Playstation Classic

[Satomiblood]

It's undoubtedly a pipe dream due to the aforementioned licensing hurdles, but I've always wanted a Gran Turismo Collection.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's undoubtedly a pipe dream due to the aforementioned licensing hurdles, but I've always wanted a Gran Turismo Collection.

Imagine GT 5/6 in a stable 60 fps and without screentear and framerate drops.

 

[RaceFace85]

Are there really licencing problems with GT? Everything was alread licenced.

NFS Most Wanted from PS2 was also released again for PS3 and PS4 but was removed again. Was it removed because of licencing problems?

 

[Satomiblood]

Are there really licencing problems with GT? Everything was alread licenced.

NFS Most Wanted from PS2 was also released again for PS3 and PS4 but was removed again. Was it removed because of licencing problems?

Licenses for things do expire over time and can be difficult to re-acquire.

 

[Joey D]

Are there really licencing problems with GT? Everything was alread licenced.

It was, but some of the companies in the original GT are no longer owned by the same entity. For example in 1997 TVR was owned by Peter Wheeler, since then it's changed hands twice. While the new owner is probably ok with the cars being used, Sony would still need to go through the motions to get a new license. This costs money and probably wouldn't be worth it.

There's also the issue that some companies might not want their older products relicensed for a game in 2018. Companies essentially license their products as a means to advertise, so why would they want to include products they no longer sell?

It's definitely all possible, but given the PS Classic is a limited run and licensing needs to be secured for other games, it's probably not worth the extra cost.

I doubt you'll see any licensed sports games on the PS Classic either. It's not impossible, just highly unlikely.

 

[RaceFace85]

Licenses for things do expire over time and can be difficult to re-acquire.

It was, but some of the companies in the original GT are no longer owned by the same entity. For example in 1997 TVR was owned by Peter Wheeler, since then it's changed hands twice. While the new owner is probably ok with the cars being used, Sony would still need to go through the motions to get a new license. This costs money and probably wouldn't be worth it.

There's also the issue that some companies might not want their older products relicensed for a game in 2018. Companies essentially license their products as a means to advertise, so why would they want to include products they no longer sell?

It's definitely all possible, but given the PS Classic is a limited run and licensing needs to be secured for other games, it's probably not worth the extra cost.

I doubt you'll see any licensed sports games on the PS Classic either. It's not impossible, just highly unlikely.

Thanks for your answers! I did not thinked about companies were the owner has changed.

 

[PocketZeven]

Thanks for your answers! I did not thinked about companies were the owner has changed.

It is actually weird that licensing is so difficult. It basically is a form of free advertisement. And they actually even receive money from it as well. Licensing in gaming really needs to modernize. For example a game like Pro evolution soccer cant even use real names and clubnames because of exclusive licensing by FIFA. EA is so dominant other developers dont bother to make football games anymore except Konami. In the end it is all about the money.

 

[FT-1]

It is actually weird that licensing is so difficult. It basically is a form of free advertisement. And they actually even receive money from it as well. Licensing in gaming really needs to modernize. For example a game like Pro evolution soccer cant even use real names and clubnames because of exclusive licensing by FIFA. EA is so dominant other developers dont bother to make football games anymore except Konami. In the end it is all about the money.

There are valid concerns for a manufacturer to have when having their cars included in a game, check out this snippet from an article I found covering car licensing in video games:

But designing that virtual showroom experience is more difficult than you might imagine. As much as Ford needs to be in the next Forza just to be competitive, there is a lot that can go wrong for the company. Games aren’t like movies: cars won’t always be shown from predefined perspectives pulling off preplanned death-defying stunts. In fact, hyperbole can create dangerous consumer expectations, especially when games are capable of so much–with a few keystrokes, a Focus could hit 500 mph in a game and corner on a dime–but that’s not what Ford wants.

“We want to make sure the user has the same experience in games as when they drive the vehicle in real life. The worst thing we could do is soup the car up in the game so when they drive it in real life, they don’t find the car up to snuff,” McClary tells us, referencing the limitless depth of precise technical data that Ford will share with licensees to ensure accuracy.

Racing games risk creating false ideologies about real cars. Plus, the last section of that extract mentions how Ford provided Turn 10 with technical data and that's something not all manufacturers are able to do, so it wouldn't be surprising to see some brands pulling out if they felt as though their product was being unfairly represented.

 

[PocketZeven]

There are valid concerns for a manufacturer to have when having their cars included in a game, check out this snippet from an article I found covering car licensing in video games:



Racing games risk creating false ideologies about real cars. Plus, the last section of that extract mentions how Ford provided Turn 10 with technical data and that's something not all manufacturers are able to do, so it wouldn't be surprising to see some brands pulling out if they felt as though their product was being unfairly represented.

All I get out of the article is that I dont see any reason why it should be difficult. For games like burnout or other games where you are encouraged to crash I fully understand, but a game like Gran Turismo?

 

[VXR]

An RR4 remaster would be more deserving of my £90.

 

[PocketZeven]

An RR4 remaster would be more deserving of my £90.

Ridge Racer 4 is already anounced

 

[VXR]

Ridge Racer 4 is already anounced

I know, I meant a remaster for PS4, not this cash grab. 👍

 

[FT-1]

All I get out of the article is that I dont see any reason why it should be difficult. For games like burnout or other games where you are encouraged to crash I fully understand, but a game like Gran Turismo?

It could be factors that we, as players, may see as insignificant but could be a big deal for the company. Perhaps a manufacturer wouldn't like to see their cars rated below that of a competitor, for instance.

 

[SleezyBigSlim]

Fine with me, only sports game I played was IIS Pro, which had no licenced players or teams as far as I can remember.

EDIT: Also worth remembering that Tekken 3 isn't avaliable digitally due to licencing issues around the character Gon.

I’ve been trying to think of other PS1 games I’d like, other than GT and MGS; Smackdown 2, Syphon Filter, Ape Escape (though that came bundled with the Dual Shock)... Crash Bandicoot, Abes Odessy, Tony Hawks Pro Skater 2, Symphony of the Night...

Um Tekken 3 is one of five out of 20 games announced for the PlayStation Classic so far.

 

[baldgye]

Um Tekken 3 is one of five out of 20 games announced for the PlayStation Classic so far.

I know?

 

[Robin]

The same was said of the NES Classic and the SNES Classic, both sold out world wide.
If the PSX was successful for it's wide range of titles, why would they then only limit it to the top selling titles?

Which is why I sighted what I did in my previous post.

Nintendo has a handful of legendary first party titles which are pretty much the only ones people give a damn about which makes it very easy to slap them on a retro console and please the vast majority of people. Sony on the other hand has a huge catalogue of much loved games many of which are 3rd party which means its going to cause licensing issues and be impossible to please everyone.

Also Nintendo's games are loved worldwide whereas Sony games are much more based on regional popularity. I really do think the 20 games should have differed by regional release because something much loved in Japan might have been unheard of in Europe and vice versa. I also think they should indeed limit the titles to the top selling ones because the numbers speak for themselves and it's the safest bet to ensure they can sell the thing!

I was disappointed too that it wont support disc based PSX games, but this thing is tiny, I don't think its physically big enough to hold discs, let alone all the gubbins needed to play them. Then those internals only add to the cost and bulk of the system designed to be small, cheap and robust.

They could have made it PS One sized just styled like the original Playstation. That to me would be enough of a reasonable size reduction whilst retaining disc support.

Hardware emulation of the PS3 is never going to happen, at least not for a long time. The Cell is a giant, expensive ****ing piece of garbage.

Your thinking of software based emulation, hardware base emulation is easy because all they do is dump the original chips in the system. The PS2 had the PS1 chips on board and the early PS3's also had the PS1 and PS2 chips on board. By the end of PS3's run the super slim had a simplified and more affordable CELL/RSX chipset. Fast forward to now and they could put a even more miniturised version of that in a PS5 for like $15 a unit.

I don't really share your sentiments on the Cell, yes it was hard to code for (initially) but it was a powerful cutting edge piece of kit which produced amazing results seen in AAA titles in the PS3's later years which could still stand up to some games today.

 

[JohnBM01]

I am intrigued about this new console. I could only think of maybe what other games could be on this PlayStation Classic. I think it will be very cool with this recent wave of mini consoles and the throwback provided. I don't think these consoles are overpriced or anything. If anything, most of these mini consoles are about as expensive as budget tablet PCs.

Anyhow, I could only think of what COULD be the rest of the games to be on the PlayStation Classic. I am imagining things that aren't overly licensed or anything will show up on the PlayStation Classic. So don't expect anything like Gran Turismo or Gran Turismo 2 to show up. Don't also expect actual sports leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, FIFA, WWF/WWE, etc.) I even thought about old and forgotten games. For example, I was imagining if these games were on the PlayStation Classic:

(My own speculative list of PlayStation Classic candidates)
* (any PS1 Ridge Racer other than RRT4/R4) (maybe excluding Rage Racer, since it has Yokohama and Advan sponsorship)
* Crash Bandicoot series(?)
* Toh Shin Den series
* Panzer Dragoon
* Warhawk
* Twisted Metal
* Motor Toon Grand Prix
* Chrono Cross
* Syphon Filter
* Rally Cross and/or Rally Cross 2
* WipEout series?
* Parappa the Rapper?
* Jumping Flash series
* Tomb Raider series?

We could see almost any number of past PS1 games show up on the PlayStation Classic. I at least given some sort of nostalgia and ideas as to what COULD show up on the console. Some of these picks even come from when I remember the earliest days of the PlayStation 1. Also, I doubt any underrated or little-known games will make it onto the PlayStation Classic. Would I get one if I had the money? Maybe. I am surely intrigued about the PlayStation Classic.

 

[gtrotary]

Would be cool if it weren't the most obvious copy cat cash grab of all time. We've had a solid PS1 emulator for more than 10 years. Why do we need this again?

 

[Tornado]

All I get out of the article is that I dont see any reason why it should be difficult. For games like burnout or other games where you are encouraged to crash I fully understand, but a game like Gran Turismo?

Here's two examples from Gran Turismo 2:
Venturi makes weird electric concept cars, or at least that was the last thing they were doing. They may not want to associate their brand anymore from the time when they were competing with Ferrari and Lotus.
Vector doesn't make much of anything, but Wiegert almost certainly does not want to associate the Vector brand with the company in the late 90s (when it appeared in a handful of games) after it was stolen out from under him and merged with Lamborghini.


Put that back to Gran Turismo 1. That is entirely made up of cars that are twenty years old, most of them even older than that. How many of those manufacturers are interested in a game featuring their cars being rereleased when none of the cars in it do anything for their bottom line for the cars they are selling today? Does Chevrolet gain anything when the newest Corvette in the game is from 1996? No. And what if they want people talking about the car sold in 2018 instead?





You also have to consider that that console generation was the first one where licenced music became a huge deal. Gran Turismo 2 was loaded with licenced music from contemporary popular bands, even wound into the cinematics. That's more money Sony has to pay, unless they take a knife to the whole thing and end up with a controversy not unlike what the GTA games get every few years. All when they would also probably rather have you buy their newest game instead. There's a reason that the PSN Classics and similar stuff on XBLA are almost always things with content that doesn't have to be licenced.

The PS2 had the PS1 chips on board and the early PS3's also had the PS1 and PS2 chips on board.

This was the part of your earlier post that confused me about the entire conversation. The PS3 always emulated PSX games entirely in software; no different than what the Playstation TV/Vita did. The PS2 had the PSX CPU in it, but it was in there as part of the actual PS2 architecture instead of just being because it was used for PSX games (I think it was used for controlling the DVD and hard drive or something to that effect); and the PS3 didn't have it in it at all.

Panzer Dragoon

I assume you mean Legend of Dragoon.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Here's two examples from Gran Turismo 2:
Venturi makes weird electric concept cars, or at least that was the last thing they were doing. They may not want to associate their brand anymore from the time when they were competing with Ferrari and Lotus.
Vector doesn't make much of anything, but Wiegert almost certainly does not want to associate the Vector brand with the company in the late 90s (when it appeared in a handful of games) after it was stolen out from under him and merged with Lamborghini.


Put that back to Gran Turismo 1. That is entirely made up of cars that are twenty years old, most of them even older than that. How many of those manufacturers are interested in a game featuring their cars being rereleased when none of the cars in it do anything for their bottom line for the cars they are selling today? Does Chevrolet gain anything when the newest Corvette in the game is from 1996? No. And what if they want people talking about the car sold in 2018 instead?





You also have to consider that that console generation was the first one where licenced music became a huge deal. Gran Turismo 2 was loaded with licenced music from contemporary popular bands, even wound into the cinematics. That's more money Sony has to pay, unless they take a knife to the whole thing and end up with a controversy not unlike what the GTA games get every few years. All when they would also probably rather have you buy their newest game instead. There's a reason that the PSN Classics and similar stuff on XBLA are almost always things with content that doesn't have to be licenced.


This was the part of your earlier post that confused me about the entire conversation. The PS3 always emulated PSX games entirely in software; no different than what the Playstation TV/Vita did. The PS2 had the PSX CPU in it, but it was in there as part of the actual PS2 architecture instead of just being because it was used for PSX games (I think it was used for controlling the DVD and hard drive or something to that effect); and the PS3 didn't have it in it at all.


I assume you mean Legend of Dragoon.

The music is Sony music and a non issue. They own the copyright for it. They could use it or replace it with new music.

PS3 has a physical chip to give it hardware compatibility with PS1. The original, pre European launch version, had a chip that gave PS2 hardware compatibility. The latter was reduced to software emulation with the European launch and removed entirely at some point later on.

 

[Tornado]

The music is Sony music

That's strange, since I'm looking at the track list for the game in NTSC and PAL and absolutely none of those bands in it seem to be ones that were ever signed with Sony or BMG. Perhaps you can enlighten me which specific songs Sony can reuse without paying anyone since it "is Sony music"

and a non issue. They own the copyright for it.

That's not how music copyright works. They aren't granted a licence in perpetuity just because they used it once.

replace it with new music.

You don't say:

unless they take a knife to the whole thing and end up with a controversy not unlike what the GTA games get every few years.

PS3 has a physical chip to give it hardware compatibility with PS1.

No it doesn't. It has been purely software since the very beginning. The only system that could access the Playstation Store that had anything even resembling PSX hardware was the PSP CPU, which it actually leveraged to make PSX games run as well as they did while offloading the rest of the functions to software emulation.

The original, pre European launch version, had a chip that gave PS2 hardware compatibility.

It actually had both main chipsets, GPU and CPU.

The latter was reduced to software emulation with the European launch

No it wasn't. They removed the CPU, but the GPU was still there providing hardware emulation.

and removed entirely at some point later on.

Until they introduced PS2 Classics, which was just a software emulator tied to individual games chosen based on compatibility.



Anything else, or are there more things from over a decade ago that you want to try and educate everyone about?

 

[baldgye]

They could have made it PS One sized just styled like the original Playstation. That to me would be enough of a reasonable size reduction whilst retaining disc support.

Disc support would have raised costs. This isn’t a PSX... if you want to play PS1 games literally nothing is preventing you.

Your thinking of software based emulation, hardware base emulation is easy because all they do is dump the original chips in the system. The PS2 had the PS1 chips on board and the early PS3's also had the PS1 and PS2 chips on board. By the end of PS3's run the super slim had a simplified and more affordable CELL/RSX chipset. Fast forward to now and they could put a even more miniturised version of that in a PS5 for like $15 a unit.

I don't really share your sentiments on the Cell, yes it was hard to code for (initially) but it was a powerful cutting edge piece of kit which produced amazing results seen in AAA titles in the PS3's later years which could still stand up to some games today.

The cell was so good that after being developed, it was never built into anything else, despite the point of it supposedly to be in everything...

I don’t see why Sony would waste money and time on backwards compatibility by putting a large and expensive Cell in the PS5. It would better for them to just continue to offer them via PS Now and then when their home console is powerful enough to emulate them in software, do that.

 

[Tired Tyres]

That's strange, since I'm looking at the track list for the game in NTSC and PAL and absolutely none of those bands in it seem to be ones that were ever signed with Sony or BMG. Perhaps you can enlighten me which specific songs Sony can reuse without paying anyone since it "is Sony music"


That's not how music copyright works. They aren't granted a licence in perpetuity just because they used it once.


You don't say:





No it doesn't. It has been purely software since the very beginning. The only system that could access the Playstation Store that had anything even resembling PSX hardware was the PSP CPU, which it actually leveraged to make PSX games run as well as they did while offloading the rest of the functions to software emulation.


It actually had both main chipsets, GPU and CPU.


No it wasn't. They removed the CPU, but the GPU was still there providing hardware emulation.


Until they introduced PS2 Classics, which was just a software emulator tied to individual games chosen based on compatibility.



Anything else, or are there more things from over a decade ago that you want to try and educate everyone about?

When you sign a contract with a major label you generally hand over the copyright.

The PS1 and PS2 were reduced to single chip designs a long time ago. These were in the original PS3's. I read that in a magazine interview with one of the regional heads at the time.

 

[Northstar]

We've had a solid PS1 emulator for more than 10 years. Why do we need this again?

Not everybody has the knowledge/desire to use emulators.

 

[Robin]

This was the part of your earlier post that confused me about the entire conversation. The PS3 always emulated PSX games entirely in software; no different than what the Playstation TV/Vita did. The PS2 had the PSX CPU in it, but it was in there as part of the actual PS2 architecture instead of just being because it was used for PSX games (I think it was used for controlling the DVD and hard drive or something to that effect); and the PS3 didn't have it in it at all.

The launch 60GB PS3 (apart from the EU launch 60GB) had the full PS1 chipset, built in as part of PS2 chips and then integrated into one Emotion Engine/ Graphics Synthesizer chip, it was not software emulated. All models after the 60GB did however do it by software emulation. This chip could now be shrunk and made for hardly any money being 18+ year old technology.

 

[Joey D]

Not everybody has the knowledge/desire to use emulators.

Aren't they also only quasi-legal?

 

[Tornado]

When you sign a contract with a major label you generally hand over the copyright.

Sony Computer Entertainment, the entity that would have licenced the music for use in Gran Turismo 2, is not a major label. The copyright was also not handed over to Sony Music Entertainment for use in one game. If you go to a store and buy a copy of the remastered version of Core, released long after GT2 was, it does not say "Atlantic Records, except Sex Type Thing which is © Sony Music Entertainment." If you go on YouTube and look up the official video of Sex Type Thing, it does not say "© Sony Music Entertainment". If you look at the GT2 manual, it does not say "© Sony Music Entertainment." What it actually says in Gran Turismo 2's manual that I have sitting in front of me, is "Produced Under License from Atlantic Recording Corp by Arrangement with Warner Special Products." What part of that sentence suggests that Sony is the one that owns the copyright to that song from GT2?


I have another game in front of me that also features Dragula in it (one of probably dozens to use it in the time period). The credits in GT2's manual say "© 1998 WB Music Corp." The credits in this other game, released the year after GT2?
"© 1998 WB Music Corp."






I'll say it again:
Sony does not own the copyrights to the music in GT2. They would either have to pay to get that music back in the game (since, again, as far as I can tell none of the licenced music in GT2 is from Sony's actual record label), like every other developer does; or they would have to excise the music from the game, like every other developer catches crap for doing when they rerelease games without reacquiring all of the licences.

Not everybody has the knowledge/desire to use emulators.

He's presumably referring to the one in the PS3/PSP/Vita.

The launch 60GB PS3 (apart from the EU launch 60GB) had the full PS1 chipset, built in as part of PS2 chips and then integrated into one Emotion Engine/ Graphics Synthesizer chip, it was not software emulated.

No it didn't. Not even the later PS2s, even some released well before the PS3 was, had any of the PS1 chipsets included in them. That is to say, even the later PS2s didn't use hardware emulation for PSX games. It's simply not how the system worked, which has hashed out through countless years of emulator development for both systems.


The fat PS2 used the PSX R3000 CPU as an I/O controller (at a higher clock rate, called the "IOP" in most documentation). It used what was essentially two PSX sound processors integrated into one chip as its sound processor (with 4 times the memory as the PSX version of it). It did not include the PSX's GPU, so already it is stretching calling it the full "PS1 chipset;" but it at least included the R3000's video decoding and math coprocessors. When you booted a PSX game, the PS2 booted into PSX mode. The R3000 began acting as the main processor. The clock speed was reduced to match the PSX speed, and the coprocessors were put to use as necessary (and they could not be used in PS2 mode). The GS and EE worked together to emulate the instructions of the PSX GPU and pretend to be it for the R3000 (which is how the PS2 had filtering options for PSX games). The SPU2 switches to SPU mode, limited to the original spec of 512kb of RAM, 44.1Khz and 24 channels (instead of 2mb, 48Khz and 48 channels). That's how it worked for every PS2 up through the last fat 50000x series PS2, when the sound processor was integrated into the R3000 but otherwise worked the same and was still hardware emulation; and was then used like that through the first version of the PS2 Slim.


The second PS2 Slim version (7500 series) excised the PSX R3000 entirely. It wasn't "built in as part of the PS2 chips" or as part of the combined GS+EE, even if some magazine interview with some executive maybe said something like that. It was replaced outright with an IBM Power PC 405 ASIC, running the instructions for the R3000 through an emulator (DECKARD). At this point, which was mid 2005, the PSX is already being emulated in software by the PS2. It's not running off of PS1 hardware because the PS1 hardware is gone. It's not integrated into the PS2 chipsets because the dedicated PS1 hardware was replaced with something else that is still a discrete chipset that emulated the now-removed PSX hardware. That's why the backwards compatibility took enough of a hit that Sony posted it on their website. That's why some PS2 games don't run right or not at all on later PS2s; and some PS1 games look fine but run at a higher framerate than originally. That's why the original PS2 Slim version can have a hard drive connected to it if you hard wire the wires to IDE pins on the motherboard that are still there, but every later revision cannot. At this point, even if the PS3 had used the PS2 hardware to emulate PSX games, it would still have been emulating them in software because that's what the PS2 was doing by the time the system came out, and had been for over a year.


Except the PS3 doesn't even do that much, which makes sense because there would be no reason to make the physical PS2 hardware do the job when it would just be emulating PSX in software anyway. That's wasteful and would force you to emulate instructions that are unnecessary for the system. The IOP is fully software emulated and always was, but it doesn't even have the discrete chip that emulated the R3000 through software on the later PS2 through DECKARD; nor does it utilize the the PS2 graphics hardware in the process. It just runs PSX games off of the PS3 hardware. This is borne out by the fact that PSX and PS2 games don't even boot the same way as each other on original PS3s.

This chip could now be shrunk and made for hardly any money being 18+ year old technology.

The PS4 could already emulate the PS2 while spending no money on including PS2 hardware. The PS3 already did a passable job at it by the end of its life, since the emulator used for the PS2 Classics was fairly compatible with a far wider variety of games than were ever released. There's no reason to include any PS2 hardware in a theoretical PS5 when it already wouldn't be needed now.

 

[CSMDuty11]

Honestly, the real disappointing part, I'd say, is no Racing Lagoon.

 

[baldgye]

It was, but some of the companies in the original GT are no longer owned by the same entity. For example in 1997 TVR was owned by Peter Wheeler, since then it's changed hands twice. While the new owner is probably ok with the cars being used, Sony would still need to go through the motions to get a new license. This costs money and probably wouldn't be worth it.

There's also the issue that some companies might not want their older products relicensed for a game in 2018. Companies essentially license their products as a means to advertise, so why would they want to include products they no longer sell?

It's definitely all possible, but given the PS Classic is a limited run and licensing needs to be secured for other games, it's probably not worth the extra cost.

I doubt you'll see any licensed sports games on the PS Classic either. It's not impossible, just highly unlikely.

If that was true, why did they go to the effort for Tekken 3 when Tekken 2 would have done just fine... they even have the ROM on PSN for easy copy/paste?


Also, referencing someone mentioning region specific titles, a Sony spokesperson went on to say;

"The 20 titles launching with the PlayStation Classic were selected due to their popularity amongst original PlayStation fans," the spokesperson told IGN. "However, it is important to note that the title list is tailored to each region."

via

 

[Joey D]

If that was true, why did they go to the effort for Tekken 3 when Tekken 2 would have done just fine... they even have the ROM on PSN for easy copy/paste?

I don't know how Sony is making its decisions. I just outlined why GT and GT2 are unlikely due to the high cost of licensing.

My hunch is Tekken 3 is a title Sony feels will sell the console. To my knowledge, it hasn't been offered elsewhere before and this is the first "re-release" of the game.