(Historical Comparison)PS3 sales worse than gamecube

[Molyneux]

I didn't. I won it in a prize draw at work. I wouldn't have spent money on it.

Wow, that's kind of a weird booby prize.

As to "reduced demand" for backwards compatibility - isn't this the same Sony that claimed you couldn't get rumble and motion sensor in one controller, and furthermore, people didn't WANT rumble since it was "last generation tech"?

Just making sure you know that both MS and Sony ripped off the rumble option from the people who patented it, and instead of just paying the company for it, Microsoft gave it a shit load of cash and bought it out, the real reason the new PS3 controller doesn't have rumble is because they didn't want to have to pay Microsoft to use it.

Oh yeah, I know. And didn't Nintendo settle with the company before Microsoft bought it (hence why Wii has rumble, and motion sensing, and a microphone, and a speaker, and probably a teeny little tasp in there too)?

I was just mostly going for "Sony are bullshitting assholes" with my post.

[Loner]

Wow, that's kind of a weird booby prize.

As to "reduced demand" for backwards compatibility - isn't this the same Sony that claimed you couldn't get rumble and motion sensor in one controller, and furthermore, people didn't WANT rumble since it was "last generation tech"?

Just making sure you know that both MS and Sony ripped off the rumble option from the people who patented it, and instead of just paying the company for it, Microsoft gave it a shit load of cash and bought it out, the real reason the new PS3 controller doesn't have rumble is because they didn't want to have to pay Microsoft to use it.

Oh yeah, I know. And didn't Nintendo settle with the company before Microsoft bought it (hence why Wii has rumble, and motion sensing, and a microphone, and a speaker, and probably a teeny little tasp in there too)?

I was just mostly going for "Sony are bullshitting assholes" with my post.

I thought it was because Nintendo used a different method for rumble and didn't have to pay royalties?

[Master of Ossus]

Oh yeah, I know. And didn't Nintendo settle with the company before Microsoft bought it (hence why Wii has rumble, and motion sensing, and a microphone, and a speaker, and probably a teeny little tasp in there too)?

I was just mostly going for "Sony are bullshitting assholes" with my post.

Nintendo uses a different mechanism in their rumble packs, that is sufficiently different so as not to fall under the same patent as the Microsoft and Sony designs.

[Molyneux]

Oh yeah, I know. And didn't Nintendo settle with the company before Microsoft bought it (hence why Wii has rumble, and motion sensing, and a microphone, and a speaker, and probably a teeny little tasp in there too)?

I was just mostly going for "Sony are bullshitting assholes" with my post.

Nintendo uses a different mechanism in their rumble packs, that is sufficiently different so as not to fall under the same patent as the Microsoft and Sony designs.

Ah...didn't know that. Cool, though. So theirs isn't based on a weight spinning unevenly?

[Praxis]

From a fiscal standpoint, if most of the profit for a system didn't actually come from first party titles, that would be a viable statement.

Without the numbers (or really the will to look them up.) on how much Nintendo, Microsoft, & Sony raked in over the last generation via both console sales and software sales... Well, the whole point would still be pretty moot.

Most of the fun I had on Sony consoles came from third party titles, and most of the fun I have with Nintendo consoles came from first or second party developers. (Which kinda makes sense, they alienated the majority of third parties while they were the only game in town.)

Nintendo was the only one who made a profit on the hardware, and also likely sold the highest ratio of first party titles to hardware sold. Thus it was in all likelyhood the most profitable system (although Sony's sheer numbers may have won out overall). Microsoft was in the negative overall.

[Praxis]

Surely you meant third? First party games are Nintendo's specialty. Hell, first party games were usually the only ones worth buying for the Cube.

Nintendo put out maybe 6 first party GC games. Third party titles just didn't sell because the platform sucked ass, but IIRC the console itself sold pretty well.

I think you're confused. The GameCube sold on the merits of a strong first party lineup, but it had terrible third party support.


Only 6 first party GC games? What are you smoking?

* Metroid Prime
* Metroid Prime 2: Echoes
* Animal Crossing
* Custom Robo
* Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance
* Kirby Air Ride
* Luigi's Mansion
* Mario Kart: Double Dash!!
* Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour
* Mario Party 4, 5, 6 and 7
* Mario Power Tennis
* Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door
* Pikmin
* Pikmin 2
* Pokémon Colosseum
* Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness
* Super Mario Sunshine
* Super Smash Bros. Melee
* The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
* The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess


That's not counting the huge 2nd party lineup, like F-Zero or Starfox. And I know I'm missing more than a couple of games on that list.

[Master of Ossus]

Ah...didn't know that. Cool, though. So theirs isn't based on a weight spinning unevenly?

It probably is, but the motors likely function differently, or the distribution of the weights is different enough.

Incidentally, am I the only one who's laughing at Sony's decision to cut backwards-compatability on the PS3 low-end model? Isn't the low-end one precisely where you need to have backwards compatability to get fence-sitters to jump on board and ditch the PS2?

[Ritterin Sophia]

They're cutting it on both, once again, this song is so aproppriate.

Oh, and PS3 Song II: Sony Has No Games

[Darth Wong]

Ah...didn't know that. Cool, though. So theirs isn't based on a weight spinning unevenly?

Those assholes somehow patented an offset spinning weight for vibration? That's been used in womens' vibrators since before any of us were born!

[Vendetta]

I think it only covers that mechanism to produce vibration in response to events in a computer game.

[Molyneux]

Ah...didn't know that. Cool, though. So theirs isn't based on a weight spinning unevenly?

Those assholes somehow patented an offset spinning weight for vibration? That's been used in womens' vibrators since before any of us were born!

...good point. Should have thought of that. I wonder just how specific the relevant patent is, then?

[Stark]

Those assholes somehow patented an offset spinning weight for vibration? That's been used in womens' vibrators since before any of us were born!

Crack open a PS2 controller, and each 'wing' contains a standard small electric motor with an assymetric weight on the top. Clearly a trade secret.

PS Wait, I forgot! Each 'wing' contains a motor with a DIFFERENT weight on top. That's how they modulate the rumble, apparently it's a straight 'on-off' thing otherwise. I bet the 'turn motor on, turn motor off' circuitry is ALSO a trade secret!

[Darth Wong]

Ah...didn't know that. Cool, though. So theirs isn't based on a weight spinning unevenly?

Those assholes somehow patented an offset spinning weight for vibration? That's been used in womens' vibrators since before any of us were born!

...good point. Should have thought of that. I wonder just how specific the relevant patent is, then?

All I know is that this proves the corruption of the patent system. Maybe I should take out a patent for internal combustion engines ... on SUNDAYS!!! Nobody's patented that specific variation, right?

[Vendetta]

All I know is that this proves the corruption of the patent system. Maybe I should take out a patent for internal combustion engines ... on SUNDAYS!!! Nobody's patented that specific variation, right?

Once more, it's not the form of the motor that is the substance of the patent but control over the motor by a computer in response to either user or program inputs.

Your example would be trivial, and thus rejected, Immersion's patent was valid as presented, though arguments could be made about prior art, as force feedback technologies existed before the first patent was granted. (the N64 Rumble pak for example). But Prior art claims are made when patents are challenged, the patent office doesn't have the resources to check for them at the time the patent is granted.

Edit: Also, the patent specifies selectable levels of vibration, again in response to computer program control, I'm not sure if Nintendo's controllers have that, or whether they're an on/off state, that would be sufficiently different not to be covered by the Immersion patent.

[Darth Wong]

Once more, it's not the form of the motor that is the substance of the patent but control over the motor by a computer in response to either user or program inputs.

Your example would be trivial, and thus rejected,

And this isn't? The patent system was designed to encourage innovation; can anyone in his right mind think that the act of hooking up a century-old device to a computer and (gasp) making the computer control it is innovative enough to warrant a fucking patent?

[Flagg]

Surely you meant third? First party games are Nintendo's specialty. Hell, first party games were usually the only ones worth buying for the Cube.

Nintendo put out maybe 6 first party GC games. Third party titles just didn't sell because the platform sucked ass, but IIRC the console itself sold pretty well.

I think you're confused. The GameCube sold on the merits of a strong first party lineup, but it had terrible third party support.


Only 6 first party GC games? What are you smoking?

* Metroid Prime
* Metroid Prime 2: Echoes
* Animal Crossing
* Custom Robo
* Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance
* Kirby Air Ride
* Luigi's Mansion
* Mario Kart: Double Dash!!
* Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour
* Mario Party 4, 5, 6 and 7
* Mario Power Tennis
* Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door
* Pikmin
* Pikmin 2
* Pokémon Colosseum
* Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness
* Super Mario Sunshine
* Super Smash Bros. Melee
* The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
* The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess


That's not counting the huge 2nd party lineup, like F-Zero or Starfox. And I know I'm missing more than a couple of games on that list.

Was supposed to bhe "per year".

[Ace Pace]

At a guess, the 40GB model will use the same software derived backwards compatibility as the existing EU models (and 80GB US model). that is, after all, delivered by firmware updates that are, as far as I know, common across the whole platform.

That's not what Sony's saying.

The new model is no longer backwards compatible with PlayStation®2 titles, reflecting both the reduced emphasis placed on this feature amongst later purchasers of PS3, as well as the availability of a more extensive line-up of PS3 specific titles (a total of 65 titles across all genres by Christmas).

Apprently, the reason is not because it can't but because sony are dicks

Kotaku

The 40GB model, to be launched in Europe on 10th October, is a new model and is not equipped with any of the semi conductors from the PS2, and backwards compatibility would therefore have to be achieved by software emulation alone. The sheer numbers of PS2 titles available, together with the increased complexity of using a software only solution for each and every title means that to ensure accurate software emulation for the majority would be technically challenging, time consuming and costly. As we have mentioned on several occasions, our engineering resources are now focused on developing new and innovative features and services for the PS3 and, as a result the 40GB model does not have backwards compatibility with PS2 titles.

Or

PS one
The PS3 has never been equipped with either the CPU or GPU that were used in the original PlayStation, and the backwards compatibility for PS one titles has therefore been made available through software emulation from the beginning. Therefore backwards compatibility for PS1 titles remains the same no matter how many times the model is changed.



PS2
On the other hand, backwards compatibility for PS2 titles is largely made possible through the use of actual semiconductors, supported by the PS3 system software. The 20GB and 60GB PS3 models launched in Japan and the USA were equipped with both the PS2 Emotion Engine and Graphics Synthesiser chips and we could therefore guarantee over 90% backwards compatibility for PS2 titles.

The 60GB model launched in Europe was a new model (shared with the 80GB model launched subsequently in USA) which contains only a modified version of the Graphics Synthesiser chip from the PS2 and not the Emotion Engine chip. The European launch model therefore used a combination of software and the modified version of the PS2 Graphics Synthesiser chip to deliver backwards compatibility for PS2 titles. As a result the percentage of backwards compatible PS2 titles was slightly reduced.

The 40GB model, to be launched in Europe on 10th October, is a new model and is not equipped with any of the semi conductors from the PS2, and backwards compatibility would therefore have to be achieved by software emulation alone. The sheer numbers of PS2 titles available, together with the increased complexity of using a software only solution for each and every title means that to ensure accurate software emulation for the majority would be technically challenging, time consuming and costly. As we have mentioned on several occasions, our engineering resources are now focused on developing new and innovative features and services for the PS3 and, as a result the 40GB model does not have backwards compatibility with PS2 titles.

The current PS3 system software and future updates will continue to support backwards compatibility for the current 60GB and 80GB models, and publishers can check their new PS2 titles to ensure they play on the 60GB and 80GB models.

Keen gamers, for whom backwards compatibility is important, can still purchase the existing 60GB PS3 Starter Pack which contains an extra SIXAXIS controller, two first party titles and has extensive backwards
compatibility with PS2 titles.

[Bounty]

Keen gamers, for whom backwards compatibility is important

By this point, all of Sony's policy decisions have been delegated to the coffee machine. And it's making a real mess of things.

If I understand this correctly, they are saying that for a price drop of almost nothing (once you factor in the smaller hard drive), you get the privilege of knowing your money goes into Sony making nebulous new "features" - features that the competition has no problem providing free-of-charge while still having good-to-excellent backwards compatibility.

Mr. Coffee declined to comment.