PSN Japan to get PS2 game downloads PS3 slim to fat supported

"Similarly, it's a strange world where EA adds Need for Speed: Most Wanted to the PS2 Classics range but omits genuinely worthy games like the Burnout quadrilogy or Black. For its part, Square-Enix offers us Just Cause instead of any of the Final Fantasies."

And the publishers of course will play the same game.

Square Enix is in process of re-mastering Final Fantasy X for the PS3 (and probably XBOX360 too as they're dealing with a multi million dollar fiasco MMORPG they need any money they can grub). So releasing that for PSN would be "stupid" on a business standpoint.

As for EA I don't know what they're thinking, but should be something stupid like they "forgot" that the mentioned games even exist...

 

Dunno what they're complaining about, Just Cause is better than any PS2 Final Fantasy.

 

For you.

There's people like me who despise that kind of game (shooters/1st or 3rd person in general) and play mostly other genres.

Also there's people like you who likes them. Of course they aways go for whatever gives the best return. Final Fantasy is their biggest cash cow though and I totally see them trying to make it "gorgeous" instead of just re-releasing the original. They probably put a lot of thought on re-hashing FFVII and gave up after serious cost considerations. With FFX the source material used for making it's graphics were already high resolution and were scaled down for fitting on the PS2 specs. So less work on making a HD version of it I suppose. On FFVII case they have ridiculously low res assets which would need to be completely redone.

About EA, Black was a quite successful shooter at it's time and that was my point when I said I don't know what EA is thinking...

 

That is almost like saying Why won't my NES game play on a SNES, why wont my SNES game play on an N64 and why wont my N64 game play on a GameCube. Because it is a PS3, NOT a PS2. You can still play the discs on the PS2.

I'd assume they are charing for a fresh licence and compatability profile for the emulator. Sorta like the classic profiles Xbox 360 users may get for free?

The only element which sort of sucks is the removal of hardware backwards compatability, but even that wasn't 100% and the console has halved in price with a bigger HDD capacity since. If you prefer to pay $600 for the console then $6 for the discs you can do. If you prefer to pay $300 for the console and $12 for the digital download you can do that too.

In any case if you want to play a PS2 game, buy a PS2. If you don't want a digital copy don't buy the digital copy. If you do want to play the game, don't own the disc and can't be arsed hooking up an old console to your TV then buy the digital copy. The choices really are that simple, there is no drama required.

 

I was more referring to the fact that none of the PS2 FF games are any good.

That makes absolutely no sense because none of those systems were originally designed to be backwards compatible unlike the PS3, which had BC and then it was removed for a stupid reason (stupid as far as the consumer is concerned, at least).

Yeah, because the removal of BC was the reason the PS3 got cheaper...and, you know, not the fact that the components have become cheaper to manufacture since 2006.

 

Unfortunately(for Square-Enix), you have a very good point, sir.

 

Lulz Opinions.

/Thread.

Also Legit. The difference is that a NES game doesn't Physically fit into a SNES. And at one point it NEVER boasted or had NES BC. UNLIKE THE PS3 or Wii (Which both had BC with previous platform until it was removed by a hardware revision or YLOD, forcing you to buy a new model or another old model that will just break ,even though the capability should and still exists. Via hardware or software).

Having to tug around an old, loud PS2(If you have a phat) just to be able to play those games is a pain(plus picture quality on modern tv's will be worse than with a PS3). Half the reason people bought PS2's was the fact that you wouldn't have to keep your PS1 around. And it was the same for the PS3 until Sony decided to remove it just so they could charge you for software emulation.
Which the PS1 portion of the PS3 already uses AND is usable with your own discs. Thus eliminating need to keep a PS1 around. So why not PS2? It's not like they are releasing the whole library or tons of games for it. What's the point? A missed opportunity.

I put up with a lot of shit, but this is one thing I won't. It's just flat out stupid and there are only 2 logical reasons why they would do it.

1. Buggy emulator/don't want to take time to compile emulator profiles for every game/don't want to deal with people whining about why "X" or "Y" game doesn't work/don't want to spend the time and effort using User data as input for improving the emulator when they could just be making cheap HD Up Rez ports and making off like bandits.
2.They want to recharge you for games you already own and that were at one point playable on the system.

 

It makes more sense than for people to cry about a PS3 slim having no PS2 disc support when a PS3 Slim isn't quite a PS3. It isnt just crippled in size, or cost, but features too. People should really just get over that fact, accept shit happens but there are other options and move on. This PS2 on PS3 nonsense is just a storm in a teacup, in fact not even that - it is a non-story.

And yet It was possible to use Master System converter on the Game Gear and Megadrive to play Master System games or the Super Game Boy to play GB games on the SNES. These adapters were never but when if there was the political will or the commercially viability to do so, it was done.

The bottom line is the companies are out to make money and the two main ways they do that is by cutting costs and finding new ways to get more money out of old scrap and some scrap is easier to work with than others - Get used to it.

 

To you maybe. It is a big deal when someone advertises all these features, and then removes them one by one by one by one.

Or that the capability exists for multiple things, but they only let you use one. (PS1 v PS2)

I'd be less upset if their shitty 500$-600$ BC Models were anything but unreliable meaning BC capable PS3s dwindle every day.

The point is, they have the ability to give customers what they want. But they don't.

They might as well take away PS1 compability too and only allow the software emulator to play "PS1 Classics", since it doesn't matter according to you.

I guess no one would care about that either since it's a non-story.

 

You realize that the PS2 slim is capable of reading PS2 discs just fine ? It even goes through the trouble of of warning you that it is a PlayStation 2 disc what you insterted, prints a black interrogation on the disc icon to scare you and states it's not supported. It's an artificially created limitation through programming.


At some point they had the intention of giving it to everyone. <and boasted they would for creating sales hype>


But now, they choose to sell it. That's why we're so pissed.

 

They also stopped advertising such features as and when a product revision came along. If people bothered to read what they lose in the patch notes of each firmware update, they can click no, I want to keep such feature instead of not bothering to read anything and clicking accept all of the time. Obviously it sucks as the product changes, but part of the loss is self inflicted.

You realise that the PS3 slim is capable of reading PS3 discs just fine too?


If we take the case of the Gameboy player for SNES for example, Nintendo basically had to cram what is effectively a GameBoy without a screen into a SNES cart and charge what, $30 for it when their GameBoy itself was being sold to consumers $100 plus. They made a huge loss on every converter sold, but they didn't make that many to sell.

Back then Nintendo had less people to cater for and too much money to care about a small loss on a niche product. Times are different now. The PS2 and PS3 had/have a significantly larger following thus signifcantly more people to cater for with regards to backwards compatability. Nintendo could afford to lose money on a small market but Sony cannot afford to lose money in a mass market and that is probably why the hardware emulation went out the window and a software version was developed.



With regards to the non-story it helps if you look at it this way.

Sony used to be an elctronics powerhouse making the best stuff in the world. They grew to big, the bubble burst and everything they make now is shit - the PlayStation included.

To keep the cash flowing in the future they sink x amount of cash into developing new products.

They make a loss on every piece of hardware sold and hope the software sales more than make up for it.

The accountant is unhappy as they are heamorrhaging money faster than they can replace it so they cheapen the hardware, lose some features and change the advertising to suit - an original 2007 advert cannot still be relevant to a revised product released in 2009 or something, surely?

In a real shitty move Sony also request to apply an update to existing hardware so they can have just the one form of platform or message to maintain, but they at least have the decency to give end users the choice of move with the times or not.

Those that tell Sony to GTFO and keep their old firmware lose nothing.

Those that moved with the times then complain that they lost features they were told and accepted they were going to lose. WTF! What sort of sense does that make?

To top it all off those who bought PS3 slims never had the feature thus never had it to lose yet cry about it when they could have just bought a fatboy or PS2 anywhere else. WTF! What sort of sense does that make?


Also who gives a shit if you don't want an ugly console under your sexy new TV? I certainly don't its more your problem than mine. I'm quite content to have several consoles from several generations hooked up to my TV at any one time, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Yeah it would be nice to have one to do it all, but where does ther simplicity and convenience end - perhaps a single machine running MAME?

I htink people hsould also stop fooling themselves thinking this is all about SOny. I'm sur ethe developers are just happy people are enjoy their work and they get paid but it is the publishers which tend to bankroll everything and want to protect their investmnent - they are as much to blame. Yeah Sony is a publisher too and probably leading the way ins crewing more people out of their money - but people can also NOT buy the digital downloads. It is as simple as that.

 

No, no, no, a thousand times no. That's the same legal BS Sony tried to hind behind back when there was a class action lawsuit against them for removing Other OS. "We didn't FORCE you to update your PS3. If you wanted to keep it, you were given the option to decline. It's your fault, not ours. You can't sue us for something you willing did."

If you want to keep a feature being removed with a firmware update, you have to not install the update, which removes your ability to go on PSN and play future PS3 games with the firmware built in. In order to keep one feature, you have to give up many others. That's bullshit.

 

It is not legal BS at all. Not bothering to read the terms and conditions is one thing I'm sure many of us do. Why? Because for all of the pages of text it is basically summed up as:

A) The company has all of the rights
B) Your statutory rights are not affected
c) If you try to use your statutory rights they will ignore you and tell you that you have no rights, even when you do.

Basically they're going to fuck you over if you do anything remotely unsavoury to them whilst at the same time allowing them to bend you over and aim for penetration, seemingly at will.


Patch notes on the other hand are entirely different. Seriously who doesn't read them?

For software for example If you're playing a game, you want to know what has been nerfed or buffed so you can adapt your behaviour but for the casual gamer theyre not too bothered and just play along regardless then spam the in game chat like noobs asking everyone else who bothered to reasd the notes what changed. Software isnt as much of a deal rbeaker though so it is foregiveable to skip patch notes.

Changes which affect your hardware, include the OS / firmware: read them patch notes! Really, ignorance is no excuse for losing a feature because you were too lazy to check it. I personally would have liked to have OtherOS when I had a PS3, but I had a 2nd generation Slim so it was never going to happen and you know what? I don't then go cry about not having a feature I never expected to have in the first place.

Yeah and that bullshit is called life. Money or happiness? Food or entertainment? Some people pay for their entertainment by doing their food shop at Aldi instead of Sainsburys. Others are foruntate enough to live a life without compromise and eat food that doesn't taste like shit and keep themselves suitably entertained just as others can run and old FW fatboy and have a second system for newer games or features. You can do both but for most people something has got to give and when the update comes, the decision, however hard it may be, is ultimately yours not theirs thus its your problem and there aint diddly squat you can do about it so just get over it, get around it, whatever just move on.

 

I'm sure he meant to say the PS3 Slim is capable of reading PS2 discs just fine.
It's the PS3 Slim that shows the question mark when you insert a PS2 disc...

While we are on the subject: AFAIK they only removed the memory card reader (SD/MS?) and 2 USB ports in the Slim, compared to the fat PS3... was anything else removed hardware wise?

 

I appreciate that the update thing sucks. Did it actually disable the hardware emulation that the first PS3 had, then? However, I don't see why people are bitching about Sony charging to download games they MAY OR MAY NOT already have. If you have it - great. Go and play it on your PS2. What do you mean you got rid of your PS2?! Well go and get another! They're dirt cheap and it's cheaper than buying a few games from Sony, no doubt. If not, it's your call whether you want to download it or not.

Nobody bitched when Nintendo released the VC, allowing you to download your favourite Nintendo (and other console) games. You either said, "Woohoo! Zelda 64 on my Wii!" or just dug out your N64 and played it as you remembered it.

I don't have a PS3, but if I did, I wouldn't give a damn about them taking away the ability to have some crappy emulation. If I want to play GoldenEye, I play it on my N64. If I want to play Halo 2, I play it on my original Xbox. The way they were supposed to be played. Simple.

 

The argument here is: The Wii never had a N64 slot in it. The PS3 had a PS1 and PS2 "slot" in it which was taken away. That is the whole point of this thread and the reason some of us are furious.