Sony unsure about PS3 BC

[mkreku]

A console isn't a computer, regardless of what people think, Hades_One.

[Epiphany]

Yeah, much like your ignorance on the concept that it was a discussion spanning more than one post, and that the topic was personal computers, revolving around gaming.  But hey, if one quote out of context gives you a chubby, then by all means keep using it.  Afterall, I can't imagine anything else giving a miserably cynic Swedish game reviewer any kind of hope or enjoyment from life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Yeah, much like your ignorance on the concept that it was a discussion spanning more than one post, and that the topic was personal computers, revolving around gaming.  But hey, if one quote out of context gives you a chubby, then by all means keep using it.  Afterall, I can't imagine anything else giving a miserably cynic Swedish game reviewer any kind of hope or enjoyment from life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I guess you didnt read Fionavar's post

[alanschu]

There is no GPU in the PS1 or PS2, all graphical opperations are done via the CPU. That's where the whole "emotion engine" came from, regarding the PS2. The emotion engine is part of the CPU - which is not a GPU.

 

The "Emotion Engine" was not the (figuratively speaking) graphics chip. The graphics chip on the Playstation 2 was very much like the TNT2s, the Voodoo3s, etc. It took care of the graphics responsibilities such as the rendering of the screen.

 

The CPU's graphical responsibilities was the polygon transformation and lighting effects (in particular).

 

Every texture was rendered and applied on the Graphics Synthesizer for the Playstation 2. It's as much of a "GPU" as the TNT2/Voodoo/Rage128 etcetera was.

 

 

Supposing all of the graphics calculations truly were done by the CPU, why did the Graphics Synthesizer exist? What purpose did it have?

 

 

 

 

 

Also, the "Emotion Engine" IS the Playstation 2 CPU. It's not "part of" it. It was just a marketting term that Sony created for the chip. It consists of the R5900 MIPS processor, in addition to it's FPU co-processor and two vector units. The Emotion Engine was the amalgamation of all those processors.

Edited October 26, 2005 by alanschu

[Darque]

Yeah, much like your ignorance on the concept that it was a discussion spanning more than one post, and that the topic was personal computers, revolving around gaming.  But hey, if one quote out of context gives you a chubby, then by all means keep using it.  Afterall, I can't imagine anything else giving a miserably cynic Swedish game reviewer any kind of hope or enjoyment from life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I guess you didnt read Fionavar's post

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought it was obvious.

[Tigranes]

I wasn't aware we were letting Epiphany rape so many threads a day. He might overdose.

 

Anyway, it looks like pretty much every console has BC now... and it's coming to be expected of every console, sort of like the expectations for the ultra high level of graphics Costiyakin(sp?) & Co. despises. Wouldn't BC make a console more reliant on its "backlog" of games? Or perhaps not, and it is just a bonus? But since all of you seem to want to talk about technological semantics, let's ask something here: does BC support, in any of the consoles' way of doing them, impair developments or functionalities in any other area?

 

What's the cost of BC?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Anyway, it looks like pretty much every console has BC now... and it's coming to be expected of every console, sort of like the expectations for the ultra high level of graphics Costiyakin(sp?) & Co. despises. Wouldn't BC make a console more reliant on its "backlog" of games? Or perhaps not, and it is just a bonus?  But since all of you seem to want to talk about technological semantics, let's ask something here: does BC support, in any of the consoles' way of doing them, impair developments or functionalities in any other area?

 

What's the cost of BC?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's probably about brand loyalty. Actually I own all three consoles (and the handhelds) but I stopped buying Xbox games sometime ago (when they announced the 360) because of the iffy BC policy. I don't want to be stuck with a bunch of games that wont work on the new console and I wont purchase any just in case. The other two revolution and PS3 are a long way off so much can change. But Sony do have a record of decent BC (from PS to PS2) and Nintendo offer the chance to play all those golden oldies again

 

Anyway lets say for sake of argument the following.

 

1. I have a an Xbox with 30 games and nothing much about the 360's line up exites me. Once I've played the few games I'm interested in the 360 gathers dust. This is what is currently happening to my PSP btw.

 

2. I have a PS2 with 30 games again only one or two of the PS3 games are of interest, however the PS3 should play most of the PS2 and PS games which means even if the PS3 release is slow I can play my old favourites in the mean time. This is exactly what happened with my DS. When I had it as a gift there were no games around that I was into. However I still got to use it as an oversized GBA until the games caught up. One other thing, I started playing the Final Fantasy games with FFX. Thanks to the PS2's BC I was still able to play them retroactively back to I (except for III )

 

Otherwise your simply better off waiting a year and then you get a huge catalogue of games, plus you get everything at a lower price.

 

One of the things about the new consoles which a lot of people are overlooking. You aint getting the graphical quality that it shows on the back of the boxes or in screenshots unless you have a TV that will cost you more than the console. Otherwise the graphical jump isnt that great. And aside from Nintendo I doubt you will get much beyond graphical updates for things like Halo and Gotham Racing anyway.

[alanschu]

Backwards compatibility is not much of a selling point for me.

 

I certainly don't make purchasing decisions for games that may interest me because it may or may not be supported via backwards compatibility. If this was the case, I'd never buy any games, as all hardware is eventually outdated. My Ultima 7 games don't particularly like the faster computers (though the people at Exult made it possible). I love Police Quest 3, but the driving scenes require me to use MoSlow programs that don't seem to work very well.

 

Though for the most part, once I've played the crap out of a game, I don't particularly feel like playing it a whole lot anyways. No urges to play the original Civilization, Super Mario 3, or NHL '94. Backwards compatibility is a nice convenience factor, but if I really want to play a PSX game, I can just pull it out of the closet and hook it up in a few minutes. When I'm done, I'll put it back. I don't have that urge too often though.

[Judge Hades]

Mkreku and Epiphany, both of you stop this. Sheesh, its like two kids in the back of the minivan "not touching" each other.

 

AARRGGHHH!

 

Personally when it comes to BC I just plug in the old console instead of using the new one.