No, the movies with ICT will be played at 540p

          Which there will never be any (movies with ICT flags) if people only buy players without HDMI support... which includes the $500 PS3.

          That's why it's a far better idea to buy the $500 model than the $600 model, as
          • You and the other responder can fight it out between you between the post being a joke or in units that were mistakening not marked as Canadian dollars.

            For the record, I was cracking a joke and being accurate about canadian pricing. I can go buy a PS2 right now for about $150 so I figure the actual hardware costs are probably well under $100 for Sony. So why not release a third PS3? For an extra $100, they actually do include a full PS2 on-board :-).

            (also a joke).

            I'm quite positive the PS3 will have a gr

      • Just out of curiosity, how likely do you think it is that EB Games/Gamestop and friends will suddenly abandon their reprehensible practice of only selling new consoles in bundles? What do you think your chances are of getting the high-end version for $600 if that's what you want?

        If anything pounds the final nail in the coffin of the PS3, it'll be greedy retailers who won't let you get out of the store until you've given them $700-800 for a $600 console plus a bunch of stuff you didn't really want. Nothing
        • Bundling is pretty annoying I'll grant you, but even around the 360 launch not everyone was bundling. There are still options to get just the console...

          Of course, you really are going to want to buy a game or two - so if a bundle is for the console plus two games (that I get to choose out of any availiable) then I don't mind so much. If they start talking forced games, or really needless extras then I have a problem!

          I'm curious to see what will happen around the Wii launch, how many unit's they'll have an
      • If you read my message history you'll find I'm a pretty big PS2 fan. I don't care about Sony one way or the other, but I do defend the SCEA for making good decisions that benefit gamers in general.

        The PS2 is the first console gaming system that convinced me to buy something other than a PC for gaming.

        Also, the PS3 is $600 here, but I'm not in the USA, I'm in Canada and that's canadian dollars.
      • The version I'm eventually interested in is going to retail for $600 to start. Why? I want HDMI so that when movie companies start crippling playback over component cables, I can still watch movies in HD.

        I also don't want to have to upgrade my console. The $500 version comes with a smaller hard drive and lack of peripheral support (no memory stick, SD card, compact flash card), and no wi-fi support. Why would I pay a mere $100 less for the crippled version of a console?
        • The version I'm eventually interested in is going to retail for $600 to start. Why? I want HDMI so that when movie companies start crippling playback over component cables, I can still watch movies in HD.

          If you want to hedge your bets like that, buy a display that accepts HDMI (almost impossible to do otherwise anyway). But since there is an agreement to not enable the ICT flag until 2010 or so, why not simply buy the cheaper console now, and buy the HDMI version in four or five years if in fact they ever
  • by IAmSwiftness (980193) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @01:56PM (#15481481)
    June 6th, 2006 - Today, in a landmark announcement that will send gamers everywhere into cheers of joy, Sony has announced that, in order to keep costs down on their new PS3 gaming console while still maintaining backwards compatibility, the company will now begin allowing consumers whose PS2s ceased to functioning due to cheaply made optical disc drives to trade in their utterly useless, junk PS2s for a full reimbursement of its original purchase price. Sony plans on using the broken PS2s for spare parts to use for backwards compatibilty in the new, outrageously expensive PS3 console.

    Oh . . . how I wish . . .

    My old PS2 lies in the basement in a pile of ruins . . . full of hatred at its creators from Sony who created it only to live such a wretched, miserable life, with only faded memories of its past glory rendering fights in Onimusha 2 to give it solice . . .
    • Re:Here's An Idea! (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This is actually what frustrates me the most about the PS3's $600 price point; in my experience both the Playstation and PS2 were crappy pieces of hardware that had life-spans in the 18-24 month range (with several dying after a year), of all the PS2 owners I know (around 15 people give or take a couple) and I can't think of any who haven't replaced their PS2 at least once. I recognize that this is not statistically significant, but (at least based on people's impressions online) may not be all that unusual
      • Re:Here's An Idea! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by twistedsymphony (956982) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @02:56PM (#15482017) Homepage
        too true... I'm on my 2nd PS2. I know about 15 or so people with them and not a one of them is still on their first. Some of the more heavy players have even had to replace it 2 or 3 times. The worst part is that I barely even play mine... I own about 5 games total, and in general once I finish a game I don't ever play it again (at least none of my PS2 games). I don't even play DVDs on it yet the thing still died and when the ONE game I was waiting for came out I had to buy a new one... I also have a launch N64, a near launch Dreamcast, a near launch Xbox 1, a near launch Gamecube, and a launch Xbox 360 and NONE of them have given me any grief..
        ... My PS1 was replaced 3 times. I also had a Sony Trinitron Monitor that died completely after 6 months. $500-$600 is bad enough but without a lifetime guarantee that's a pretty big pill to swallow with the Sony experiences I've had.
        • I'm on my second too. I needed one for the bedroom.

          The first one (from release day) still works perfectly with well over 2500 hours of play time on it.

          Out of the few dozen people I know with PS2s, only three have had to replace their first one... The funny thing is, all three of those people broke their second ones, and two broke the third one...

          PS2s are no more fragile than CD players, Xboxes, DVD players, etc... Some of it is luck, some is that some versions of the hardware have known flaws, and some is t
        • I bought a refurbed PS1 in '97 to play Final Fantasy VII. I ended up buying a lot more games and using it, without any problems, until 2002. The PS1 was only retired because I finally bought a refurbed PS2; I gave the old PS1 to my roommate's girlfriend. I don't think she uses it anymore, but it was in working condition when I gave it to her. Until late last year, that PS2 served as my console and also as a dvd player and cd player--I had a decent set of speakers but had never invested in separate playe
          • my ps2 has been working great. the only time i see disc error messages and the like, ironically enough, is when i fire up my xbox. which i bought much later, after my ps2.

            everyone does not share the same experiences when it comes to consumer electronics. thanks for sharing though, everyone...
  • If you have PS2 games, that means that you have a PS2 machine...so why do you need the PS3 to be backwards compatible? Are we just to lazy to disconnect the PS3 to hook the PS2 back up?
    • This is indeed a good point, but there are the reasons like giving the PS2 to some younger (or older...) relative or outright selling it for $ 100 or so. Hardware failure is another reason. A third reason is to be able to advertise a complete and varied set of games directly at the debut of the machine, and for the store clerks to be able to tell clueless buyers that any Playstation game will work. It simply turns out that backcompat is popular. Actual usage is irrelevant.
    • by VendingMenace (613279) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @02:34PM (#15481820)
      consider this...

      I do not own a PS2. Let us assume that I buy a PS3 sometime down the road. Now, I might just wish to play some PS2 games that I enjoyed playing at me friends house, but that I never owned. Backwards compatability allows me to do that.

      I think that is a good reason.

      I know LOTS of people that never had a PSone, but now own lots of PSone games, becuase they bought a PS2 and could play them on it. I mean seriously, if you never owned a PSone, but have a PS2, there is absolutlely NO reason why you should not have at least Castlevania: symphony of the night and Super puzzle fighter. Granted, there are other games, but those two in particular are must-haves.

      Hopefully that answers your question :)
      • Maybve because to play ps1 games on the p2 i need the impossible to find ps1 memory card?

        I ended up buying a ps1 +6 mem cards + games for less that a new ps1 memory card (hard to find) on ebay.

        So I ended up playing the ps1 games on my new ps1 anyway!
        • i just looked at ebay and I saw 13 pages of ps one memory card listings that have been completed since may 22 -- not a single one went for more than $8, most were around $3.

          am I missing something (i am a total ebay newb, as it turns out)
        • You should consider getting out more... game stores have PS1 memory cards. Ebay isn't the only (or even best) place for used gaming purchases.
    • If you have PS2 games, that means that you have a PS2 machine...so why...

      I, for one, do not own a PS2; however, I do own 1 8MB PS2 Memory Card, and 2 PS2 games that I use a friend's houses. I was considering getting a PS3 (that is until they announced the price and I deemed it to be way too much) to play those games and the PS3 games (if I got any) and to play DVD and BD-DVD movies. I had no intention of buying a PS2, but I might have gotten a PS3.

      Now, however, I may either trade away my PS2 stuff - to get

    • I have been a gamer all my life. I currently have an NES, Super NES, N64, Gamecube, Genesis, Dreamcast, and PS2. Having all of these machines hooked up at the same time requires a lot of space, as well as a lot of extra connectors and power strips. Backwards compatability reduces a lot of clutter. (It also allowed me to get some PS1 games that I would have never played otherwise.)
  • This is no surprise, the PS2 architecture is wild enough on its own, but then compared to PS3 the architectures are worlds apart. It's going to be a tricky task to emulate PS2 in software mode. M$ is having a similar problem with Xbox being so different from X360, and PS2 -> PS3 is much more complicated.

    They will probably need to keep PS2 hardware in there forever. Then it makes me wonder, if PS4 has a radically different architecture from PS3, will they need to keep PS3 hardware inside, and how will tha
  • I'd hate to say it, but wouldn't that raise the price, not reduce it?
    or do i not get my econ classes?
  • While I am very critical of MS for basically ignoring the backwards compatibility on the X360 since launch, I must admit I really like the way it upscales all games to 720p. If you look at games like Ninja Gaiden on the X360 the graphics look almost next gen thanks to a bit of anti-aliasing and upping the res.

    I was very disappointed in the PS2's backwards compatibility of the PS1, it allegedly smoothed textures but I couldn't see any difference really. I wanted something more like the PC emulators of the PS
    • They've created patches for over 200 games for back compat. I wouldn't necessarily call that "ignoring backwards compatibility"...

      http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/backwardcompatibil itygameslist.htm [xbox.com]

      But you're right...720p is great for KOTOR :)
      • What? Have you _played_ KOTOR on the 360? I have. The game takes a two second pause about once or twice every minute, which can be a bit of a bother in a fight. It also crashes once every few hours, sometimes either the sound or the animations dissapear, there are huge issues with stuttering in the cutscenes, etc.. Overall, playing KOTOR, KOTOR 2 or Jade on the 360 is a very frustrating experience. The backwards compatibility of the 360 is a _joke_.

        And the low polycounts and lowres textures of KOTOR mean th
    • I find PS2 games very blurry, jerky and low-res these days, an emulator on the PS3 that runs Shadow of the Colossus in HD at a stable frame rate would be worth the exorbitant price of the PS3 IMHO.

      Yeah, that would be nice. The graphics in that game are really good, but the PS2 is slightly less powerful than what (IMO) it needs.

      Reading your post made me think about the Wii. With the two consoles reportedly having similar architectures, I wonder if the emulation will allow better graphics/framerate as w

  • by arthurh3535 (447288) on Tuesday June 06, 2006 @03:29PM (#15482311)
    I could have sworn that they had the PS2 down to a single chip quite a ways back (and the PS1 as a section on that chip.)
     
    So this might be a non-news issues.
    • I haven't seen anything like you claim, so I can't really comment on that. However, I remember the PS1 being shrunk down to one chip for the PS2.
    • I could have sworn that they had the PS2 down to a single chip quite a ways back (and the PS1 as a section on that chip.)

      They did. They called the respin around that chip the PSTwo.
      Sony did this on the PS1->PSOne-> included in PS2 and is doing it again this generation (PS2->PSTwo->included in PS3).

      Backward compatibility was a big factor in the PS2 success and they will not drop it easily (especially after the MS fiasco).
  • But I have to get through level 12 to play level 13 where the giant pretty monster of death awaits, and that's supposed to be the coolest thing ever. Excuse me, I bought the game. I'd like to go directly to the pretty monster of death.

    Let me guess, you fast-forwarded through "Citizen Kane" just to see the sled at the end that everyone talks about. Because all that middle stuff is so boring.
  • Everyone who has purchased a slimline PS2 is essentially a beta tester for Sony's efforts to reduce the entire PS2 hardware down to one chip that they will eventually be able to put into every PS3. The first few generations of slimline PS2s had major compatibility problems even with new PS2 games. These bugs are being fixed with each iteration and by the time the PS3 hardware makes its debut they should mostly be ironed out. Smart business practice!
  • The PS2 did a fair job for emulating PS1 games, but it still failed overall. Example: When playing The X-Files on PS1, the game runs as it should. On PS2, the PS2 fucks up the interface so you can't move the cursor or anything.
    • according to sony and the studios themselves, it was more likely the developers fault for not working within specification and using different tricks to increase performance, etc.

      in the games business, it has always been common practice to exploit hardware weaknesses/ strengths to acheive things that would under normal circumstances not be possible within the framework of the hardware. this goes back to 8-bit days; even earlier if you could count the PC. if your game relies on exploiting an undocumented fun
  • I suspect that Sony will keep the hardware PS2 for "emulation" for the life of the PS3. According to my 2 minutes of research, the Emotion Engine "only" has 10.5 million transistors (at least that's what the wikipedia emotion engine [wikipedia.org] page states. This is less than the # of transistors in a single SPE of the PS3's Cell. The Cell processor has 7 SPE's, plus the PowerPC core, and an 8th disabled or "spare" SPE. Again, the wiki link [wikipedia.org].

    Assuming that both transitor counts are comparable and reasonably accurate,
    • Additionaly, the complete PS2 hardware could also be integrated in a single chip, and then the price would be tide very low. The PS2 functions can certainly use the same DRAM as the PS3, and several functions could be shared this way.

      Furthermore, the PS2 hardware could also be integrated in the same chip as one of Cell's chipset. So the price jump would be ~ZERO (just a problem of chip per waffer, and production yield).

      10.5M transistors (if true) is less than 3M ASIC Gates (the real unit in the EDA ind
  • This gave me a great idea. I can market a TRULY backwards compatible Xbox 360. All I need is a 360, an original Xbox, and some duct tape. I'll be RICH, I tell's ya!

    -Eric

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...