The rumors speak of it unfortunately its a shadow on the entire discussion. By the time it rears its head in a thread the discussion is almost at an end. The boosters have long since vanished having filled the first page with unending enthusiasm, but the question still remains. What would it mean for a PS3 to actually not be backwards compatible. How would that affect sales, and public perception. How would that affect the PS2 and its developers what would happen to them.

For those ignorant of what I am talking about the rumor is that the new 40 gigabyte PS3 will not support any backward compatibility.  This applies to both hardware and software emulation. Were you to buy this machine you would not be able to play a PS2 game on it period. Thus no backwards compatibility.This would be a physical limitation within the machine itself. 

I am not sure I believe the rumor. Any part of it for that matter. This thread is just to discuss what the implications of removing backward compatibility in any sku of the PS3 would be. This thread is not about the price, the size, the free movie, or the holiday season. This thread is solely dedicated to the question of backwards compatibility. Please keep it that way. Try to focus on the one aspect. There are enough threads that discuss the others. 

Thanks Dodece...I wanted to open a thread like this.

As I said in a previous thread, I believe the removal of the Backwards Compatibility is more a decision to ensure the longevity of the PS2 rather than an attempt to do a cost reduction on the PS3. I believe that since Sony always refers to the 10 year life span of their consoles that they intend this lifespan as a measure of sales and not as a measure of quality titles being made for their last gen machine after the next-gen has begun.

I think it's definitely bad PR for Sony, but I also think that the average PS3 purchaser doesn't care. They are not interested in last-gen. They want hi-def and more polygons, not retro nostalgia. I also don't believe that teh new PS3 crowd is the same group of people who were on the Sony bandwagon last time around. Most of those customers, IMO, have left sony for Microsoft or Nintendo.

I owned a PS1 and an N64 at the same time, then a PS2 and a Gamecube at the same time. I still play my Gamecube games on my Wii and PS2 and PS1 games on my PS3. I like that I don't have to give up playing my games because I only have two available connections to my TV, it's bad enough I can't play Guitar Hero on the PS3 and have to keep my PS2 hooked up and use the memory cards, which by the way I have like 6 of and have imported them all onto my PS3's HD.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea...but backwards compatibility was definitely one of the reasons I bought a PS3, I can buy any game that ever came out on a Sony system in this country and play it now, I can play 3 different generations of my physical library of games on my PS3. You can't tell me that's not cool. I can pop in Battle Arena Toshinden, the actual copy of the first game I got when I first got my PS1, in 1995-96, and play it right now, with my original memory which is on the hard drive.

I'd say the removal IS to cut down costs of the PS3.

While backwards compatability may matter to gamers, the $400 PS3 is being targeted to people looking to upgrade video format to HD viewing. Sony is pulling out this new model, making it the cheapest BR player that they offer.

They are bundling it with a BR movie people will be looking for this holiday season- Spiderman 3. "Upgrade from DVD to BR with our cheapest model available and get a free copy of Spiderman 3."

At the same time, Sony tells gamers that, if they want the PS3, they can have it much cheaper than before. However, quite a number of potential PS3 owners will draw parallels to the previous 20gig model; $100 cheaper, but missing many key features.

The sales of the $400 PS3 model will be driven, mostly, by movie enthusiasts upgrading to HD movie viewing. Sony gets to tell their shareholders that the PS3 sales have increased, and that they should continue to invest. Third party developers see that the PS3 picked up some steam in the holiday season.

I've been saying this for many months now, when the MS originally suggested that Sony would bring out a $400 Gimped PS3 for the holiday.

This possibility along with several other previous decisions are making it look more and more like Sony is betraying the gaming public.  Sony has been strongly emphasizing the PS3's value as a BluRay player but to sacrifice gaming potential to emphasize it even stronger is a statement on Sony's part of who they're really targetting.

I don't like this.  I don't like the fact that gamers may be getting slapped in the face like this so that Sony can push its hardware as a movie player and I don't like the fact that Sony's priorities have shifted so much (likely due to sales and other system competition). 

First Sony comes out saying "We have full backwards compatibility."

Then Sony comes out saying "We're switching to a half-a**ed software 'works for some titles' backwards compatibility."

Now Sony may be coming out and saying "We're leaving backwards compatibility behind."

This is a bad trend.

I don't know, I believe that no backwards compatibility just means that they've taken out the GS (PS1 chip) and are now running everything through software emulation.

To back that up, they removed the EE (PS2 chip) for PAL PS3's and have now extended that cut to the North American 80gig SKU. I also recalled somebody at Sony (maybe Harrison?) saying that they were interested in moving towards full software compatibility.

Thus, this makes me believe that the 40gig PS3 will still have backwards compatibility, but the percentage will be lower than the 60 and 80gig PS3's because now both the EE and GS have been removed so there could be some problems on some PS1 games now rather than just PS2 games.

While at the same time, people continue to moan about the price. Oh well, can't please everybody I guess. I still believe about what I said above until further details are revealed though.

Riiiiggghhhhtttt.

The software emulation is probably 100X's cheaper than the hardware alternative. Once you have the software solution, you really don't need any more work on it so a considerable amount of cost savings would result. But since sony already went ahead and did its R&D to make this software emulation, why would it NOT want to include it on other editions of the PS3? How would this save sony any $$$$$?

 

 I will say it again...to make people continue to buy the PS2, their true money maker.  The PS2 is the financier for the Blu-Ray format change.

Technically it's not about lowering cost at this point.  Producing the emulation software AND producing the hardware emulation was the most costly setup Sony could have.

Since it's no longer producing the hardware emulation, now all that's left is to compare the all the devleopmental cost of the software emulation (which by all accounts has yet to really be "finished") versus the cost that it would have taken to continue the hardware emulation. 

After the software emulation is complete (works for everything), it will just be a matter of spreading the development cost over every unit sold until its no longer a number worth looking at.