I, like most people, was excited when the news came the the first two installments of the God of War series would be compiled into one retail package for the PS3 and released as a precursor to God of War III. I'm one of the many poor souls in this world who own a non-backwards compatible PS3. As such, I was very excited that two of the best games for one of the best consoles will be playable on my Big Black Box.
Then, I began to think it through.
It's almost impossible to pinpoint Sony's strategy for their current console, because it has been all over the map. First, they released it at a staggering price. However, it did have backwards compatibility (BC). At least, it did at first. Just under a year after the release of the PS3, they unveiled a console
without BC. About a year later (or shortly thereafter), Sony announced that production would cease on certain models of the PS3... all of which just happened to have BC. After all of the BC units had been phased out, they cut the price on the PS2, while stubbornly refusing to recognize the desperate need for a price cut on the PS3. A price cut is finally announced in August 2009, along with a redesigning of the console, which prompts speculation that this new unit will bring with it the return of BC. Sony was swift to squash that rumor.
BC has been around since the Atari consoles. It's been very prevalent among handheld platforms (especially Nintendo's handhelds), and the Playstation 2 was capable of playing most of the PSOne's library. Today, both of Sony's competitors provide some sort of BC, whether that be through the software emulation of the 360, or the Virtual Console of the Wii (although the Wii can also play GameCube titles... double whammy there).
Reflecting on all of this, I had to ask: why would Sony take away such an obvious feature for a current gen console?
It seems we now have the answer.
I'll be frank: I cannot help but think Sony is testing the water with the GOW Collection. Think about it. If this title performs well at retail, what reason would Sony have to ever bring back BC? If consumers responded positively to this ploy, Sony would have all the evidence they would need that re-releasing PS2 titles on BluRay can and would be profitable. Other titles could follow then. Think of an ICO/Shadow of the Colossus bundle. Or a Final Fantasy Bundle. GT3/GT4 bundle, anyone?
We, as consumers, should not want to be ripped off by having to repurchase titles from five years ago. Is it fair that after purchasing a copy of God of War 2 when it was released, you have to purchase it again to play it on your current system? When you purchase a game from retail, you are not only buying the game itself, but the
right to play it. You forfeit that right if you manipulate the actual console/disc/code in some way, or if you get rid of the game.
If a consumer does not forfeit that right in the first place, why should they have to pay again for that same right?
I realize that an obvious counter-argument to this is to just play it on the PS2, and this is a legitimate point. For those that don't own a PS2, they also probably sold all of their PS2 games. That being said, what of those that kept their system, only to have it die (such as myself and many of my friends)? Or those that sold the PS2, and then realized the error in judgment and repurchased many of the console's classics before this BluRay Collection idea was announced? It is for all of the above reasons that I hope this BluRay Collection of one of Sony's most popular franchises fails.
Especially when news of
Sony filing a patent for a PS2 emulator on the PS3 leaked out not too long ago.
What do you think? Am I off my rocker? Dead on? Feel free to leave your comments below!
CptnMayhem's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
If they were just PS2 ports with nothing extra, that'd be completely different.
But good point anyway :)
Companies remake games, and the PS3 does have PSone BC. Plus, I do have a BC PS3, and the games actually look better when played on a PS2 on an HD set.
The God of War Collection is the same, except that it comes in a box, as opposed to digital distribution. Not to mention that it adds Trophy support and graphical upgrades.
Nevertheless, I agree that I'd prefer true backwards compatibility over re-releases. While I agree that when you purchase a game you purchase the right to play that game, that right doesn't require Sony to fulfill it. You have the right to do whatever you want to your copy of God of War, but Sony isn't under any legal or moral obligation to make the PS3 backwards compat. You want God of War, either play it on your PS2, or buy the PS3 version.
That being said, consumers may be getting ripped off here (that's an individual choice), but they certainly don't "have" to do anything.
It is true that the SNES did not play NES titles, or that the Dreamcast did not play Saturn titles. But that wasn't the point. My point was that BC is not a new concept, and that it has been around for decades.
Also, I will respectfully disagree with Sony dropping BC because of cost measures. Jack Tretton (CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment of America) said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal that cutting BC was not about dramatically reducing manufacturing costs, but, as the WSJ paraphrases it:
"...[P]art of an effort to 'encourage buyers of the entry-level PlayStation 3 to purchase more games designed specifically for the new system.'"
It was about driving up purchases of PS3 titles. I'm sure there was something of a financial advantage to removing the hardware necessary to emulate the Emotion Engine, but it was not the primary reason.
Here's the link:http://kotaku.com/312628/jack-tretton-says-dropping-bc-wasnt-for-cost-measures
Sorry I do not have the actual WSJ article. It requires a paid subscription, which I do not have.
Now I'm thinking I should just get an actual PS1 for my actual PS1 collection, since that's how they were meant to be played and the machine will absolutely have no compatibility issues. Likewise I will probably keep my PS2 and get a PS3 slim.
Your logic also seems kind of shaky in places - Do I, having bought the SNES version of Final Fantasy VI, also have the right to play the DS port for free?
I would say no. To me, it's different having a title ported from a console to a handheld. They're completely different platforms. What makes it different in this case, I would suppose, is that these are "families" of consoles. It's a Playstation 3, which by its name would suggest it being the "spiritual" successor to the Playstation 2. It's the platform where the true third installment of the God of War series is being released.
The Xbox 360 is the "sequel," you could say, of the original Xbox, and Microsoft was wise in making it to where you could play its biggest franchise, Halo, on it instead of "remastering" it and selling it to the consumer base all over again.
It's because of this that I argue a gamer should, in theory, be able to play previous titles on a console's predecessor. Now, I don't know if this satisfies you statement of my logic seeming shaky... I hope it does, but I do not know. Please feel free to point out where else I seem to be on uneven ground, so that I might have the chance to address it so as to further expand on this conversation.
Thanks for reading :)
If I did have a PS3 I wouldn't buy this since I have played these already, also, as you said, if it sells well, there's going to be more collections. However, these collections appear to be worth the effort and money, they're only 40, well this one is, and the graphics are tightened up and trophy support. BC wouldn't give us any of those new features, It would just let us play the pure PS2 versions again.
But another point in defense of the collections is for people who missed out on these games. Anyone who didn't have a PS2 or can't find copies of the GoW games, this is a great chance to play them.
but these games didnt sell as well as Sony wanted them to.... so theyre exposing them to a broader audience (lol at broader) but anyway.... 3rd ones a-comin.... meaning they want people to think GoW again, since they dont have BC this 'ploy' works for them
where were you when dvd replaced vhs? people bitched about that but the rise in quality and content was evident. i have no problem with this because its incentive for publishers to erase piracy and keep up with life. where were you Lucas released the digitally remastered star wars? you have 2 ps2, i have not one but have a bc ps3. i paid over $600 for that fucker.
don't bitch if you didn't jump when the jumprope came a swinging because others did and were rewarded for it.
I have seen a fair share of criticism and disappointment about this very decision, actually. The sales figures of the DSi both here and abroad suggest that there is a large contingent of consumers that do not care, though.
As for the OP, I do not see these re-releases as a problem even though I wish backwards compatibility still existed for the PS3. In fact, I think that collections focusing on underrated, technically improved titles would be fantastic. ICO/SoTC for $40 with upgraded visuals? That deal would beat trying to find the former game for a reasonable price in an unopened state (SoTC, on the other hand, is ~$17 new on Amazon).
In your original post you wrote this: "When you purchase a game from retail, you are not only buying the game itself, but the right to play it."
Indeed, you have the right to play it - on the system you bought it for. Extend the "right" any further than that and you get into a whole murky sea of semantics - If I buy, say, Matt Hazzard on 360 do I then also have the "right" to play it on my PS3 if my 360 craps out and I buy a slim to replace it? Because ignoring for a second that the machines belong to the same "family", to borrow your phrasing, the actual innards of the PS2 and PS3 couldn't be more different. From a logical perspective, you are in effect arguing that a game bought on any given system should give the consumer the right to play it on any other.
An instance where I do feel my "rights" as a consumer are being trampled is the ridiculous region lock system which means that I for no good reason whatsoever cannot run a copy of God of War 2 bought in Asia on a PS2 bought here in Europe, even though the code is exactly the same. Thankfully Sony has done away with this for the PS3 and from a consumer standpoint, that's one of the main reasons people should support them over Microsoft this generation.
First off, I completely agree with you on the region lock issue. The only logical reason for it existing is so manufacturers can keep the product locked for pricing purposes. The quickest example (and, ironically, the most recent) I could think of is Modern Warfare 2. Our friends across the pond (well, across the pond for me, since I live in the States) are victims of some pretty bad price gouging over there. For those who don't know, Activision jacked up the price by approximately fifteen to twenty American dollars. However, were MW2 not region locked, they simply could have bought it here in America and saved themselves the ten of fifteen pounds (whatever the exchange rate is).
Secondly, I am not trying to argue that a game bought on any given system should give the consumer to right to play it on any other. Taken out of context, yes, my comments would seem to point in that direction. I politely stress, though, that I am merely proposing that games released on the same family of consoles should be playable via BC. I understand where you can get that assumption from my argument, I just want to make it clear that is not at all what I am arguing.
I indeed recognize that the innards of the PS2 and PS3 are completely different... never said they were not. However, I have a hard time understanding the hypothetical, "If I buy, say, Matt Hazzard on 360 do I then also have the "right" to play it on my PS3 if my 360 craps out and I buy a slim to replace it" scenario. Any logical person would say no, if for no other reason than Sony and Microsoft are completely separate companies. There has never really been an instance of this ever happening.
However, the precedence for BC between PS3<->PS2 and PS2<->PSOne definitely exists. It's happened before, and now has been taken away. That is where one of my main problems lie. (Lay? Lies? I never know with these words. So confusing, lol)
Additionally, I have a feeling that today's systems are just not built as sturdy as they were twenty years ago. In my experience, at least, you would be hard pressed to find one of the bulky PS2s that still works. My original died after five years, and several of my friends died within that 5-8 year range. My NES, on the other hand, last over ten years, my Genesis for over the same (it was still working when I sold it, as a matter of fact), and my N64 is still chugging along as well. On the other hand, I don't even need to bring up the 360. It is not that hard to find SNES, NES, Genesis, and N64s that work perfectly fine.
I do not have any hard evidence for this, but I would be interested to see how many of these old consoles still survive today, and whether or not that percentage would be greater than the relative percentage of disc based systems. If this theory were to be true, it would, to me at least, be even more of an argument for BC, since the systems of today could have a shorter lifespan.
Thanks again for your comments, yersi. You continue to help me look at this issue from multiple angles, and I appreciate that :)