PS3 and BC: Do you think removing PS2 BC was worth it?

Eoin · Feb 23, 2020

CerealBro1 said:
They had hybrid BC that got rid of the emotion engine and emulated that but kept the RSX chip and while it had issues most games ran pretty well and they had that model until 2009. They announced PS2 Classics in 2010 and released a lot in mid 2011. The timeline really does make it seem like they the removed the RSX chip and also disk based backwards compatibility just so they could try to monetize it for more money

This is mostly wrong.

The first models of the PS3 that appeared without any of the PS2 hardware were the 40GB models in 2007. They had no PS2 emulation of any kind. All future PS3 models were the same. I have no idea why you believe that didn't happen until 2009.

Similarly, no, PS2 Classics just weren't announced in 2010, and, as I wrote earlier, they didn't appear on store until late 2011 (not mid 2011).

The timeline only makes it seem like they removed backwards compatibility to monetise it later if you don't have a clue what the timeline looked like, which, to be blunt, you don't.

AmFreak · Feb 23, 2020

Firima said:
I don't think that was spin at all. If you want to put a positive spin on feature-gutting, "we want people to buy PS3 games instead" seems about the worst thing you could say, especially if you're going to intimate that keeping it around wasn't a financial drain on resources. You might as well say "If you want to play PS2 games, we have a console for that." I think this was PS3 launch-era Sony giving us the kind of brutal honesty they were known for at the time. After all, PS2 was still getting a flow of the kind of excellent games that PS3 would not for some time; this might have actually been a way to get developers to move on as well.

This was end of 2007, what flow of excellent games did the PS2 get around that time or after?
Focus at that time was clearly on PS3 and the lineup wasn't barren anymore.

Fafalada · Feb 23, 2020

Springy said:
So assuming the quote above you is accurate and there was a negligible cost saving with their removal, why the half-step of taking out the CPU on its own first? Why not keep it as-is until the policy shifted?

They were taking any cost savings they could get in the first year as quickly as possible. Removing CPU + 32mb of memory was a significant reduction in BOM, as was the final gpu step since it significantly simplified motherboard layout as well.

IIRC originally there were plans for sw emulator to be out sooner and possibly keep disc compat but that changed somewhere down the line.

Manmademan · Feb 23, 2020

Lot of nonsense in this thread.

The PS3 BC was not removed to "push software sales more" regardless of what Tretton said in that interview. The PS3 was insanely expensive to manufacture and Sony did everything they could to strip components to cut the cost down.

There were THREE different variants of PS3 BC. There was the original 60gig/20gig units that were completely hardware based, an 80 gig variant that removed the emotion engine CPU but kept the PS2 GPU, and every variant after the 80 gig hybrid units had no hardware BC, but could run "PS2 classics" which were PS2 games with additional code included to allow them to play on the PS3 on an individual basis.

If pushing gamers to buy PS3 software was the point, there would have been no reason for the 80gig hybrid units. those were clearly a cost cutting move and nothing else, because they played 99.99999% of the PS2 titles the 60/20 gig units did, they were just cheaper for Sony to manufacture. All PS3's produced through the life of the console also retained the ability to play PS1 disc and downloaded software as well, because the cost to do so was zero.

At the same time the PS3 lost the hybrid BC capability in favor of no PS2 BC, the PS3 also:

Stripped the USB ports from 4 down to 2
Eliminated memory stick, compact flash, and microSD support
Eliminated SACD support
Ditched the chrome trim

It was cost cutting, plain and simple. By the time the 80 gig hybrid units went out of production (somewhere in early 2008) PS3 native software was moving at a fair clip regardless. Years old used copies of GTA:VC or Metal Gear Solid 2 weren't denting the sales of GTAIV or MGS4.

dedge · Feb 23, 2020

Manmademan said:
Lot of nonsense in this thread.

The PS3 BC was not removed to "push software sales more" regardless of what Tretton said in that interview. The PS3 was insanely expensive to manufacture and Sony did everything they could to strip components to cut the cost down.

There were THREE different variants of PS3 BC. There was the original 60gig/20gig units that were completely hardware based, an 80 gig variant that removed the emotion engine CPU but kept the PS2 GPU, and every variant after the 80 gig hybrid units had no hardware BC, but could run "PS2 classics" which were PS2 games with additional code included to allow them to play on the PS3 on an individual basis.

If pushing gamers to buy PS3 software was the point, there would have been no reason for the 80gig hybrid units. those were clearly a cost cutting move and nothing else, because they played 99.99999% of the PS2 titles the 60/20 gig units did, they were just cheaper for Sony to manufacture. All PS3's produced through the life of the console also retained the ability to play PS1 disc and downloaded software as well, because the cost to do so was zero.

At the same time the PS3 lost the hybrid BC capability in favor of no PS2 BC, the PS3 also:

Stripped the USB ports from 4 down to 2
Eliminated memory stick, compact flash, and microSD support
Eliminated SACD support
Ditched the chrome trim

It was cost cutting, plain and simple. By the time the 80 gig hybrid units went out of production (somewhere in early 2008) PS3 native software was moving at a fair clip regardless. Years old used copies of GTA:VC or Metal Gear Solid 2 weren't denting the sales of GTAIV or MGS4.

The 60GB PS3 was truly a marvel in 2006 it felt so advanced with all the above. I'll always miss mine rip.

AlphaFoxWarfare · Feb 23, 2020

Getting rid of PS2 support was a massive mistake in my eyes. There were so many PS2 games I wish I could've played since my old console broke but I had a Super Slim so couldn't use any of the games. :/

Manmademan · Feb 23, 2020

AlphaFoxWarfare said:
Getting rid of PS2 support was a massive mistake in my eyes. There were so many PS2 games I wish I could've played since my old console broke but I had a Super Slim so couldn't use any of the games. :/

The Super Slim didn't even hit shelves until 2012, six years after sony introduced the PS3, a year before the PS4 came out, and months before Gamestop ceased selling PS2 titles entirely. It's hard to believe that sony including or not including BC was a "massive mistake" for anyone jumping in THAT late.

By 2012 the back catalogue of PS3 titles was vast and dirt cheap- you could have gotten another PS2 secondhand for next to nothing if playing PS2 titles was important- incorporating it into a PS3 would have been pointless.

AlphaFoxWarfare · Feb 23, 2020

Manmademan said:
The Super Slim didn't even hit shelves until 2012, six years after sony introduced the PS3, a year before the PS4 came out, and months before Gamestop ceased selling PS2 titles entirely. It's hard to believe that sony including or not including BC was a "massive mistake" for anyone jumping in THAT late.

By 2012 the back catalogue of PS3 titles was vast and dirt cheap- you could have gotten another PS2 secondhand for next to nothing if playing PS2 titles was important- incorporating it into a PS3 would have been pointless.

I had a PS3 Slim beforehand, but upgraded to a PS3 Super Slim since I had a small HDD (I'm too lazy to replace it, I know).

funky · Feb 23, 2020

They probably could have made a killing selling ps2 games on PSN if they had the foresight.

The limited selection they tried late in the gen wasn't that hot.

RisingStar · Feb 23, 2020

From a business perspective, yes. From a consumer perspective, no.

The best way to play PS2 games to this day is still to own a PS2 or to emulate. I highly doubt that the PS5 will have PS2 retail BC, but at least find a way to get all the digital games from PSone and PS2 classics onto the PS5.

Manmademan · Feb 23, 2020

RisingStar said:
From a business perspective, yes. From a consumer perspective, no.

The best way to play PS2 games to this day is still to own a PS2 or to emulate. I highly doubt that the PS5 will have PS2 retail BC, but at least find a way to get all the digital games from PSone and PS2 classics onto the PS5.

There's no reason to exclude disc based PS1/2/3 software while allowing digital downloads.
Every single major retailer that exists stopped selling PS1 and 2 software years ago. Gamestop still has a handful of PS3 titles but those will be phased out in a matter of months.

Few gamers even HAVE stockpiles of PS2/3 discs anymore since Sony hasn't produced any hardware that can play them in years.

All excluding disc based software does is give them bad PR. They're not gaining any sales from that decision.

Knight613 · Feb 23, 2020

funky said:
They probably could have made a killing selling ps2 games on PSN if they had the foresight.

The limited selection they tried late in the gen wasn't that hot.

To be fair to them, they had to basically negotiate a new license for any game they wanted to put on PSN and a lot of third parties just chose to do remasters of some sort instead.

Megatron · Feb 23, 2020

skeezx said:
they didn't have a choice if msrp just had to go down

everybody and their dog had a ps2 at the time, it was before 'ecosystem consolidation' was as huge a deal. through the lens of 2020 it seems like an egregious thing but back then it was kind of "whatever"

That doesnt seem to be true at all. They Could have used software emulation like Europe had.

And it was absolutely not 'whatever' back then. People were furious. It was a much bigger deal at the time than it is now. The cost came down $200 so people accepted it, but the cost could have gone down $200 and they could have still had software emulation, and everyone knew that.

Jon God · Feb 24, 2020

Easy Rider said:
You mean the 60gb hdd. The majority of 'phat' PS3s out there have no hardware BC and don't suffer from YLOD.

You are absolutely right. Apologies!

LossAversion said:

Hell no, I'd take BC over having to buy a new controller once in a while.

PianoBlack said:
To be fair, my phat died from a red screen error, not YLOD. And then when I called support they told me I had hacked my console (spoiler: I hadn't).

That's terrible. Sounds more like a GPU issue or something? Sony should have helped you out, the fact that they didn't sucks.

Necron · Feb 24, 2020

Springy said:
I'm more confused they didn't continue with software BC (European launch PS3s didn't have hardware BC, just software). Was there a technical reason that was dropped?

It was horrible from the start and probably too much effort as a whole. I'd imagine that it's technically challenging as well, though.

StreamedHams · Feb 24, 2020

LossAversion said:
I can't really complain if mine dies from the YLOD after 14 years of diligent companionship.

I've had mine since 2008, I bought the MSG4 bundle. It's still going strong. Just thinking about it makes me want to play some Scott Pilgrim of VF5...

boi · Feb 24, 2020

RisingStar said:
From a business perspective, yes. From a consumer perspective, no.

The best way to play PS2 games to this day is still to own a PS2 or to emulate. I highly doubt that the PS5 will have PS2 retail BC, but at least find a way to get all the digital games from PSone and PS2 classics onto the PS5.

Well it should be easier for Sony as they could just brute force software BC.

Eoin · Feb 24, 2020

Manmademan said:
There's no reason to exclude disc based PS1/2/3 software while allowing digital downloads.

A non-trivial percentage of people seem to think there's something inherently difficult about discs - that playing downloads is easy but playing discs isn't.

For example when the PS4 was announced not to be natively backwards compatible, some people were saying that they understood why PS3 discs didn't work, but wondering why PS3 PSN games didn't, as if software being downloadable also meant that it was somehow easier to run.

I think it's a legacy of the medium being the only tangible physical form of a game, but whatever the reason, although it's not a super-common perspective, it is a weirdly persistent one.

Necron said:
It was horrible from the start and probably too much effort as a whole.

I wouldn't say it was "horrible" really. It was severely lacking from the start compared to the superior compatibility of the North American and Japanese models, but after a few updates compatibility was pretty good. A pretty large majority of my PS2 collection worked by the time that Sony stopped compatibility updates.

Deleted member 932 · Feb 24, 2020

They removed the GS from the European launch model because the Cell processor could emulate the emotion engine quite efficiently. If you take a look at their architectures, the 2 cpus are quite similar. You have a central multi-purpose core (the MIPS processor in the EE and the PPU in the Cell) and 2 or more vector co-processors (the VPUs in the EE and the SPUs in the Cell). Mapping the EE onto the Cell architecture was feasible, and indeed compatibility of the partial SW emulator on launch European models, known as gxemu, is pretty high.

This was not a cost saving measure as much as a "why not measure?". I bet that Sony's plan had always been to get rid of the EE inside the PS3 after gxemu had reached maturity;

Now, the real problem arrived when they also got rid of the GS, this time undoubtedly in a bid to cut costs. The obvious solution would have been to let the RSX emulat the GS, but apparently they couldn't get around that - I'd assume due to the high bandwidth on-board memory of the GS. They tried to emulate GS using the Cell PPU, which was already in charge on emulating the mips cpu inside EE, and they were somewhat successful in doing that (keep in mind that this was only possilbe due to the PPU's being dual-threaded). However, compatibility of the new entirely SW-base emulator, known as netemu, was much lower.

People who have a hacked PS3 can use netemu to play any PS2 game. Suprisingly, there are some games that play really well, like Silent Hill 2, that arguably looks better than the HD remaster (resolution aside, of course).

For more information I recommend reading this

Zephy · Feb 24, 2020

Firima said:
According to The Wall Street Journal:

So to answer your question, OP:

Fuck no.

Oh wow that's pretty disgusting. I never knew that.

PianoBlack · Feb 24, 2020

Jon God said:
You are absolutely right. Apologies!

Hell no, I'd take BC over having to buy a new controller once in a while.

That's terrible. Sounds more like a GPU issue or something? Sony should have helped you out, the fact that they didn't sucks.

Yeah it soured me on Sony for a bit, I asked for a new PS3 as a gift a couple years later rather than spending my own money lol. But then they made the Vita and all was forgiven.

On topic, neither had BC but it didn't make much difference to me since I sold my PS2 games alongside my PS2. The olden days before digital...

androvsky · Feb 24, 2020

Firima said:
According to The Wall Street Journal:

"There's a catch to the lower price: The new $399 PlayStation model will not play games designed for the PlayStation 2, Sony's popular older game console. Mr. Tretton conceded that removing that capability, along with a few other features, isn't dramatically reducing Sony's cost of manufacturing the console but will instead encourage buyers of the entry-level PlayStation 3 to purchase more games designed specifically for the new system."

So to answer your question, OP:

Fuck no.

Wow, I'd forgotten about that quote. I'm definitely doing a thread on Sony and BC now, lol. This makes Jim Ryan's comment about BC being much requested but not used much a little difficult to reconcile when there's a Sony exec admitting at the time that too many people are using it. I feel like there was a comment from a third-party publisher in 2007 complaining about people buying PS3s and only playing PS2 games on it, but I've gone looking for it before and couldn't find it.

Olimar · Feb 24, 2020

There is tons of great info in the thread but there is a bit context that a lot of people are missing out on.

When the PS3 had initially come out, people were still using CRT displays and dial-up internet. I would say that the PS3 really helped usher in the HDTV era with it's included Blu-ray Player. Similarly, the mid-2000s was an era of '56K WARNING' and many users had yet to make the jump to broadband internet, let alone having Wi-Fi available in the home.

The primary focus of the BC being so important though, was that the PlayStation 3 was released in that perfect twilight of old vs. new. You are generally unrestricted when attempting to hook up a PS3 to any display. It supports composite, component, SCART, and HDMI.

With 99% of PS1 games playing in 240p, 99% of PS2 games playing in 480i, and the majority of PS3 games playing in native 720p, the PS3 had to tackle the issue of all of these different video modes and had to have the ability to display them and be able to upscale them with minimal input lag. In this was the true real loss, in my opinion, of Backwards Compatibility. Without having the hardware to convert these, we've locked them behind the analog wall in televisions.

I understand that Sony removed such hardware as a cost cutting deterrent. Similarly, if Sony had remained true to their legacy of Backwards Compatibility, it may have appeared in the PlayStation 4 and kept prices up for the unit as well since it would have been an 'expected feature.' In a way, it's interesting to see now how the story developed over time. The majority of people are aware that the older PS3s do have Backwards Compatibility, but I don't believe it's widely known that it's only the PS2 compatibility that was removed. Generally when talking with people, they're unaware that every PlayStation 3 is able to play the PlayStation 1 discs.

With all of that being said, it will be interesting to see how Sony handles the backwards compatibilty of the PlayStation 5. I have a feeling it will be only for PlayStation 4 titles, with the potential to expand to any digitally released games that are currently on the PlayStation Store. I wouldn't expect any 'new' PS2 Classics to come out specifically to tout this feature for the PlayStation 5.

inner-G · Feb 24, 2020

Why no poll?

they should have kept it even if it meant having a more expensive SKU

Firima · Feb 24, 2020

androvsky said:
Wow, I'd forgotten about that quote. I'm definitely doing a thread on Sony and BC now, lol. This makes Jim Ryan's comment about BC being much requested but not used much a little difficult to reconcile when there's a Sony exec admitting at the time that too many people are using it. I feel like there was a comment from a third-party publisher in 2007 complaining about people buying PS3s and only playing PS2 games on it, but I've gone looking for it before and couldn't find it.

I haven't heard that quote but I wouldn't doubt it given how many PS2s and, therefore, PS2 games were in the wild back in 2007. It might've been a real problem for developers trying to make software for a new generation.

It's also worth noting that those PS2 games they were releasing digitally on PS3 were revealed by hackers to simply be ISOs, not the "heavily repackaged and reworked" PS2 games that so many claimed Sony HAD to have been releasing, and they were running on the same software emulator that they had removed from the platform after the 80GB SKU. There was a GAF thread on this at about the same time as Microsoft's disastrous Xbox One reveal, so it definitely got lost in the shuffle.

Olimar said:
I understand that Sony removed such hardware as a cost cutting deterrent.

People keep repeating this, so I'm going to ask: How do we know this? Is there a source for this? Because the only meaningful info I know of on this topic is WSJ's interview with Jack Tretton where he stated that they did it to wean people off of last-generation software. I'd love to be proven wrong on this point, because I feel like a couple of years later, somebody at Sony addressed it in an interview, but that might just be me misremembering things.

TheWooniestWoona · Feb 24, 2020

It sucks that when my original PS3 broke I had to get one that couldn't play all of the same games. I like going back to play older games, so it made playing PS2 games on my main TV a lot more difficult. Things like the OSSC have made up for it, but that's still extra hardware I have to have hooked up.

The Angry Internet · Feb 24, 2020

Manmademan said:
If pushing gamers to buy PS3 software was the point, there would have been no reason for the 80gig hybrid units. those were clearly a cost cutting move and nothing else, because they played 99.99999% of the PS2 titles the 60/20 gig units did, they were just cheaper for Sony to manufacture. All PS3's produced through the life of the console also retained the ability to play PS1 disc and downloaded software as well, because the cost to do so was zero.

In the case of PS1 disc playback, at least, the cost wasn't zero, since it required a diode capable of reading compact discs at 780nm. That probably didn't add much to the cost, but stripping out PS1 support would've allowed them to use a simpler 405/650nm diode for DVD and BD playback only, while avoiding any CD-specific royalties they would've had to pay (though I'm not sure there were any, given the expiration of various patents). They finally abandoned CD support with the PS4.

dlauv · Feb 24, 2020

Yes. BC is niche. For my nerdy habits tho, it's kind of annoying but honestly the PS3's BC sucked. The upscaler added noticeable lag and still looked so bad that you'd have to smooth most games which just blurred them more. It's best when you set games to play at native res, but that requires fiddling with the tv. 360's software emu was better for the most part, but really bad experiences can happen with it too.

Springy said:
I'm more confused they didn't continue with software BC (European launch PS3s didn't have hardware BC, just software). Was there a technical reason that was dropped?

It was a partial software solution, iirc. Still needed additional hardware.

Edit: Yep.

The European 60GB model (CECHC), the South Korean and North American CECHE 80GB model excludes the PlayStation 2 "Emotion Engine" CPU chip with it being replaced by an emulated version via the Cell Broadband Engine.[11] However, it retains the "Graphics Synthesizer" GPU resulting in a hybrid hardware and software emulation.[16] Due to the elimination of the "Emotion Engine" and its replacement with a software-emulated version, the level of PlayStation 2 compatibility was slightly reduced.[11] The 40 GB, 80 GB (CECHL, CECHM, and CECHK) and 160 GB models have two USB ports instead of the four USB ports on other models and do not include multiple flash card readers, SACD support,[17] or backward compatibility with PlayStation 2 games.[11][18] This was due to the removal of "Graphics Synthesizer" GPU, which stripped the units of all PlayStation 2 based hardware.[19][20]

androvsky · Feb 24, 2020

Firima said:
I haven't heard that quote but I wouldn't doubt it given how many PS2s and, therefore, PS2 games were in the wild back in 2007. It might've been a real problem for developers trying to make software for a new generation.

It's also worth noting that those PS2 games they were releasing digitally on PS3 were revealed by hackers to simply be ISOs, not the "heavily repackaged and reworked" PS2 games that so many claimed Sony HAD to have been releasing, and they were running on the same software emulator that they had removed from the platform after the 80GB SKU. There was a GAF thread on this at about the same time as Microsoft's disastrous Xbox One reveal, so it definitely got lost in the shuffle.

I definitely remember the PS2 Classics being ISOs, but I think it was known for quite a while before the Xbox One reveal since everything was laid bare after the PS3 rootkey fiasco and hackers could browse and modify the firmware at will. I think I remember people thinking it was the same software emulator from the 80GB SKU, but I'm pretty sure it's not the case as the "software BC" systems still had the graphics chip from the PS2. It's certainly based on it, and to add to the confusion hackers found strong evidence that Sony really was working on a pure software emulator for PS2 discs that they put in the firmware for years but never activated.

The Angry Internet said:
In the case of PS1 disc playback, at least, the cost wasn't zero, since it required a 780nm diode capable of reading compact discs. Stripping out PS1 support would've allowed them to do away with that and whatever royalties they would've had to pay for CD support (though I'm not sure there were any, given the expiration of various patents). They finally abandoned CD support with the PS4.

Fun fact: The PS4 still has the CD diode. Check page 10:
https://manuals.playstation.net/document/pdf/CUH-1001A-1.5_3.pdf
It even has a footnote on the diode saying "CDs cannot be played". But they left the diode in, so it wasn't a cost-cutting measure. Sony was pushing their own crappy music streaming service hard pretty hard back then.

Olimar · Feb 24, 2020

Firima said:
How do we know this? Is there a source for this? Because the only meaningful info I know of on this topic is WSJ's interview with Jack Tretton where he stated that they did it to wean people off of last-generation software.

If you look at the PlayStation 3 as a line-up, let's talk about the features that were removed over time:

NAND firmware memory: On the first run of consoles, the firmware was actually stored in NAND flash instead of on the hard drive. Your account info was also saved in this NAND partition as well. If your hard drive died, you would lose your saved items, but the firmware would be rewritten to the hard drive from the console itself without the need of a recovery USB.
Removal of the PS2 guts: This one is obvious but PlayStation 2 hardware was included in the PlayStation 3 up to a certain point in which it was removed, presumably, to cut costs. All units going forward also had their card readers and additional USB ports removed.
Removal of the slot-loading drives on SuperSlims: Slot loading drives are expensive and very mechanical. Replacement of the drive with a top-loading mechanism was an extreme cost-cutting measure. This one is pretty blatant, but makes sense provided that the PS4 was out by this time.

The only one that I didn't really touch up on was the software removal of the Other OS feature, which was pretty clearly an executive level decision made after George Hotz jailbroke the PS3.

Hace · Feb 24, 2020

I'm still sad my og ps3 died, it's far and away the best way to play PS2 games :(

PenultimateFantasy · Feb 24, 2020

The fact that inexpicablly you cannot play Ps1 os PSone classics on the PS4 lets you know the decison was a very deliberate one.

Dylan · Feb 24, 2020

It's notable that the WP interview with Jack Tretton doesn't actually quote him, so we have to rely on the journalists' correct interpretation of what he was saying.

When he says "it doesn't significantly decrease manufacturing costs" does that mean that it didn't contribute to the price cut? Or that the price cut would have been even lower if BC did significantly decrease manufacturing costs? It's not clear one way or the other.

mute · Feb 24, 2020

It is incredibly frustrating that the only fully compatible box that plays PS2 games with an HDMI port also happens to be a ticking time bomb reliability wise. I had one and I loved it for the ~3 years or so it worked.

Not being able to conveniently go back and revisit the more obscure PS2 titles has created this gap in my memory where I have a clearer image in my head of playing games a decade older than the PS2.

BAD · Feb 24, 2020

It was just them trying to ditch support for old games and features. They admitted it didn't do much to costs.

Also weird they barely touched PS2 BC on PS4

Jon God · Feb 24, 2020

PianoBlack said:
Yeah it soured me on Sony for a bit, I asked for a new PS3 as a gift a couple years later rather than spending my own money lol. But then they made the Vita and all was forgiven.

On topic, neither had BC but it didn't make much difference to me since I sold my PS2 games alongside my PS2. The olden days before digital...

The vita is still one of my favorite consoles ever.

I still own all my games back to the SNES. I have like 70 PS2 and like 40 PS1 games I'd love to be able to play on the PS5.... you hear me Sony?!

Jawmuncher · Feb 24, 2020

At the time to help lower price? It was fine.
To later add a basically fully functional emulator and lock it behind a paywall? That was a good idea imo.

Should've handled it like they did the PS1 titles. Buy online or use your own discs.

The Angry Internet · Feb 24, 2020

androvsky said:
I definitely remember the PS2 Classics being ISOs, but I think it was known for quite a while before the Xbox One reveal since everything was laid bare after the PS3 rootkey fiasco and hackers could browse and modify the firmware at will. I think I remember people thinking it was the same software emulator from the 80GB SKU, but I'm pretty sure it's not the case as the "software BC" systems still had the graphics chip from the PS2. It's certainly based on it, and to add to the confusion hackers found strong evidence that Sony really was working on a pure software emulator for PS2 discs that they put in the firmware for years but never activated.

There was a hidden software-only emulator (ps2_softemu) in some models that was definitely different from the PS2 Classics emulator (ps2_netemu). ps2_softemu was apparently based on the earlier ps2_gxemu used in models that still had a PS2 Graphics Synthesizer, and it had poor compatibility because it attempted to use the PS3's RSX to emulate the GS (with the Cell handling the rest, as in ps2_gxemu) and that didn't work out due to the very different architectures. I assume ps2_netemu was designed from the ground up to be an all-software solution and worked a lot better as a result.

Also, PS2 Classics games are encrypted ISOs in a special package format, but a lot of games include patches that are applied at runtime, plus game-specific configurations for the emulator itself. There's lots of technical nitty-gritty on the various emulators here. And thanks for the clarification on the (unused) 780nm support in the PS4.

androvsky · Feb 24, 2020

The Angry Internet said:
There was a "hidden" software-only emulator (ps2_softemu) in some models that was definitely different from the PS2 Classics emulator (ps2_netemu). ps2_softemu was apparently based on the earlier ps2_gxemu used in models that still had a PS2 Graphics Synthesizer, and it had poor compatibility because ps2_gxemu already chewed up so many of the system's resources that there weren't enough left to properly emulate the GS in software. I assume ps2_netmu was designed from the ground up to be an all-software solution and worked a lot better as a result.

Also, PS2 Classics games are encrypted ISOs in a special package format, but a lot of games include patches that are applied at runtime, plus game-specific configurations for the emulator itself. There's lots of technical nitty-gritty on the various emulators here. And thanks for the clarification on the (unused) 780nm support in the PS4.

Yeah, ps2_softemu was the one I was thinking of. The runtime patches on PS2 Classics is very interesting, I didn't know they did that.

The whole 780nm diode thing was some heavy obfuscation from Sony; they made sure they never mentioned CD support in even the official spec sheets, but I think they were stuck disclosing the presence of the laser in the manual since iirc there's rules about disclosing the presence of lasers in products.

PS3 and BC: Do you think removing PS2 BC was worth it?

Election Thread Watcher

Election Thread Watcher

Election Thread Watcher

▲ Legend ▲

User requested account closure

Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer

▲ Legend ▲

Crisis Dino