Sony rumors

Printable View

02 Jul 2003, 05:09 AM
Green

Sony rumors

Via Magicbox-
- RUMORS:

A developer of Sony has mentioned some tidbits on the PlayStation line of consoles. PlayStation 3 will be backward compatible with PS2, but will no longer backward compatible with PSone, and the PSone production will be stopped in 2005. Sony intends to support 2 consoles on the market at the same time, e.g. PS2 and PSone, PS3 and PS2.

The PlayStation Portable PSP will launch in 4th quarter of 2004, the Universal Media Disc will be smaller than GameCube mini-DVDs and PC mini-CDRs on the market, it will have 64MB of Memory, MP3 support, limited PDA functionality and USB 2.0 interface for data download.

PSX is a Sony Corp. product, not SCE, it will be marketed as a home theater entertainment component, the retail price will be roughly at $850 or 102,000 yen.
02 Jul 2003, 05:53 AM
Omni

Why not make PS3 backward compatible with PS1?

If that shit is true I will be infinitely angered.

And the PSX will cause many suits at Sony to have rectal bleeding for months.
02 Jul 2003, 06:04 AM
Shine

Quote:

Originally posted by OmniGear
Why not make PS3 backward compatible with PS1?

Because it would require adding in annother processor likely. And I'm sure they want to keep prices low.

Quote:

And the PSX will cause many suits at Sony to have rectal bleeding for months.

Am I missing something here?

As for the supporting of two consoles thing. I can see why Sony would want to do that, it's a damn good idea too, however it was the compact design and screen, which made it a portable, that helped keep it viable on the market and I don't see Sony doing that with the PS2 for both cost reasons and because I doubt they want to compete with one of their own products - the PSP.
02 Jul 2003, 06:22 AM
red_war_machine

There is NO WAY that the PSone chip would cost enough to make it not viable to include.

More likely is that they want people to buy the PSP versions of shitty old PlayStation games.
02 Jul 2003, 06:35 AM
Shine

Quote:

Originally posted by red_war_machine
There is NO WAY that the PSone chip would cost enough to make it not viable to include.

The chip isn't the only cost they need to consider though, there's also the cost of designing a motherboard to house three processors and program the it to recognise when to use which. Imagine how much more work would go into programing games for a platform with three different processors from three different systems. I'm sure there's more to it than that but I'm not in the industry so I wouldn't know it all.
02 Jul 2003, 06:44 AM
Lhadatt

The PS3 will most likely use Blu-Ray technology. The PSX support drop might be because they don't want the system running CDs, which would make it harder to pirate games (especially if Sony's smart and doesn't allow Blu-Ray recorders on the market) -- though this doesn't account for the PS2 CD games.

Eh, who knows. The bulk of Sony's hardware decisions never make sense anyway.
02 Jul 2003, 06:50 AM
MVS

Quote:

Originally posted by red_war_machine
More likely is that they want people to buy the PSP versions of shitty old PlayStation games.

It works for Nintendo, I don't see why they wouldn't do the same.
02 Jul 2003, 06:52 AM
Josh

*rimshot*
02 Jul 2003, 06:54 AM
Hero

No kidding.

Wait though...PSP discs only hold 64MB of storage? It's gonna be a long road for Sony to get anything remotely like a PS1 game on the PSP with such small space to work with.
02 Jul 2003, 07:53 AM
Josh

Quote:

Originally posted by Hero
Wait though...PSP discs only hold 64MB of storage?

You have been misinformed.

The disc holds 1.8 gigs.
02 Jul 2003, 08:00 AM
Saint of Killers

Quote:

Originally posted by 88mph
You have been misinformed.

The disc holds 1.8 gigs.

He read the original post wrong. The system itself has 64 MBs of memory.
02 Jul 2003, 08:07 AM
Sl1p

As long as the PS3 is at least backwards compatable with the PS2 I will be a happy man. If I need to play a PSOne game I can just plug the PSOne into the wall, set it on my desk and enjoy. At least then I won't notice how horrible the games aged (That screen can make RC De Go look like GT3).
02 Jul 2003, 08:09 AM
Josh

Are you talking shit about the Sony brand PSone monitor?
02 Jul 2003, 08:24 AM
Sl1p

Quote:

At least then I won't notice how horrible the games aged (That screen can make RC De Go look like GT3).

How is THAT talking shit about the Sony PSOne monitor? :confused: By GT3 I meant Gran Turismo 3.
02 Jul 2003, 10:13 AM
Despair

Quote:

Originally posted by MVS
It works for Nintendo, I don't see why they wouldn't do the same.

Oh man. This is so true :p

Quote:

Originally posted by Hero
No kidding.

Wait though...PSP discs only hold 64MB of storage? It's gonna be a long road for Sony to get anything remotely like a PS1 game on the PSP with such small space to work with.

Hero, I think its 64MB system memory.
02 Jul 2003, 01:19 PM
Wildkat

Quote:

Originally posted by ShineAqua
The chip isn't the only cost they need to consider though, there's also the cost of designing a motherboard to house three processors and program the it to recognise when to use which. Imagine how much more work would go into programing games for a platform with three different processors from three different systems. I'm sure there's more to it than that but I'm not in the industry so I wouldn't know it all.

The Chip that does the PS1 processing is embeded into the PS2 arcitecture, it will be there no matter what.

Regardless, the new system if it is as power as claimed should be able to emulate the PS1 if need be.

The PSP is the more likely reason.
02 Jul 2003, 01:22 PM
kingoffighters

Can't they just emulate it if necessary? Anyway, a non-issue for me, I don't buy a PS3 to play PSOne games, but hey, that's me.
02 Jul 2003, 01:25 PM
Shin Johnpv

i think it is kinda silly not to have PS1 support on it
i mean they have the whole emotion engine set up on one chip now id imagine they could fit the PS1s chip on there too

(the reason the PS2 is backwards compatible is because the PS2 uses the PS1s chip to control I/O stuff i believe)

id imagine they could do something similar but ohh well no big deal
02 Jul 2003, 02:13 PM
Josh

OK. Joe Consumer isn't going to give a shit about playing ten year old ugly ass PSone games on his shiny new PS3.

Backwards compatibility is cool and all, but it doesn't really need to go past one generation of hardware to be a selling point.
02 Jul 2003, 02:34 PM
Omni

Quote:

Originally posted by ShineAqua
Am I missing something here?

Maybe. I predict that the inevitable failure of this overpriced piece of hardware will lead to the spontaneous rectal bleeding of all involved in its creation. This may or may not have to do with non-consenting anal sex taking place between disgruntled gay men and said Sony executives.

Quote:

Originally posted by 88mph
OK. Joe Consumer isn't going to give a shit about playing ten year old ugly ass PSone games on his shiny new PS3.

Yeah, I suppose, but it'd be nice to get rid of that hunk of space-eating plastic that is my PS2.
02 Jul 2003, 02:45 PM
Josh

Quote:

Originally posted by OmniGear
Yeah, I suppose, but it'd be nice to get rid of that hunk of space-eating plastic that is my PS2.

Then get yourself a PSone.
02 Jul 2003, 02:53 PM
johnk_

Quote:

Originally posted by 88mph
OK. Joe Consumer isn't going to give a shit about playing ten year old ugly ass PSone games on his shiny new PS3.

Backwards compatibility is cool and all, but it doesn't really need to go past one generation of hardware to be a selling point.

this is true, and it's probably what sony's thinking as well..

and if you really miss your PSX games, a PSOne should be cheap as hell by the time PS3 rolls around.
02 Jul 2003, 03:05 PM
Cheebs

A PSOne is cheap as hell right now...

And screw backwards compatibility. Just keep your damn old system. Hell, the PS2 isn't even fully backwards compatible. At least 30% of my PS1 games are Japanese. All I need is a damn paperclip or a spring and some quick disc swapping reflexes to play them on my PS1. Try doing that on a PS2... So I still need my PS1 hooked up to play my games.
02 Jul 2003, 03:12 PM
Wildkat

Quote:

Originally posted by Lhadatt
The PS3 will most likely use Blu-Ray technology. The PSX support drop might be because they don't want the system running CDs, which would make it harder to pirate games (especially if Sony's smart and doesn't allow Blu-Ray recorders on the market) -- though this doesn't account for the PS2 CD games.

Unless these new games actual code is larger than a whopping 4.7g (not likely for a while at least) pirates can always rip, crop, or downsample audio/video/textures to get it to fit on a smaller disc, or even split a game over 2 discs. Its not really harder, look at the DC piracy scene, even some of the Xbox and PS2 warez ive seen were ripped down to fit to a CDR.
02 Jul 2003, 03:45 PM
K3V

Who cares? The hardware will be shitty and break down all the time anyways, just like the PS1 and PS2.

...that one's for Despair. :D
02 Jul 2003, 04:37 PM
japtor

is everyone going to bitch if ps9 doesnt work with ps1-8 games? you know, cause the whole brain spore thing. or whatever the hell that commercial said.
02 Jul 2003, 05:20 PM
Lhadatt

Quote:

Originally posted by Wildkat
Unless these new games actual code is larger than a whopping 4.7g (not likely for a while at least) pirates can always rip, crop, or downsample audio/video/textures to get it to fit on a smaller disc, or even split a game over 2 discs. Its not really harder, look at the DC piracy scene, even some of the Xbox and PS2 warez ive seen were ripped down to fit to a CDR.

Yeah, but that's assuming Sony makes those drives for PCs. If they don't, no one else can (since I believe they fully own the technology) -- so no PC drives. This means no piracy, unless someone can hack the PS3 in the same way the DC was hacked (via the serial coders cable or BBA) or through some other weakness.
02 Jul 2003, 05:27 PM
Mr_Furious

Give ya a foot and ya want a mile. You guys are as bad as women sometimes :)

Backwards compatibility with only the PS2 is fine with me. Shit I won't even care if it doesn't even do that. It's not like I (and all of you) don't already own a PS2. Texture routines are getting more complicated as technology evolves. It was simple enough to add a couple minor features to old PS1 games but I can't imagine there being any significant features to add to PS2 games over PS3 that won't require additional coding and/or art changes.
02 Jul 2003, 06:07 PM
krisdavisusa

What, no comments on the "$850" price?
02 Jul 2003, 06:13 PM
FirstBlood

Quote:

Originally posted by Wildkat
Unless these new games actual code is larger than a whopping 4.7g (not likely for a while at least) pirates can always rip, crop, or downsample audio/video/textures to get it to fit on a smaller disc, or even split a game over 2 discs. Its not really harder, look at the DC piracy scene, even some of the Xbox and PS2 warez ive seen were ripped down to fit to a CDR.

Or just burned onto a DVD-R.
02 Jul 2003, 06:14 PM
MVS

Too pricey for me, by about 700 dollars.
02 Jul 2003, 06:33 PM
DarkCrow676

Although I would like the PS3 to be backward compatible with both PS2 and PS1, at the moment just the PS2 is fine with me considering that my current PS2 can only play PS1 games, not PS2. I know the reason for me wanting the PS3 to have both is because the PS2 is a piece of crap.
02 Jul 2003, 06:42 PM
Jeremy

$850? Jesus tapdancing Christ, it's the 3D0 all over again. That's only $50 more expensive than the Dick Van Dyke Show ottoman set, which is priced a bit worse, but damn, that's a lot of money for a home entertainment deaile.
02 Jul 2003, 06:53 PM
Melf

I don't mind if it's not PSOne compatible. I have my modded PSOne set up and play my imports and domestic titles on it exclusively. It would be nice to eliminate two consoles from under my TV but I guess one is enough.
02 Jul 2003, 07:08 PM
dog$

Quote:

Originally posted by krisdavisusa
What, no comments on the "$850" price?

It's a good thing that nobody who currently owns a PS2 needs a PSX.

You really expected it to be less?
02 Jul 2003, 07:19 PM
Joust Williams

well, yeah, if it doesn't do a whole lot
02 Jul 2003, 07:23 PM
StriderKyo

No way it costs that much at launch. No way. MS and Nintendo would mop the floor with them.

This is the kind of thing they throw out there so that when it launches at $449.99 early adopters think they're getting some awesome value.
02 Jul 2003, 07:30 PM
Mr_Furious

Quote:

Originally posted by krisdavisusa
What, no comments on the "$850" price?

Not from me. I already guessed it would cost around that much way back when the thing was first announced/unveiled. Sony themselves said the PSX was going to be marketed for the "high end electronics user". Whoever thinks it'd be cheap or competitive is just a fool.
02 Jul 2003, 07:32 PM
MechDeus

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr_Furious
Whoever thinks it'd be cheap or competitive is just a fool.

But if it didn't feel cheap then it wouldn't be a PlayStation! *rimshot*
02 Jul 2003, 07:45 PM
Jeremy

MS and Nintendo don't have anything to mop up on in regards to the PSX, since it's not a new console, but just a revamped PS2 with tons of extras. Still, $850 is a bit steep for anything gaming related when the company has such a shaky track record for gaming stuff.
02 Jul 2003, 07:49 PM
Mr_Furious

Quote:

Originally posted by MechDeus
But if it didn't feel cheap then it wouldn't be a PlayStation! *rimshot*

Actually, Sony does make high end products that are actually very well built and reliable. I find it silly for people to think of their PS2 as a "high end" electronics device (or compare it to).

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy
MS and Nintendo don't have anything to mop up on in regards to the PSX, since it's not a new console, but just a revamped PS2 with tons of extras. Still, $850 is a bit steep for anything gaming related when the company has such a shaky track record for gaming stuff.

But things like the PSX happen in Japan all the time. Even though Sony may initially intend to release the PSX outside of Japan, I think ultimately they'll come to their senses. There's simply no viable market for it (at least in the U.S.).
02 Jul 2003, 08:02 PM
Omni

Quote:

Originally posted by 88mph
Then get yourself a PSone.

Nah. Saving a little bit of space is not worth money.

Well, maybe $10.
02 Jul 2003, 08:12 PM
Agent X

First of all, these are clearly labeled as rumors, not facts. It's possible any, or all, or none of these things can happen.

Now, regarding PlayStation 3 compatibility with PS1:

Quote:

Originally posted by Wildkat
The Chip that does the PS1 processing is embeded into the PS2 arcitecture, it will be there no matter what.

Yes, and there's the key. The PS2's I/O processor is pretty much a PS1 on a chip. They can't just eliminate that chip, unless they want to throw PS2 compatibility out the window as well. For that reason, it would actually be more difficult to make it so that it plays PS2 games but doesn't play PS1 games, than it would be to make it so that it plays both systems' discs. I suppose they could arrange it so that the system recognizes PS1 discs and simply refuses to boot them after that, but why?

A good analogy would be if Nintendo designed the Game Boy Advance system so that it could play Game Boy Color games, but not original (monochrome) Game Boy games. It could be done, but it would take more effort to retain GBC compatibility while locking out the monochrome GB games, than it would to just leave monochrome GB support in there.
02 Jul 2003, 08:14 PM
MVS

Quote:

Originally posted by StriderKyo
No way it costs that much at launch. No way. MS and Nintendo would mop the floor with them.

This is the kind of thing they throw out there so that when it launches at $449.99 early adopters think they're getting some awesome value.

It's a high end set top box, not a PS2.

PS2 will still be 149, you know.

Or 199 or whatever it is now.
02 Jul 2003, 08:53 PM
Mr_Furious

Quote:

Originally posted by Wildkat
The Chip that does the PS1 processing is embeded into the PS2 arcitecture, it will be there no matter what.

Well yes and no. The PS1 is emulated at least for the processing of graphics. Other calculations do have their own dedicated PS1 chipset and the only common chip used on PS1/PS2 is the sound processor. The PS2 emulates and recalculates how polys are rendered which is the reason for incompatibility with some games.

In order for the PS3 to do the same thing as PS2 it would need to both emulate PS2 AND PS1 which might not be worth Sony's effort/hassle to implement since the PS2 emulates the graphics processing of the PS1. Layering emulation might be a complete mess.
02 Jul 2003, 08:54 PM
StriderKyo

Quote:

Originally posted by MVS
It's a high end set top box, not a PS2.

PS2 will still be 149, you know.

Or 199 or whatever it is now.

Sorry, I read that as being the rumoured PS3 price. My mistake.
02 Jul 2003, 09:48 PM
RoleTroll

That's exactly what I expected. The Genesis had the SMS's Z-80 for the sound chip, the PS2 uses the PS1 for I/O -- that's fine, but it only goes back one generation. Sega said that adding Genesis capabilities to the Saturn would add nearly the cost of a Genesis to the price of the Saturn.

Did you really think the PS9 would be housing nine different consoles? Not bloody likely. The Xbox, on the other hand, should be able to do that kind of backwards compatibility with ease ... for free. Using off-the-shelf PC parts is costly, but it does have some advantages.
04 Jul 2003, 02:33 AM
Agent X

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr_Furious
Well yes and no. The PS1 is emulated at least for the processing of graphics. Other calculations do have their own dedicated PS1 chipset and the only common chip used on PS1/PS2 is the sound processor.

OK, I did not know that. I was under the impression that the PS2's I/O chip contained the vast majority of the PS1 chipset (or a condensed version of it).

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr_Furious
The PS2 emulates and recalculates how polys are rendered which is the reason for incompatibility with some games.

Wouldn't this support what I said earlier? If this "emulation" is done at the PS2 level, then by virtue of the PS3 including PS2 compatibility, it must include this feature also.

If the PS2 hardware still contains some unique PS1 chips that are only used for PS1 games and completely unused for PS2 games, then those chips could be omitted if (assuming the rumors are true) PS1 compatibility is going to be discarded in the PS3. The questions then become: How much of the chipset is unnecessary to retain compatibility with PS2 games? How much monetary savings would be realized by omitting these chips?

If the cost of these chips is relatively low, then it might be better for Sony's image in the public eye if they simply include them in the PS3 and retain PS1 compatibility. Some people like not having an extra console hooked up if they can help it. Also, Game Boy Advance has already set a precedent by successfully implementing backward compatibility to two generations back--why shouldn't Sony follow suit?

Quote:

Originally posted by RoleTroll
That's exactly what I expected. The Genesis had the SMS's Z-80 for the sound chip, the PS2 uses the PS1 for I/O -- that's fine, but it only goes back one generation. Sega said that adding Genesis capabilities to the Saturn would add nearly the cost of a Genesis to the price of the Saturn.

Well, the Genesis and Saturn have a lot less in common with each other than the relationship between PS1 and PS2. Externally, the PS2 uses the same physical interfaces for controllers, memory cards, A/V cables, and power cables. The PS2's DVD drive can also accept PS1 CD games. It was clearly designed with backward compatibility in mind.

Quote:

Originally posted by RoleTroll
Did you really think the PS9 would be housing nine different consoles? Not bloody likely. The Xbox, on the other hand, should be able to do that kind of backwards compatibility with ease ... for free. Using off-the-shelf PC parts is costly, but it does have some advantages.

I'm not so convinced that this would be free, either. Already, there are strong rumors saying that Microsoft might choose ATI for the graphics chip for their next system, instead of Nvidia as they did with the X-Box. I remember the ballyhoo about Nvidia's X-Box graphics chip being not your garden variety GeForce 3 or GeForce 4, but a custom solution tailored specifically for the X-Box. If that is the case (as per Microsoft hype and fanboy frothings), then I wonder just how much intellectual property Nvidia is willing to cough up to the rumored Microsoft/ATI alliance if Microsoft feels like retaining backward compatibility with the original X-Box system.