People with a powerful enough PC can try out some of the games for free through the Internet Archive, using a WebAssembly-based emulator (with higher system requirements than a standard emulator)....
People with a powerful enough PC can try out some of the games for free through the Internet Archive, using a WebAssembly-based emulator (with higher system requirements than a standard emulator). Sadly no memory card support though. Due to the Internet Archive's legal status as a library, I believe they are exempt from DMCA for older titles.
Honestly I kind of held out hope that these "minified" consoles would run some proper hardware, guess not. Kind of a shame but also validates the belief that it's cheaper to play your old games on...
Honestly I kind of held out hope that these "minified" consoles would run some proper hardware, guess not. Kind of a shame but also validates the belief that it's cheaper to play your old games on an emulator of your choice rather than dishing out for the same thing in a shiny new package for no added benefit.
If this is what they are doing they should sell the games through their own electronic market for download and use with an emulator. The fact that they are requiring you to buy their hardware too,...
If this is what they are doing they should sell the games through their own electronic market for download and use with an emulator. The fact that they are requiring you to buy their hardware too, which is really just a mini linux machine running an open source emulator is just shady business.
The more I think of it, the more obvious it seems that this would be the best "Sony brand" approach to a PS classic. Honestly, the NES classic only worked because it fits Nintendo's hard-fought...
The more I think of it, the more obvious it seems that this would be the best "Sony brand" approach to a PS classic. Honestly, the NES classic only worked because it fits Nintendo's hard-fought status as an Apple-like player in the videogames business. Owning the iconic, little plastic housing works for the NES or SNES, that you can actually play games on it is like a cute little addition to make it interactive. But for the PS1? It was always a workhorse, almost a PC.
I remember people buying it as a CD player. There were little or no exclusives worth mentioning as they all released on the PC as well (and some, even on the N64). You fumbled around with the "demo CDs" to play 5 minutes of some obscure, Japanese games that were cheaply produced because of the low barrier of entry and then moved on. You were in awe at how gory Resident Evil was compared to Nintendo games but honestly, Resident Evil wasn't a very good game in any other way. You probably had it chipped at some point and pirated your games, anyway, having even less of a connection to them. You had Metal Gear Solid. But, again, that's also on the PC...
As a product with "retro appeal" it would make way more sense to offer it in connection with a downloadable library of all the games. It would be a modern take to emphasize the huge library it had back in the day. It should probably even play Spotify and Netflix, as a nod to people using it as a CD player in the 90s!
There's just nothing "cute" about the Playstation and releasing it in a miniature form with only 20 (random) games doesn't do it justice.
Nah, even Nintendo is just using an ARM system emulating their consoles. There are systems you can get that actually reimplement the hardware with FPGAs, though. The Analogue Super Nt does that....
Nah, even Nintendo is just using an ARM system emulating their consoles.
There are systems you can get that actually reimplement the hardware with FPGAs, though. The Analogue Super Nt does that. There is also the MiST board, which is designed for a number of older computers (It actually started as an Atari ST implementation and grew to add new system implementations over time), though it also can be configured as several different consoles. They tend to be very expensive, though.
But here's the thing for me, take the more expensive approach and offer an online store to buy the games. Invest in the hardware once and then charge for games going forward, same thing that is...
But here's the thing for me, take the more expensive approach and offer an online store to buy the games. Invest in the hardware once and then charge for games going forward, same thing that is done for current consoles. If it's a faithful hardware clone then the work in adding old games to this new platform is more or less trivial. With a emulator you lose almost all assurance that the games will play without bugs even with rigorous testing.
Just seems like a wasted opportunity IMO.
The problem with emulators is that they are always an approximation of the hardware, so no matter how much you test you'll still end up with weird bugs that crop up because you missed some special...
The problem with emulators is that they are always an approximation of the hardware, so no matter how much you test you'll still end up with weird bugs that crop up because you missed some special case. In the end this would reflect badly on Nintendo because it's their brand name that is being tarnished by emulated games not working.
Okay so question, PCSX is GPL v3. v3 was designed to defeat Tivoization. Stallman didn't like when TiVo took open source code and slapped it on hardware and locked users out from changing the code...
Okay so question, PCSX is GPL v3. v3 was designed to defeat Tivoization. Stallman didn't like when TiVo took open source code and slapped it on hardware and locked users out from changing the code running on it, so v3 was born. According to GNU.org's overview, to comply with v3 companies must provide any info or data necessary to modify the GPL v3 code on the device
So will Sony be forced to allow people to update or make changes to the PCSCX-ReARMed emulator on the device? Is there actually a chance of them following through?
That's a very interesting point! It would appear that they have to distribute (or provide on request) the "Corresponding Source", which is essentially all code needed to generate and install the...
That's a very interesting point! It would appear that they have to distribute (or provide on request) the "Corresponding Source", which is essentially all code needed to generate and install the compiled source (the source cod itself plus any build scripts etc.), but since they're distributing PCSX as part of a product, that also includes "Installation Information" (emphasis added):
If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or
specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as
part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the
User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a
fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the
Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied
by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply
if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install
modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has
been installed in ROM).
What's "Installation Information"?
"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods,
procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install
and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from
a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must
suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object
code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because
modification has been made.
So, yes, if they're using the emulator under GPLv3, it looks like they're required to let anyone who owns one modify it.
Edit: sadly, it looks like PCSX ReARMed is GPLv2, which doesn't have the Tivoization protection.
But in this case, would Sony be the 'user' (In that they're using it for their product) or would the person buying the PS1 classic be able to pick a license?
But in this case, would Sony be the 'user' (In that they're using it for their product) or would the person buying the PS1 classic be able to pick a license?
It’s correct that Sony has the right to choose GPL-2.0 and comply with just that and that in that case the end-user cannot rely on GPL-3.0’s anti-TiVoisation clause. It is not irrelevant though,...
It’s correct that Sony has the right to choose GPL-2.0 and comply with just that and that in that case the end-user cannot rely on GPL-3.0’s anti-TiVoisation clause.
It is not irrelevant though, as unless Sony chooses, it passes the code under GPL-2.0-or-later and therefore the end-use has the choice whether to use the code under:
a) GPL-2.0-only;
b) GPL-3.0-only;
c) GPL-2.0-or-later; or
d) GPL-3.0-or-later.
Until we have the device and its documentation in hand, we can only speculate that it may be in Sony’s best corporate interest to choose GPL-2.0-only. But cannot know for sure what they did (or forgot to do).
Ah, I gotchya. I'll probably avoid this entirely then - I've got a bunch of things that can play PS1 games (namely, my PS1 and PSP), and a computer running the same emulator this thing does. If...
Ah, I gotchya. I'll probably avoid this entirely then - I've got a bunch of things that can play PS1 games (namely, my PS1 and PSP), and a computer running the same emulator this thing does. If Sony was going to provide the source with it, thought, it'd be a neat thing to support and play around with a bit, especially if they'd do more of that kinda thing later on.
People with a powerful enough PC can try out some of the games for free through the Internet Archive, using a WebAssembly-based emulator (with higher system requirements than a standard emulator). Sadly no memory card support though. Due to the Internet Archive's legal status as a library, I believe they are exempt from DMCA for older titles.
19 out of 20 full games are available out of the PlayStation Classic US lineup:
Demos:
Found the old MS-DOS games, great to see these available as well.
Honestly I kind of held out hope that these "minified" consoles would run some proper hardware, guess not. Kind of a shame but also validates the belief that it's cheaper to play your old games on an emulator of your choice rather than dishing out for the same thing in a shiny new package for no added benefit.
If this is what they are doing they should sell the games through their own electronic market for download and use with an emulator. The fact that they are requiring you to buy their hardware too, which is really just a mini linux machine running an open source emulator is just shady business.
The more I think of it, the more obvious it seems that this would be the best "Sony brand" approach to a PS classic. Honestly, the NES classic only worked because it fits Nintendo's hard-fought status as an Apple-like player in the videogames business. Owning the iconic, little plastic housing works for the NES or SNES, that you can actually play games on it is like a cute little addition to make it interactive. But for the PS1? It was always a workhorse, almost a PC.
I remember people buying it as a CD player. There were little or no exclusives worth mentioning as they all released on the PC as well (and some, even on the N64). You fumbled around with the "demo CDs" to play 5 minutes of some obscure, Japanese games that were cheaply produced because of the low barrier of entry and then moved on. You were in awe at how gory Resident Evil was compared to Nintendo games but honestly, Resident Evil wasn't a very good game in any other way. You probably had it chipped at some point and pirated your games, anyway, having even less of a connection to them. You had Metal Gear Solid. But, again, that's also on the PC...
As a product with "retro appeal" it would make way more sense to offer it in connection with a downloadable library of all the games. It would be a modern take to emphasize the huge library it had back in the day. It should probably even play Spotify and Netflix, as a nod to people using it as a CD player in the 90s!
There's just nothing "cute" about the Playstation and releasing it in a miniature form with only 20 (random) games doesn't do it justice.
I'm mildly surprised that Sony haven't created a wierd physical format for the "CDs" and encumbered it with DRM.
Nah, even Nintendo is just using an ARM system emulating their consoles.
There are systems you can get that actually reimplement the hardware with FPGAs, though. The Analogue Super Nt does that. There is also the MiST board, which is designed for a number of older computers (It actually started as an Atari ST implementation and grew to add new system implementations over time), though it also can be configured as several different consoles. They tend to be very expensive, though.
But here's the thing for me, take the more expensive approach and offer an online store to buy the games. Invest in the hardware once and then charge for games going forward, same thing that is done for current consoles. If it's a faithful hardware clone then the work in adding old games to this new platform is more or less trivial. With a emulator you lose almost all assurance that the games will play without bugs even with rigorous testing.
Just seems like a wasted opportunity IMO.
The problem with emulators is that they are always an approximation of the hardware, so no matter how much you test you'll still end up with weird bugs that crop up because you missed some special case. In the end this would reflect badly on Nintendo because it's their brand name that is being tarnished by emulated games not working.
Okay so question, PCSX is GPL v3. v3 was designed to defeat Tivoization. Stallman didn't like when TiVo took open source code and slapped it on hardware and locked users out from changing the code running on it, so v3 was born. According to GNU.org's overview, to comply with v3 companies must provide any info or data necessary to modify the GPL v3 code on the device
So will Sony be forced to allow people to update or make changes to the PCSCX-ReARMed emulator on the device? Is there actually a chance of them following through?
That's a very interesting point! It would appear that they have to distribute (or provide on request) the "Corresponding Source", which is essentially all code needed to generate and install the compiled source (the source cod itself plus any build scripts etc.), but since they're distributing PCSX as part of a product, that also includes "Installation Information" (emphasis added):
What's "Installation Information"?
So, yes, if they're using the emulator under GPLv3, it looks like they're required to let anyone who owns one modify it.
Edit: sadly, it looks like PCSX ReARMed is GPLv2, which doesn't have the Tivoization protection.
GPL-2.0-or-later, so the buyer / user is free to choose GPL-3.0 as well, if they want to.
But in this case, would Sony be the 'user' (In that they're using it for their product) or would the person buying the PS1 classic be able to pick a license?
Right, the "or-later" part is irrelevant here since Sony is using the TiVo loophole to avoid extending the license to the end user in the first place.
It’s correct that Sony has the right to choose GPL-2.0 and comply with just that and that in that case the end-user cannot rely on GPL-3.0’s anti-TiVoisation clause.
It is not irrelevant though, as unless Sony chooses, it passes the code under GPL-2.0-or-later and therefore the end-use has the choice whether to use the code under:
a) GPL-2.0-only;
b) GPL-3.0-only;
c) GPL-2.0-or-later; or
d) GPL-3.0-or-later.
Until we have the device and its documentation in hand, we can only speculate that it may be in Sony’s best corporate interest to choose GPL-2.0-only. But cannot know for sure what they did (or forgot to do).
Ah, I gotchya. I'll probably avoid this entirely then - I've got a bunch of things that can play PS1 games (namely, my PS1 and PSP), and a computer running the same emulator this thing does. If Sony was going to provide the source with it, thought, it'd be a neat thing to support and play around with a bit, especially if they'd do more of that kinda thing later on.