Such a shame because this could have been really cool. The overall lacklustre game lineup and lazy job they did with this is just too much for me to overcome to get my nostalgia fix. This is $130 here in Canada and I can think of a whole bunch of other things that I would rather spend that money on. Definite pass.
Was this thing made by a third party? How did something so simple get FUBARed this badly? PAL versions of games? Five of the games on this thing I wouldn't put on a greatest anything list. Who the hell asked for the PS1 port of Rainbow Six anyway? LOL! You only get one chance to make something like this and make a good impression even for a cash grab. Sony, ya blew it.
Ps classic is such a disgrace upon classic games' legacies. They should have used NES classic as a bar, but they went with the lowest common denominator.
Sad part is they put more effort into this than they did trying to deliver PS1/PS2 BC on PS4. I mean, they should have just tried carrying what they started on PS3 over and continue building off that. Instead they kept it out to push their streaming subscription service... pfft, for the gamers.
I wanted this, and I wanted it to be good so badly! It would look great next to my NES and SNES minis. When I saw the games list had no Resident Evil 2, no Symphony of the Night, no Tomb Raider, no Crash, and no Spyro it was an instant no.
If I can get a hacked/modded with all the big games on it on eBay then I'll drop cash.
The classic consoles is just a rip off to begin with. Honestly people who pay for this are suckers. Like its just a box with preinstalled games. Like i understand supporting it by buying it individually from the modern console... But the nerve they have to just have a box with preinstalled games for a quick buck is so shameless. Like atleast it would be arguable if there was wifi or internet connection to download new roms or games uploaded that you could download on the systenm and that way support old games that way (though still it is just equally good to have it on modern consoles instead since why would you just buy new old hardware for something old when you can get the original. Just seems so pointless). But the way this is made is insanely a rip off in my view. Doesnt matter if it is Nintendo or anything else, it just is equally bad
I wanted it when it was first announced but the whole list of games killed it for me. I wasn't even expecting Spyro, Crash or SotN, but Sony could have done much better then they did. Sony really shit the bed with their classic titles.
@Jag85 said:
Wait, the US is also getting the PAL versions?
...Well, at least they can now experience what we had to put up with in Europe.
Thanks for that, Sony.
Sony stated they're "based on" the PAL versions. This makes it seem like they might have been modified somehow. (to run at 60 Hz?) Some of those games are also on the Japanese version. I doubt they'll add the PAL versions to that. So that makes the Japanese version the only remaining slightly interesting one but this isn't saying much.
They could have easily made the PS4 BC with PS1 games (they prob still could with a firmware update) but they love that cash grabbing, just like nintendo.
@xantufrog: pretty sure only the fat ones can play ps1 games or am i wrong?
I thought the later ps3 models got rid of BC, or at least that was the case when i tried reading if my ps3 could run Bc games, never tried it though
found this on google
In brief, the 60GB and 20GB launch PS3's are backwards compatible with PS2 games because they have PS2 chips in them. Other models, most notably the 80GB "Metal Gear Solid PS3" used to be backwards compatible (using emulation software) but now they aren't.
The problem I have is there's not enough classics on the system what made it great system. It looks to me that it isn't officially from Sony but a 3rd party.
Seriously though, a PS3 is a way better choice to play PS1 games. Bad PAL ports aside, this mini is just missing a ton of obvious choices. No Crash or Spyro? No FFIX or Tactics? No Rayman 2 or Resident Evil 2? And that's just naming a few.
Edit: For some reason, it changed the person I quoted as I was typing this up. Weird O_o.
The thing is I can play any ps1 game on my ps3 so no point in getting a classic. I own a nes classic and Mega drive clone to play those games which I can't play any other way.
@FLOPPAGE_50: no, they're all PS1 BC through software emulation. the PS2 BC was stripped away from the PS3 line in two stages - first, it went from hardware BC to touch-and-go software emulation (still phat) and then that was removed too.
The ps1 was too weak to do 3d in any fashionthat didn't look horrible by the next gen much less 20 years later. The n64 had enough geometry to potentially look passable when they release a mini 64. The ps1 was not a system that aged well enough for this retro console.
Once again, Nintendo does one thing better over Sony! Other than crossover mascot fighters (Super Smash Bros. > Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale), platformers (Super Mario > LittleBigPlanet), and handheld market domination (DS and 3DS > PSP and PS Vita), Nintendo does a better job releasing retro gaming systems.
I don’t even understand how they could mess this up. I can go online right now and find them the PAL and NTSC versions of those roms. 50hz on a HD tv!? Wtf is this Sony?
@zappat: it wouldn't be so bad if they would release a retro console that had the greatest hits from all previous gens THAT would be worth it to me. Like a mini n64 that had the best of the nes,snes, and n64. One of each controller and I'd play 100 bucks for that.
@GarGx1: The extra lines of resolution that PAL offered was never used and resulted in obtrusive boarders. So not only did we have slow versions of games we also had horrible black boarders ruining our games.
Log in to comment