Let's say Sony does start selling PS2 games on PSN

[Tornado]

Quite frankly, I see it sinking the division, perhaps even the full-on death of the Playstation brand for a while. Sony has swaggered around since the beginning of the generation with a supreme aura of pure asshole-ish arrogance, and they have rightly been chewed out for it (though at the expense of the other two getting a free pass half the time). But I can see this as being the breaking point. I'm talking "Sega in 1995" levels of consumer trust in the company.

Its guaranteed that the PS2 cannot be fully-software emulated with any reliability or consistency by the PS3, based purely on the way the PS2 was designed. So Sony will be doing it on a per-game basis that is most likely going to be download only if they do it. Not only have Sony shown blatant hypocrisy regarding the whole affair in every interview that bothered them about it with the "our customer base don't want old games, but would you like to buy some PS1 games?" crap; but they have gone on record as saying that they only removed BC in the first place as a ploy to get people to buy more PS3 stuff. So, if they were to start selling PS2 games as PSN-only downloads, pretty much every statement made by the company regarding the matter for the past 2 years would have been a lie; and I really don't think the industry would put up with it any longer.

To be honest, I can see the fallout being so huge that I'm not sure what the next generation would even look like.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Tornado

[Candescence]

Well, you have previously said that either Microsoft or Sony will bow out of the race next gen, perhaps this backlash may make it more obvious which of the two ain't coming back.

Sony's ego has been inflated to such high levels that they're probably oblivious to the fact that they're on the verge or shooting themselves in the other foot.

[Badnik Mechanic]

Wow... I guess this topic is for anti sony talk eh?

Most likely the user base will react as follows. "Oh hey, PS2 games on the PSN." .. .. *continues to play PS3 games until Final Fantasy X and Metal Gear Solid 2/3 are released with a trophy patch*

I really don't think that the Sony userbase will suddenly throw their arms up in the air and go "Oh the hypocrisy! I shall not buy anything else from them again!" *stands on a mountain like mozes.*

Good lord, I mean come on guys, you couldn't sound anymore like the dude at the air who has the board that says "The end is nigh"

Considering how so many people want a method of playing PS2 games on their PS3's, it doesn't really seem like it's a move to shoot themselves in the foot in all honesty. All the other companies are putting their back catalogue of games onto their respected online stores, so why is it that if Sony does it it spells doom and gloom? Or is it that we're just after something new to moan at sony about?

Edited September 28, 2009 by Casanova

[Chris]

The gaming industry is a rare beast - the underdogs of the previous generation are usually the ones to really smoke the competition this time around, while the ones on top generally fade away or realize that they need to adjust their public relations if they're ever going to succeed again.

A good example of this is to review SEGA and Nintendo's past, around the time where Sony jumped into the fray. The Nintendo 64 was flaunted as an amazing gaming console (and I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm just referring to the executive attitudes) while Sony stayed by the side and said "please try our console". In the end, Nintendo ended up losing with an awful attitude, and Sony began to build on it's own brand and stroke it's own ego.

Nintendo were the previous underdogs and look where they are now. Microsoft tried it's hand last generation and with the knowledge gained from the original XBox were able to do good with the 360. Sony needs to take a step back and reevaluate their console before pushing forward with more assumptions of what the players want.

[Tornado]

All the other companies are putting their back catalogue of games onto their respected online stores, so why is it that if Sony does it it spells doom and gloom?

None of the other companies gave you the ability to play those games initially, then removed the option out of spite, then vehemently denied that anyone wanted the option in the first place, and then (theoretically) decided that they would charge you for those games again if you actually wanted to play them. The closest Microsoft or Nintendo have come towards such shenanigans is for the DSi, but you can still buy a DS Lite, so no one really cares.

Or is it that we're just after something new to moan at sony about?

If I wanted to make a topic purely to bitch Sony out just for the sake of doing so, there are so many choices of things to pick from that I wouldn't have bothered with BC. And I'm not particularly against any of the companies (and it would be Microsoft, not Sony, if I was), so perhaps you could refrain from claiming I'm saying this just to moan about Sony.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Tornado

[Badnik Mechanic]

None of the other companies gave you the ability to play those games initially, then removed the option out of spite, then vehemently denied that anyone wanted the option in the first place, and then (theoretically) decided that they would charge you for those games again if you actually wanted to play them.

But I don't think you quite get it... nobody is going to care. Really they won't. If someone has a huge catalogue of PS2 games, then chances are they'll have a working PS2. So if they already own a console and a game that they love... why would they re-buy it anyway?

Like I said, if they do start putting PS2 games on the PSN, most PS3 owners will be very happy about that. I really do struggle to even try to comprehend a scenario were PS3 owners will dislike that decision, especially since if you read a lot of the comments about what most people want on the PS3, PS2 games on the PSN/backwards compatability is probably second only to cross game voice chat.

You also asked in the topic description, how will the industry react, if anything they'll be happy about this move too. Look how many third party companies have already taken full advantage of various other consoles and their 'classic' titles being up for download.

If I really try, the only negative thing I can probably think of is that some people may need to find the cash for a bigger HD-Drive, even then it'll only be those who constantly buy full PS2 games on a very regular basis.

The closest Microsoft or Nintendo have come towards such shenanigans is for the DSi, but you can still buy a DS Lite, so no one really cares.

But you can still buy PS2's. Even if PS2 games appear on the PSN, they're not suddenly going to shut down the hardware aspect if it's still selling very well.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Casanova

[Tornado]

But I don't think you quite get it... nobody is going to care. Really they won't.

So after two years of Sony saying "Our customers don't want this" and "we removed it intentionally because we don't want you playing PS2 games on your PS3," Sony simply changing their tune to "Our customers want this so badly that we might as well charge them for it" won't have any negative response? You're right, I can in no way see why people could have a problem with that; just like they had no problems when Sony said with a straight face that people don't want rumble functionality (yes, I understand the circumstances were different for that particular fiasco).

Like I said, if they do start putting PS2 games on the PSN, most PS3 owners will be very happy about that.

Since the news leaked, what you are describing has been the exact opposite of how people seem to be reacting, so I imagine most PS3 owners will not, in fact, be okay with that as the only option; other than for certain games.

You also asked in the topic description, how will the industry react, if anything they'll be happy about this move too. Look how many third party companies have already taken full advantage of various other consoles and their 'classic' titles being up for download.

By "industry," I meant overall. Not just the publishers.

But you can still buy PS2's. Even if PS2 games appear on the PSN, they're not suddenly going to shut down the hardware aspect if it's still selling very well.

That doesn't really apply. It would if we were in 2007 and you could buy both the 80Gb model if you wanted BC and the 40Gb model if you didn't, but its 2009, so you have to buy a completely different system now.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Tornado

[ShadiWulf]

It's cool to hate Sony and Praise Microsoft and Nintendo

just like it's cool to hate SEGA

Sony won't completely lock out BC if it's on PSN

it will work like PS1 BC, even if it's not for every game,

probably will be like this

if you own the game in disc form, and its on PSN to buy, it will probably download a patch to play it, just like on XBOX Live.

or maybe Sony will surprise everyone and make a full blown emulator.

[Candescence]

just like they had no problems when Sony said with a straight face that people don't want rumble functionality.

Oh, that was hilarious. Tycho from Penny Arcade basically summed it up as ridiculous, what with the Wii remote having better motion controls than the Sixaxis, along with rumble, a pointer, AND a bloody in-built speaker. Out of all three, Sony have been the worst with their ridiculous PR statements.

It's cool to hate Sony and Praise Microsoft and Nintendo

just like it's cool to hate SEGA

It is? Really? Microsoft and Nintendo don't get away unscathed by any means, all three have their obvious faults. But it's not like the Sony criticism isn't valid, especially with the ridiculous ego they've built up.

[ShadiWulf]

Yes, Sony did have a ego at the start of this generation, mainly due to Ken Kutaragi. I don't see this ego anymore though, if anything it's Nintendo that's getting the ego again.

Sony has been improving, everyone wants a PS3 at the moment, stores keep selling out of them in the US. Big improvment compared to when stores had them piling up.

[Candescence]

Yes, Sony did have a ego at the start of this generation, mainly due to Ken Kutaragi. I don't see this ego anymore though, if anything it's Nintendo that's getting the ego again.

Sony still have the ego problem, I think. SOME parts of Nintendo may have a bit of an ego, but others clearly don't. All three have their PR blunders, but Sony is the worst by far this gen.

Sony has been improving, everyone wants a PS3 at the moment, stores keep selling out of them in the US. Big improvment compared to when stores had them piling up.

To be frank, the PS3 sales hike will be temporary at best, if Japan is of any indication, the most recent Media Create reports indicate a rather nasty drop. The price drop along with just one major game, I doubt will sustain any sales rise for long. The Wand will probably have the same effect, if not just simply not make a dent period.

Edited September 28, 2009 by The Sniper

[Solid SOAP]

It's cool to hate Sony and Praise Microsoft and Nintendo

just like it's cool to hate SEGA

Sony won't completely lock out BC if it's on PSN

it will work like PS1 BC, even if it's not for every game,

probably will be like this

if you own the game in disc form, and its on PSN to buy, it will probably download a patch to play it, just like on XBOX Live.

or maybe Sony will surprise everyone and make a full blown emulator.

Why do you think this is the case? It's not even close to it, Nintendo get just as much, if not more, hate than Sony do as of late because they don't cater to their fanbase's every whim. Microsoft are constantly harped on for creating faulty hardware (And they do, I've had to send my 360 in multiple times and I constantly am buying new Mics). Sony are currently the topic of conversation because they happen to be very greedy currently.

No one is out to get Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, or even SEGA. I have absolutely no idea why you think this way, it's not true at all, every video game company has a group of people that will openly bash it, most of the time because they deserve it.

[Candescence]

No one is out to get Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, or even SEGA. I have absolutely no idea why you think this way, it's not true at all, every video game company has a group of people that will openly bash it, most of the time because they deserve it.

Or just out of principle. Either way, this. Nobody's out to get any of them, all three have been bashed just as openly as the others. [sarcasm]Isn't Fandom Rivalry just wonderful?[/sarcasm]

Edited September 28, 2009 by The Sniper

[ShadiWulf]

Oh come on, SONY hardly has the ego they had at the beginning of this generation

Famous Ken Kutaragi quotes

"I believe we made the most beautiful thing in the world. Nobody would criticize a renowned architect's blueprint that the position of a gate is wrong. It's the same as that."

"The PlayStation [3] is not a game machine. We've never once called it a game machine,"

"The Xbox 360 is more of an Xbox 1.5 than a next generation console."

"[PS3 is] for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else."

"Microsoft shoots for the moon. Sony shoots for the sun."

"The PS3 will instill discipline in our children and adults alike. Everyone will know discipline."

[Tornado]

You quote TV Tropes like every day.

Sony has been improving, everyone wants a PS3 at the moment, stores keep selling out of them in the US. Big improvment compared to when stores had them piling up.

Could it be that people are willing to pay $300 for the system rather than the $400 it used to be?

[Chooch]

I'm going to be entirely honest and say up until I read this topic I didn't see anyone complaining about the possibility of Sony selling PS2 games on the PlayStation Network.

[CtW]

Xbox games are sold on the 360's Live service. No backlash there. Just some minor sales increase for old Xbox games. There isn't any reason to believe selling PS2 games on the PS3's PSN would cause any different of a reaction.

[Solid SOAP]

Xbox games are sold on the 360's Live service. No backlash there. Just some minor sales increase for old Xbox games. There isn't any reason to believe selling PS2 games on the PS3's PSN would cause any different of a reaction.

Well, the difference there is that Microsoft allow you to play your old Xbox games without paying for them again if you already have a disk, Sony are making it so if you want to play a PS2 game on the PS3, you HAVE to buy it again.

[CtW]

Well, the difference there is that Microsoft allow you to play your old Xbox games without paying for them again if you already have a disk, Sony are making it so if you want to play a PS2 game on the PS3, you HAVE to buy it again.

There's not really a lot of games that work on the 360, and a lot of the games included in Microsoft's BC patches weren't even particularly popular IIRC and were likely added simply because they were easy to emulate so I stand by my statement that it wouldn't garner any different reaction.

[Solid SOAP]

There's not really a lot of games that work on the 360, and a lot of the games included in Microsoft's BC patches weren't even particularly popular IIRC and were likely added simply because they were easy to emulate so I stand by my statement that it wouldn't garner any different reaction.

Were there any particularly popular games on the Xbox other than Halo? Every game I've Xbox game I've wanted to play on 360 works, so I have no complaints. Those games being Halo 2, Conker: Live & Reloaded, and Jet Set Radio Future.

[ShadiWulf]

Well, the difference there is that Microsoft allow you to play your old Xbox games without paying for them again if you already have a disk, Sony are making it so if you want to play a PS2 game on the PS3, you HAVE to buy it again.

No they arent, nothing has even been confirmed.

All people saw was a note on a meeting with SEGA, nothing was confirmed.

People are just jumping to conclusions

[Remy]

There's not really a lot of games that work on the 360, and a lot of the games included in Microsoft's BC patches weren't even particularly popular IIRC and were likely added simply because they were easy to emulate so I stand by my statement that it wouldn't garner any different reaction.

but you can still play them from the disk, unlike (probably) Sony's service.

[CtW]

Were there any particularly popular games on the Xbox other than Halo? Every game I've Xbox game I've wanted to play on 360 works, so I have no complaints. Those games being Halo 2, Conker: Live & Reloaded, and Jet Set Radio Future.

Eh, surely there had to be some but I'm pulling a blank on anything other than Halo, Halo 2, and Morrowind. If I had owned an Xbox I'd probably be able to rattle off a list but I didn't so...

EDIT:

but you can still play them from the disk, unlike (probably) Sony's service.

My point in mentioning that is that Microsoft's selection is largely forgettable so it wouldn't serve a case against Sony well.

Edited September 28, 2009 by Cipher

[Solid SOAP]

No they arent, nothing has even been confirmed.

All people saw was a note on a meeting with SEGA, nothing was confirmed.

People are just jumping to conclusions

Apparently, I just assumed so.

I couldn't care less though since I don't have a PS3 and don't intend on buying one, as much as I'd like to play 3D Game Dot Heroes it won't be worth buying what is escentially the same thing as an Xbox 360.

[Tornado]

Xbox games are sold on the 360's Live service. No backlash there. Just some minor sales increase for old Xbox games. There isn't any reason to believe selling PS2 games on the PS3's PSN would cause any different of a reaction.

The 360 also didn't originally support the entire XBox library.