Probably because Bill Gates knew the XBOX had no chance of overtaking the PS2. So the best way to try and win this new generation's console war was to be the first new system out.

I think that the onerous licencing fees paid for XBox one was hindering what should be the "gravy years" for a console. MSFT decided to jumpp a bit early, hoping to get a head start and also to work towards getting to a point where they are turning a profit on the hardware faster.

And it's not going to work.

Of course the Xbox wasn't going to take over the PS2 but it was still a better system in terms of graphics and it easily could have lasted another 2yrs. I give Sony and Nintendo props for at least supporting their systems for 5yrs before introducing something new. Here we have Microsoft introducing their new console only 3yrs after the Xbox was released.

Ehhhh It was 4 years, not 3yrs. Sony may have supported their system for 5 yrs. In term of Nintendo, yes! they supported their system, but with no 3rd party support very few games are being released for the cube . It looks like that have drop support for the cube, for their net gen box the Revolution. Again I say it looks that way. We know Zelda is coming in the sometime in the future.

Eh, I don't agree. I don't think they'll be knocking Sony down from the top spot, but I do think they'll be seeing a lot more success with the 360 than the Xbox. They have the potential to have sold nearly 1/3rd as many 360s as they sold Xboxes overall, by the time the competition even hits the market. There's definite potential there.

And it was four years.

I only bought my PS2 last summer and personally I thought that the graphics were more then ready for the next generation.

Still, I never did and still don't understand the fuss about console life spans, as I like the push of new technology and capabilities. The advancements with the 360/PS3 are a worthy upgrade technologically to me.

Software emulation for PS2/PS1 games? That doesn't sound right.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=16310

Why not? According to the article they aren't building the PS2 into the PS3, which I guess they did to emulate PS1 on PS2 (which I didn't know.)

I suppose there are enough differences in the hardware that the games need some kind of emulator to run.

Doesn't seem out of the ordinary to me. Backwards compatibility is still a relatively new feature.

The original PS2 incorporated the original Playstation chip in order to offer backwards capability. Sony has already designed and shipped the single chip solution using 90nm processing which was to be included in the PS3 to do backwards capability. This suggests that the plan was thrown away, even though the solution exists and is already out on the market. That is what is strange to me. Why stop after you have a solution ready to go?

Is it completely chip based or does the graphics solution have something to do with it.

I thought the reason the 360 had to use emulation was because they are using a completely different graphics card as well as a new chip. I'm probably totally wrong on that...

$$$ would be my guess. With all the worry about cost among consumers, I don't think it would be out of the question to strip a few little things here and there to cut down costs even the tiniest bit. Especially when you consider over 100 million homes already have a PS2 that they can play their games on.

That is my thought. If he has significantly beat them (they take until '07) he might win that bet. If they wait even longer, they'll claim to be an even newer generation. I would.

They developed a SoC which combined the Emotion Engine and Graphics Synthesizer which you can read about here. It was originally fabbed at 130nm (which got them in some shit for claiming 90nm initially), but later they got the 90nm for the PS2 (which was when you first started hearing about certain PS2 games not working on the new version. It was widely assumed that Sony (who is now mass producing these things at over 1 million a month) would stick one of these chips inside the PS3 to reduce costs (same chip, two systems). Now, this software news totally dismisses that, which seems weird to me. It should actually cost more to implement a software solution.

The Xbox360 had to do software because the Xbox used an nVidia GPU, and the now they are using ATi. If they included both chips, they would literally have to pay royalties on both. They are still paying royalties for the backwards capability, but not nearly as much as if the chip was inside the system (they are emulating it via software).

You nailed it right there.

"assumed that Sony would stick..."

I'm not buying the PS3 software solution personally, but I can see a few reason to go that route.

1. The long term cost of including chips in every PS3 and future Sony consoles would be more than the software dev costs.

2. Getting PS2 emmulation up and running would be HUGE for a future version of the PSP.

I think that you ignored Sony's track record (or any game console maker for that matter) for delivering on what they promise.

It is far cheaper to have some basic software emulation than to include the electronics for backward compatibility. A basic Software-based B/C system can be more easily upgraded over time. With H/W BC, if a bug goes undetected until after release, things get ugly.

Sony has taken a page from Microsoft's playbook and has noticed that B/C is mostly a marketing tool... that they don't actually have to deliver anywhere near 100% BC.

Considering that Sony is struggling with being able to fit all of the electronics into the George Foreman Grill-style casing, it is no surprise that they are working to reduce components where ever possible.

Oh, this should be interesting

The chip is complete. Its on the market. Its being mass produced in the millions and costs them next to nothing to produce. A software solution would have to be built from scratch with a team of programmers and tested against tens of thousands of games. The hardware solution will work for all but a few games (which Sony has already noted in the press release I linked). At this point, the software solution is much more expensive.

I'm still playing FF on my PS2 occassionally, and its nice to not have to take out my PS1 to do so. It may be just a marketing tool to you, but to me and others who like to revisit classic games, its very important. Microsoft's failing is not a free pass to Sony.

Using a baseless rumor to make a point? I have also seen rumors, from a PS3 developer who posts on AVS no less, that the final product will be 80% as big as the prototype. Is he correct? Nobody knows. Is the guy who started the other rumor correct? Nobody knows.

$399 pricepoint...

I love how Xbox sites pick up PS3 news faster than anyone else.

$399 certainly sound better than I'd hoped. I was expecting it to be closer to $500. Sure that's only a difference of $101 but that's money I can put towards games.

whats the chance of them offering a 'partial system' like the xbox core for $399 and something complete for 500?

I'm still calling B.S. on the PS3 pricepoint....if so, yeah. I basically want to use my credit on something, that's all.

Well, I hope the price is true and the software emulation is false. However, I found a 70001 series PStwo today for $129 and bought one so I guess I'm not as worried about the old software. I'm sure I will finish Dragon Quest 8 and Final Fantasy XII by the time the PS3 is released.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6148465.html

Werent all the sony haters saying sony keeps on losing $$$ every year? I guess this puts that to rest. Rock on, sony.

Of course everyone is going to say "their videogame arm is what's keeping them alive" but nothing could be farther from the truth. Their electronics arm has been revived, and their gaming arm is losing bocu dollars in preparation for the PS3. While I don't celebrate Sony's financial standing, I do celebrate having one less thing for Sony haters to bring up in a conversation about the PS3.