The Mana Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
[quote name='lilboo']Yes yes they got rid of it to cut costs. That's great, but it still should NEVER have been taken out. The thing is still mad expensive so why even bother??
BC is a MUST these days, IMO.
The 360 does a somewhat decent job, and for once the Wii exceeds at something (yes, the Wii IS a GCN :lol
.[/QUOTE]All right, I'll explain the reason:
I've said it over and over again, I knew this was coming and was actually shocked the MGS4 bundle had it. Europe and Japan stopped getting any model with PS2 BC late last year.
Anyway, the big problem with the PS3 before the introduction of the 40GB was Sony was taking a MASSIVE loss per every console sold. At launch, Sony took a $240 hit on the 60GB and a $300 hit on the 20GB (this was with FULL BC). To let everyone know, Blu-ray is NOT the reason Sony takes a massive loss on PS3. Near launch, using blu-ray was only $100 more (when compared to DVD), but now the costs have dropped to around $8 more (due to the blu-ray disc diode dropping from $100 to $8 last year in August). There was originally never suppose to be full PS2 BC using both the EE + GS and several PS2 components. The reason Sony used it was because the software emulated EE was NOT ready in time at launch. Around March in 2007, the software emulated EE was finished, which is why every 20/60GB SKU within the U.S. wasn't manufactured after the 2nd half of 2007 (I believe production stopped in March 2007, but I could be wrong). Once it was ready, it was used during the European launch and the U.S./Korea 80GB. There's no denying the costs were cut down a bit by going this method; however, the GS was still needed along with other components. Still, the costs of the PS3 were still greatly over the MSRP.
Last gen, Sony had no problems taking an early loss on PS2 because software sales were good (making up for loses in hardware), and Sony was struggling to keep PS2 on the shelves for a while (so it was kind of worth it). This gen, people complained about the PS3 costing $500 to $600, and Sony couldn't easily cut the cost anymore. And due to PS3 sales being quite low (with consoles sitting on store shelves), with Sony still taking a pretty big hit per consoles sold AND due to not making much money back in accessories/game sales to recover, they had to do something to stay in business. They basically had three options:
-Just kill PS3 and be done with it (no more loses).
-Never drop the price of the original PS3 (keep it at $600 until it's at a point where the manufacturing costs go lower).
-Release a new SKU, that greatly reduces the cost and could be priced more competitively.
They chose the third option, since the major complaint about the PS3 was price (people complained, that's why Sony had to cut features out to bring its price down). They must include the HDD still it's standard (40GB increments are the cheapest in bulk, due to being industry standard, that's why 40GB was chosen). Cell + RSX combo isn't cheap, but needed in every PS3 (Going 65nm for 40GB helped, but not a lot). Card readers could be cut, although that only saves like $15. There's no way of having WiFi on PS3 (unless you put together a wireless bridge or use a wireless gaming adapter), so they left it in (although it's quite cheap to use). Bluetooth must be used for the controllers, and blu-ray was needed for games. So, what had to go was the PS2 BC (PS1 BC is 100% software, so it costs $0.00 to implement). Eliminating the PS2 BC completely allow for:
-Smaller PCB (if you look at the 40GB, it has a smaller printed circuit board).
-Much less components, also drawing much less current. And when you have less current being drawn, electronic parts with lower wattage ratings can be used (which are cheaper).
-Overall, less solder being used due to no PS2 components.
-Maybe (no guarantee), fewer layers are needed on the PCB (I do not know how many layers it uses, but from what I learned when making PCBs, adding a layer adds a LOT to the cost of making a circuit board).
Removing 2 USB ports helped shave a few $$$.
Some may think adding some PS2 components is just a few $$$. Not really actually, since the PS2 actually costs just under $100 to produce (once you remove the DVD drive, it still costs around $80). It's not like Sony just takes PS2 components and shove them in the PS3 (even for the software emulated EE), they actually have to use different components for the PS2 BC within any SKU that has it. The power used up by the PS3 is much greater than the PS2; therefore, more expensive components have to be used in order to work without burning out on the PS3. So in reality, the estimates are it costs Sony around $90-$130 (lower end being no EE, higher end being EE and more components) just to add PS2 BC. If PS2 BC was 100% software (no GS and no EE), it would be there. One BIG reason the Xbox 360 is cheaper, has to do with having ZERO original Xbox components in for its BC (if it did, the cost of it would have been much more). The Wii basically uses GC components that make creating its BC easy.
How much did it cost Sony to produce the 40GB?? Only $400. The problem is there's still retailer loyalty and shipping, but regardless, the loss is tiny. Howard Stringer (CEO of Sony Corp) especially put pressure on SCE to soften the loses on PS3, so that's what they did.
The bad news is, this will turn some people off because they feel PS2 BC is a must. Well, the problem is if they buy a PS3, don't buy a single game, and only buy used PS2 games cheap, Sony ends up taking a big hit on their console and continues to increase their debt (Sony already lost $3 billion in PS3 production cost). So in ways, if someone really wants to play PS2 games, Sony kind of rather they buy a PS2 because they make a small profit from it (and they still make them). Yeah Sony may also lose some sales, but right now, Sony rather take a sales hit just to break even (because their gaming division took quite a hit. Even if PS3 NEVER used blu-ray, the hit would still be close to $2 billion at its current pricing).
So, does Sony plan to make a software emulated BC on PS3? They have hired people in Japan to work on PS2 emulation. There's a good chance it will happen, but there's ONE problem with emulated PS2 games. The reason the GS chip was needed (for the 80GB) is because it has a REALLY high fill rate (even said to be higher than PS3/360). Because of that, it's really hard to emulate PS2 games properly with the hardware that PS3 is. Without a doubt Sony will try to make magic, but that's the bottleneck.
The only way for Sony to be able to keep PS2 BC right now is if they were to price a console at $500 (with 40GB features and 40GB HDD). Still the issue is, that's still too high of an introductory price ($400 is more acceptable) and there's no way Sony is going to take another massive hit with PS3 losing money.
Yes it may suck, but at the same time it keeps Sony priced more competitively (within the middle of the 360 main SKUs).
The reason for the change from 40GB to 80GB was:
-A new SKU was coming with a DS3 anyway, since SIXAXIS production stopped a while ago.
-MS was planning on upping the Xbox 360 Pro SKU HDD by 40GB, putting Sony 20GB behind at a higher price. Going from 40GB to 80GB, that puts Sony back in the same position again against MS.
-Game installs have become frequent, along with a TV/Movie download service. Bigger HDD was REALLY needed (The most Sony could have done is drop the 40GB price by like $15-$20).
SCEA said before, if you want a 60GB, it was being discontinued forever (don't worry, they have extras for replacement). And the 80GB w/ PS2 BC are only limited edition (where once the timeframe of being made is up, their done). The MGS4 bundle in the U.S. was released to give some a 2nd chance (for a limited time), but some still complained (their loss). The main reason SCEA is keeping supply limited is to not overproduce a SKU they lose money on, and they want to stick to ONE SKU (one reason the Wii does well is zero SKU confusion). Europe lacks the confusion and it helps. In reality, PS3 sales actually did pretty well when it was just the 40GB from Feb. to May being sold (it outsold 360 overall). And I do believe the one SKU thing works (hardcore gamers here can understand the differences, but casuals get too easily confused. They want the features of the expensive SKU, but do not want to pay it. Once they see only one SKU of choice, it's either take it or leave it).
This is my long explanation and I hope everyone remembers. The MAIN reason why PS2 BC was cut (I'll say it again) is the price of adding PS2 components (regardless of SKU) costs too much, and at a point Sony has to take a loss. If people were willing to pay the launch prices of the PS3 (I knew all along it was a great deal), none of this may have happened.
Do I care about PS2 BC? When I first got my PS3, yes because I had no HDTV and didn't have a PS3 game. Now, I don't care. I actually want to buy a 40GB right now since I never use the PS2 BC. Yes PS2 has some good games, but I just can't stand to look at them upscaled on my HDTV (upscaling is ok, but nothing special IMO. DVD upscaling is great though). Also, I hate the fact you have to reconnect the controller back and forth (there's no way around it since PS2 hardware is used, the bluetooth has to connect with the PS2) and I'm signed off of PSN (reasons are PS2 has online games on other networks as one reason, and another being hardware related). Also, can't play most PS2 GH games on PS3 and Taiko Drum Master w/ the accessories. And finding a good USB adapter for some accessories is a pain (some lack a PS Button which is worse). Also, triggers on the PS3 controller just don't work well for some PS2 games.
It's really just comes down to cost. If people didn't complain early on how much they were paying for PS3 and just bought it, PS2 BC would have stayed. Because it was a costly feature to add (even when the EE wasn't included) and Sony to be pressured to lower price based on outcry, they removed it (removing WiFi, blu-ray, bluetooth, over PS2 BC (saying PS3 was using DVD for games) would not have made PS3 any cheaper (if anything, slightly more expensive when compared to the 40GB/new 80GB)).
[quote name='ninja dog']1/17/08...that was back when there was hope that this might be a good year for Sony.[/QUOTE]Appossum, Sony was LEADING 360 for 10 months THIS year in NA UNTIL MS CUT it's price heavily to get back ahead. PS3 STILL continues to outsell 360 in Japan. PS3 is STILL doing pretty well in most European countries.
BC is a MUST these days, IMO.
The 360 does a somewhat decent job, and for once the Wii exceeds at something (yes, the Wii IS a GCN :lol
.[/QUOTE]All right, I'll explain the reason:I've said it over and over again, I knew this was coming and was actually shocked the MGS4 bundle had it. Europe and Japan stopped getting any model with PS2 BC late last year.
Anyway, the big problem with the PS3 before the introduction of the 40GB was Sony was taking a MASSIVE loss per every console sold. At launch, Sony took a $240 hit on the 60GB and a $300 hit on the 20GB (this was with FULL BC). To let everyone know, Blu-ray is NOT the reason Sony takes a massive loss on PS3. Near launch, using blu-ray was only $100 more (when compared to DVD), but now the costs have dropped to around $8 more (due to the blu-ray disc diode dropping from $100 to $8 last year in August). There was originally never suppose to be full PS2 BC using both the EE + GS and several PS2 components. The reason Sony used it was because the software emulated EE was NOT ready in time at launch. Around March in 2007, the software emulated EE was finished, which is why every 20/60GB SKU within the U.S. wasn't manufactured after the 2nd half of 2007 (I believe production stopped in March 2007, but I could be wrong). Once it was ready, it was used during the European launch and the U.S./Korea 80GB. There's no denying the costs were cut down a bit by going this method; however, the GS was still needed along with other components. Still, the costs of the PS3 were still greatly over the MSRP.
Last gen, Sony had no problems taking an early loss on PS2 because software sales were good (making up for loses in hardware), and Sony was struggling to keep PS2 on the shelves for a while (so it was kind of worth it). This gen, people complained about the PS3 costing $500 to $600, and Sony couldn't easily cut the cost anymore. And due to PS3 sales being quite low (with consoles sitting on store shelves), with Sony still taking a pretty big hit per consoles sold AND due to not making much money back in accessories/game sales to recover, they had to do something to stay in business. They basically had three options:
-Just kill PS3 and be done with it (no more loses).
-Never drop the price of the original PS3 (keep it at $600 until it's at a point where the manufacturing costs go lower).
-Release a new SKU, that greatly reduces the cost and could be priced more competitively.
They chose the third option, since the major complaint about the PS3 was price (people complained, that's why Sony had to cut features out to bring its price down). They must include the HDD still it's standard (40GB increments are the cheapest in bulk, due to being industry standard, that's why 40GB was chosen). Cell + RSX combo isn't cheap, but needed in every PS3 (Going 65nm for 40GB helped, but not a lot). Card readers could be cut, although that only saves like $15. There's no way of having WiFi on PS3 (unless you put together a wireless bridge or use a wireless gaming adapter), so they left it in (although it's quite cheap to use). Bluetooth must be used for the controllers, and blu-ray was needed for games. So, what had to go was the PS2 BC (PS1 BC is 100% software, so it costs $0.00 to implement). Eliminating the PS2 BC completely allow for:
-Smaller PCB (if you look at the 40GB, it has a smaller printed circuit board).
-Much less components, also drawing much less current. And when you have less current being drawn, electronic parts with lower wattage ratings can be used (which are cheaper).
-Overall, less solder being used due to no PS2 components.
-Maybe (no guarantee), fewer layers are needed on the PCB (I do not know how many layers it uses, but from what I learned when making PCBs, adding a layer adds a LOT to the cost of making a circuit board).
Removing 2 USB ports helped shave a few $$$.
Some may think adding some PS2 components is just a few $$$. Not really actually, since the PS2 actually costs just under $100 to produce (once you remove the DVD drive, it still costs around $80). It's not like Sony just takes PS2 components and shove them in the PS3 (even for the software emulated EE), they actually have to use different components for the PS2 BC within any SKU that has it. The power used up by the PS3 is much greater than the PS2; therefore, more expensive components have to be used in order to work without burning out on the PS3. So in reality, the estimates are it costs Sony around $90-$130 (lower end being no EE, higher end being EE and more components) just to add PS2 BC. If PS2 BC was 100% software (no GS and no EE), it would be there. One BIG reason the Xbox 360 is cheaper, has to do with having ZERO original Xbox components in for its BC (if it did, the cost of it would have been much more). The Wii basically uses GC components that make creating its BC easy.
How much did it cost Sony to produce the 40GB?? Only $400. The problem is there's still retailer loyalty and shipping, but regardless, the loss is tiny. Howard Stringer (CEO of Sony Corp) especially put pressure on SCE to soften the loses on PS3, so that's what they did.
The bad news is, this will turn some people off because they feel PS2 BC is a must. Well, the problem is if they buy a PS3, don't buy a single game, and only buy used PS2 games cheap, Sony ends up taking a big hit on their console and continues to increase their debt (Sony already lost $3 billion in PS3 production cost). So in ways, if someone really wants to play PS2 games, Sony kind of rather they buy a PS2 because they make a small profit from it (and they still make them). Yeah Sony may also lose some sales, but right now, Sony rather take a sales hit just to break even (because their gaming division took quite a hit. Even if PS3 NEVER used blu-ray, the hit would still be close to $2 billion at its current pricing).
So, does Sony plan to make a software emulated BC on PS3? They have hired people in Japan to work on PS2 emulation. There's a good chance it will happen, but there's ONE problem with emulated PS2 games. The reason the GS chip was needed (for the 80GB) is because it has a REALLY high fill rate (even said to be higher than PS3/360). Because of that, it's really hard to emulate PS2 games properly with the hardware that PS3 is. Without a doubt Sony will try to make magic, but that's the bottleneck.
The only way for Sony to be able to keep PS2 BC right now is if they were to price a console at $500 (with 40GB features and 40GB HDD). Still the issue is, that's still too high of an introductory price ($400 is more acceptable) and there's no way Sony is going to take another massive hit with PS3 losing money.
Yes it may suck, but at the same time it keeps Sony priced more competitively (within the middle of the 360 main SKUs).
The reason for the change from 40GB to 80GB was:
-A new SKU was coming with a DS3 anyway, since SIXAXIS production stopped a while ago.
-MS was planning on upping the Xbox 360 Pro SKU HDD by 40GB, putting Sony 20GB behind at a higher price. Going from 40GB to 80GB, that puts Sony back in the same position again against MS.
-Game installs have become frequent, along with a TV/Movie download service. Bigger HDD was REALLY needed (The most Sony could have done is drop the 40GB price by like $15-$20).
SCEA said before, if you want a 60GB, it was being discontinued forever (don't worry, they have extras for replacement). And the 80GB w/ PS2 BC are only limited edition (where once the timeframe of being made is up, their done). The MGS4 bundle in the U.S. was released to give some a 2nd chance (for a limited time), but some still complained (their loss). The main reason SCEA is keeping supply limited is to not overproduce a SKU they lose money on, and they want to stick to ONE SKU (one reason the Wii does well is zero SKU confusion). Europe lacks the confusion and it helps. In reality, PS3 sales actually did pretty well when it was just the 40GB from Feb. to May being sold (it outsold 360 overall). And I do believe the one SKU thing works (hardcore gamers here can understand the differences, but casuals get too easily confused. They want the features of the expensive SKU, but do not want to pay it. Once they see only one SKU of choice, it's either take it or leave it).
This is my long explanation and I hope everyone remembers. The MAIN reason why PS2 BC was cut (I'll say it again) is the price of adding PS2 components (regardless of SKU) costs too much, and at a point Sony has to take a loss. If people were willing to pay the launch prices of the PS3 (I knew all along it was a great deal), none of this may have happened.
Do I care about PS2 BC? When I first got my PS3, yes because I had no HDTV and didn't have a PS3 game. Now, I don't care. I actually want to buy a 40GB right now since I never use the PS2 BC. Yes PS2 has some good games, but I just can't stand to look at them upscaled on my HDTV (upscaling is ok, but nothing special IMO. DVD upscaling is great though). Also, I hate the fact you have to reconnect the controller back and forth (there's no way around it since PS2 hardware is used, the bluetooth has to connect with the PS2) and I'm signed off of PSN (reasons are PS2 has online games on other networks as one reason, and another being hardware related). Also, can't play most PS2 GH games on PS3 and Taiko Drum Master w/ the accessories. And finding a good USB adapter for some accessories is a pain (some lack a PS Button which is worse). Also, triggers on the PS3 controller just don't work well for some PS2 games.
It's really just comes down to cost. If people didn't complain early on how much they were paying for PS3 and just bought it, PS2 BC would have stayed. Because it was a costly feature to add (even when the EE wasn't included) and Sony to be pressured to lower price based on outcry, they removed it (removing WiFi, blu-ray, bluetooth, over PS2 BC (saying PS3 was using DVD for games) would not have made PS3 any cheaper (if anything, slightly more expensive when compared to the 40GB/new 80GB)).
[quote name='ninja dog']1/17/08...that was back when there was hope that this might be a good year for Sony.[/QUOTE]Appossum, Sony was LEADING 360 for 10 months THIS year in NA UNTIL MS CUT it's price heavily to get back ahead. PS3 STILL continues to outsell 360 in Japan. PS3 is STILL doing pretty well in most European countries.
, and to make Singstar videos for Youtube 
s
ing game commercial that resembled a game commercial. Resistance 2 could have been big but the commercial left me confused. I will admit that the Gears of War commercial was memorable simply because of that song and showcasing the graphics. Resistance 2 on the other hand was not. I would be showing how you're swamped with tons of shit trying to kill you and tout the multiplayer.