40gb PS3 $399, no bc - 11/2, $499 80gb, limited bc, now. 56,877 new skus rumored

[quote name='zewone']No, you can't.

PS2 = $129
40GB = $400
_____________

$529

60GB = $500
_____________

$500[/quote]
Well what he actually said, is that a year ago (price was $100 more for the 60GB) you could have gotten two systems for less then one. I took it as, the 80GB's MSRP (though it is less at some places) compaired to the 40GB and a PS2 but wasn't the way I wrote it.
 
Peter: So, again, the ability to get them a PS3 at $399 became more important than maintaining that. We're the only company that's been able to tackle backwards compatibility at all. No other platform from our competitors has been able to do it.

*face palm*

I seriously don't know what the hell happened to Sony.
 
[quote name='Tsukento']Peter: So, again, the ability to get them a PS3 at $399 became more important than maintaining that. We're the only company that's been able to tackle backwards compatibility at all. No other platform from our competitors has been able to do it.

*face palm*

I seriously don't know what the hell happened to Sony.[/quote]

But he is right!!!

No other systems can play Ps2 AND Ps1 games...
 
The problem is that they're saying no other console from their competitors has tackled BC, when it's clearly bullshit seeing as the 360 does have some BC and the Wii is 100% BC with GameCube games.
 
[quote name='Mechafenris']The sad part is, I didn't even know it had SACD support in the first place (not that I have any....) I'm not sure that SACD got any more support than DVD-Audio... It was chalked up to being a DRM-laden successor to the CD... but no one really wanted to replace their CDs.

I'm sure SACD support removal will be like removing two usb ports... a few will notice... (possibly only those with an axe to grind, being overly hung up on the 40 GB's lack of BC), but most will never miss it. :)[/QUOTE]The SACD removal has to do with the cheaper blu-ray diodes not supporting it, I hear (since it's being said the new PS3 is using the $8 blu-ray diodes). I don't care myself, but I already have a PS3 that plays them anyway. :D
[quote name='Tsukento']The problem is that they're saying no other console from their competitors has tackled BC, when it's clearly bullshit seeing as the 360 does have some BC and the Wii is 100% BC with GameCube games.[/QUOTE]The 360 BC has always been a joke; therefore, it never tackled it well. The reason the Wii has 100% BC is because it's pretty much using the same chips the GC used. Now, if the Wii was like the PS3/360 using completely different chips that work differently, I can guarantee you that BC won't be as effective. Also, has MS or Nintendo run TWO generations of console BC before??? Even with PS1 BC at least, that's still more massive than GC and Xbox BC combined.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']I just hope they are smart enough to include component cables.[/QUOTE]That won't happen because the PS3 component cables cannot be used on composite only TVs. Sony is just catering to the 2nd lowest group (lowest being RF only).
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']That won't happen because the PS3 component cables cannot be used on composite only TVs. Sony is just catering to the 2nd lowest group (lowest being RF only).[/QUOTE]
You act like they couldn't release a combo cable like the 360.
 
[quote name='Tsukento']The problem is that they're saying no other console from their competitors has tackled BC, when it's clearly bullshit seeing as the 360 does have some BC and the Wii is 100% BC with GameCube games.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I don't know what he's thinking when he says that as far as the Wii goes, but the 360 BC is pretty lame so it's easy to ignore it :p
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']The 360 BC has always been a joke; therefore, it never tackled it well. The reason the Wii has 100% BC is because it's pretty much using the same chips the GC used. Now, if the Wii was like the PS3/360 using completely different chips that work differently, I can guarantee you that BC won't be as effective. Also, has MS or Nintendo run TWO generations of console BC before??? Even with PS1 BC at least, that's still more massive than GC and Xbox BC combined.[/quote]
Regardless if the 360's BC is a joke or if the Wii is using the same chips as the GameCube, it's still a fact that they did indeed touch backwards compatibility. Microsoft could have said "No Xbox BC" and Nintendo could have made the Wii entirely out of different parts, but they didn't. They still chose to make their systems backwards compatible in some manner.

The point isn't about who tackled it more efficiently. The point was that the guy's claiming the PS3 did BC while the other two competitors didn't, which is a load of crap.

And even if the PS3 has PSOne BC, it still makes absolutely no sense to tell people to buy a PS2 to play PS2 games when that too can play PSOne games, yet allow the PS3 to stay BC with those games and not PS2.

Either way, the PS3 wasn't the only system to touch BC. There's no sense in trying to deny the 360 and Wii have touched on it.
 
[quote name='Tsukento']And even if the PS3 has PSOne BC, it still makes absolutely no sense to tell people to buy a PS2 to play PS2 games when that too can play PSOne games, yet allow the PS3 to stay BC with those games and not PS2.[/QUOTE]
In fairness to Sony, making PS2 games work on the new 40gb system would be the 3rd tackling of BC this generation for their system. They have the strictly hardware, the hardware/software combo, and now they would have to develop a software only option. So, unlike some present it, it isn't like Sony is simply being lazy in this area. They're just choosing not to devote even more resources and cash to the third shot at BC. I can understand that, even if it disappoints me.
 
I think two generations is far enough back. let the PS4 be PS3 backwards and thats it.

Its actually ironic that Sony is now feeling the pain of something that served them so well last time around. The Wii and 360 only have to look back a generation and its helping them. next generation if Sony does it right they can recoup this problem and see what Nintendo and Microsoft do to combat the situation. Nintendo may be in the clear due to continued use of same manufacturing partners, Microsoft as we know may have a bigger issue.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']I think two generations is far enough back. let the PS4 be PS3 backwards and thats it.

Its actually ironic that Sony is now feeling the pain of something that served them so well last time around. The Wii and 360 only have to look back a generation and its helping them. next generation if Sony does it right they can recoup this problem and see what Nintendo and Microsoft do to combat the situation. Nintendo may be in the clear due to continued use of same manufacturing partners, Microsoft as we know may have a bigger issue.[/quote]

That is a good way of looking at it. But the problem here is that the PS3 actually does go back 2 generations fine (PS1), but for some reason can't handle going back only one well (PS2).
 
[quote name='NamPaehc']That is a good way of looking at it. But the problem here is that the PS3 actually does go back 2 generations fine (PS1), but for some reason can't handle going back only one well (PS2).[/QUOTE]
Well, it is much easier to emulate two generations ago than one. Just as it's much easier for me to run an NES emulator on my PC than, say, a N64 for Saturn one.
 
You know it'd be nice if they could recode these ps2 games to run on ps3, and release 3 games on one blu ray. (i.e devil may cry collection), gta collection,
Jak and daxter trilogy pack.. etc.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']You know it'd be nice if they could recode these ps2 games to run on ps3, and release 3 games on one blu ray. (i.e devil may cry collection), gta collection,
Jak and daxter trilogy pack.. etc.[/quote]

I wish they'd over them online as downloads like the Ps1 games and let you remote play them on your PSP.
 
[quote name='elwood731']In fairness to Sony, making PS2 games work on the new 40gb system would be the 3rd tackling of BC this generation for their system. They have the strictly hardware, the hardware/software combo, and now they would have to develop a software only option. So, unlike some present it, it isn't like Sony is simply being lazy in this area. They're just choosing not to devote even more resources and cash to the third shot at BC. I can understand that, even if it disappoints me.[/quote]
And there's the problem there. They give Microsoft and Nintendo backlash about BC, despite the fact that they have done BC (Wii being the only one that's always been and always will be 100% BC), yet Sony is refusing to put in any time and resources into it. It seems more like this generation around, Sony's more interested in running their mouths with their egos on cruise control instead of putting their money on the table.

We know each PS3 made is a loss for Sony. Why are they so concerned over it if they're so certain they can outdo their competitors? Why are they so concerned about how much it's gonna cost them if they've got enough money to support themselves and could never possibly reach the levels of near bankruptcy that Sega did?

The problem stems with the 80GB. There wasn't any need to cut some support for the PS2 there. There wasn't any need to do so with the 40GB. So why are they trying to boast about having been able to do BC if they're not going to stick with their earlier claims?
 
[quote name='NamPaehc']That is a good way of looking at it. But the problem here is that the PS3 actually does go back 2 generations fine (PS1), but for some reason can't handle going back only one well (PS2).[/QUOTE]The PS2 is just too complex of an architecture to emulate properly.

Anyway, some around the net are saying SCE is lying because they act like BC is important and now they don't. Let me tell everyone one reason BC was important to them before was Ken Kuturagai. The PlayStation brand is very close to him and he badly wanted PS consoles to continue being BC with all the previous ones. The reason the EE chip was included anyway instead of limited software BC (which was being worked on without the EE) at launch was because Ken K. wanted near full BC right away. Okay, since people are the internet and stuff seem to hate Kuturagi and want him out. Now SCE has different people in charge, who may not feel the same way as Ken K. (they more so see it as an issue eating up costs), so that's why it was removed to make PS3 cheaper. If Ken K. was still around, he'd continue making PS3 a premium console because that was his entire vision, not some cheap console like the competition (or like Sony did with PS2).

I could possibly see a downloadable emulator or downloadable PS2 games in the future on PS3, but we'll see. People seem to want full BC for a cheap price, but you'll never get that because it's impossible to make cheap.
[quote name='Tsukento']And there's the problem there. They give Microsoft and Nintendo backlash about BC, despite the fact that they have done BC (Wii being the only one that's always been and always will be 100% BC), yet Sony is refusing to put in any time and resources into it. It seems more like this generation around, Sony's more interested in running their mouths with their egos on cruise control instead of putting their money on the table.

We know each PS3 made is a loss for Sony. Why are they so concerned over it if they're so certain they can outdo their competitors? Why are they so concerned about how much it's gonna cost them if they've got enough money to support themselves and could never possibly reach the levels of near bankruptcy that Sega did?

The problem stems with the 80GB. There wasn't any need to cut some support for the PS2 there. There wasn't any need to do so with the 40GB. So why are they trying to boast about having been able to do BC if they're not going to stick with their earlier claims?[/QUOTE]Get thehere troll. We know you hate Sony and PS3. I can tell you love your precious Nintendo trying to say their BC is so good, only because the Wii is basically a Gamecube 2. That's why BC isn't a problem for them. Nintendo hasn't even conquered real BC because they aren't deal with hardware a generation ahead.

Sony could spend money making more PS3 games, or try to emulate every single game on PS2. In reality, they want to push more games for PS3, and that's why that is their priority. Still, the 80GB PS3 emulation is being updated and more games get added. If you want fucking BC, buy the fucking 80GB.

The reason for the 80GB is the EE costs $30 to put in every console, along with its components and such. Not including it allows them to get the price lower, use less comments, need less traces on the circuit board (causing circuit board to be easier to make), using less solder due to fewer parts, lower wattage resistors because higher wattage rating resistors aren't needed anymore due to lower current, etc.

And no, Sony isn't in the same position as Sega. In reality, Sega was in trouble because they were ONLY a video game company and already had several failed platforms. Sony on the other hand makes a profit off of every PS2 they sell, after every PSP they sell, and they are doing pretty well right now on the electronics side (people are buying their HDTVs). If you're saying they will go bankrupt due to losing money in the gaming division, then tell me why MS hasn't given up on gaming when they still haven't make a single profit (they continue losing money every year, promised investors they'd be profitable in 08, and had to spend $1 billion in repair costs)? Sony will be fine whether you like it or not.

I'm going to ignore you now.
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']The PS2 is just too complex of an architecture to emulate properly.

Let me tell everyone one reason BC was important to them before was Ken Kuturagai. The PlayStation brand is very close to him and he badly wanted PS consoles to continue being BC with all the previous ones. The reason the EE chip was included anyway instead of limited software BC (which was being worked on without the EE) at launch was because Ken K. wanted near full BC right away. Okay, since people are the internet and stuff seem to hate Kuturagi and want him out. Now SCE has different people in charge, who may not feel the same way as Ken K. (they more so see it as an issue eating up costs), so that's why it was removed to make PS3 cheaper. If Ken K. was still around, he'd continue making PS3 a premium console because that was his entire vision, not some cheap console like the competition (or like Sony did with PS2).

[/quote]
I actuallycompletly agree with you on what I quoted, Mana Knight, which seldomly happens, so it is worth mentioning!

Good point, Ken MAY have been the driving force for solid BC, and when he left that went with it.

I DO NOT, however, think that the price is equal to the value, despite the technology.

In making the PS3 the most expensive console they forgot that in Sony built up its gaming business with the WEAKEST console, (PS1 vs N64, PS2 vs Xbox, GC), the change to using bleeding edge tech was contrary to their previous business model, and it has bitten them in the ass.
 
PS1 BC and not PS2 BC?

What a fuckin' ripoff. Who even plays PS1 games anymore? They don't even sell them in most places. And I bet those look totally awesome on that XBR .

They might as well take PS1 BC out, maybe it can be 395 dollars then.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']I actuallycompletly agree with you on what I quoted, Mana Knight, which seldomly happens, so it is worth mentioning!

Good point, Ken MAY have been the driving force for solid BC, and when he left that went with it.

I DO NOT, however, think that price equals value, and that in making the PS3 the most expensive console they forgot that in Sony built up its gaming business with the WEAKEST console, the change to bleeding edge tech was contrary to their previous business model.[/QUOTE]I remember in many interviews Ken K. stated that BC is VERY important to him and making it BC with other PS was one of his priorities.

The time around, Ken Kuturagi wanted to build a console around tech, because he was finally making his dream come true. That is why the PS3 is the way it is. If it was someone else making PS3, they probably would have made its graphics in-between Wii and 360, released in in 2005 (probably would have had tons of failure rates due to cheap parts), etc. Right now, the biggest things bringing the PS3 costs up are HDD, Cell, and RSX (EE/GS combo was also up there originally). After those, it's the WiFi (although I believe they can get it cheap now) and some other little things. Using blu-ray ONLY costs them $8 more now to use and I don't believe the bluetooth module was that expensive.

The PS3 is basically the Mercedes console right now. I'll put it this way, those who complain about the PS3 being what it is are usually the ones who don't own one. Those who own are actually happy it is this way. I'll admit I'll never spend $600 on a gaming console and felt that was too much (which is why I paid $500). However, after buying my PS3 at $500, I feel it would have been worth $100 more because the hardware is just too good IMO.
[quote name='Punk_Raven']PS1 BC and not PS2 BC?

What a fuckin' ripoff. Who even plays PS1 games anymore? And I bet those look totally awesome on that XBR .

They might as well take PS1 BC out, maybe it can be 395 dollars then.[/QUOTE]PS1 BC is 100% software. It requires no chips and costs $0.00 to implement it. If Sony could do the same with PS2 BC, you better bet they'd include it. Also, it's still needed for downloadable PS1 games on PSN. To get PS2 BC costs anywhere from $25-$50 (depending upon if you want just a GS or EE/GS). Some may wonder why doesn't Sony just eat the costs for now, but the difference is that the costs of those components ain't dropping anymore (the only way they might have dropped is if Ken K. was still working on them, since he designed them). When the PS3 console has price drops and tries to get cheaper, the costs of the EE/GS (or one out), will continue factoring in and keeping the costs up higher (Cell and RSX still are far from being at their lowest price), making it impossible for PS3 to get cheaper than $300 in the future. Removing them at least allows them to have a SKU at $200 one day maybe.
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']
The PS3 is basically the Mercedes console right now. I'll put it this way, those who complain about the PS3 being what it is are usually the ones who don't own one. Those who own are actually happy it is this way. I'll admit I'll never spend $600 on a gaming console and felt that was too much (which is why I paid $500). However, after buying my PS3 at $500, I feel it would have been worth $100 more because the hardware is just too good IMO.
[/quote]
You certainly are entitled to feel how you do.

Placing equal value on the feelings of people who disagree with your perspective, and looking at it from THEIR angle, you should then see the PS3's problem. People don't see enough value in their offering, whether it be actual or percieved, to drop $500 or $600 on the console -- now that there is a $400 option, we'll see. what happens.

Percieved value is the core of why they haven't SOLD many PS3s. You, my friend, are in the minority in thinking that it is worth it -- the sales figures support that.
 
I thought the PS3 was a tremendous value at $499, and even $599.

However, I do feel the price was too high for most people, including me.
And it was.
 
[quote name='dallow']I thought the PS3 was a tremendous value at $499, and even $599.

However, I do feel the price was too high for most people, including me.
And it was.[/quote]
I'm on the edge. Tech wise? it absolutly is worth it for what you get. As a gaming machine, I'm still pretty on-the-fence... Once MGS4 and FF13 come out, I'll have three games I want to play, which isn't enough for the investment -- for me.

Just because I feel that way doesn't invaidate how others feel, though.

I DO assert that the sales figures show that a big percentage of people are put off enough by... whatever their reasons are... price, games, Sony execs... I don't know... to NOT buy one.

edit: I DO think that $400 PS3 will make a big difference in their sales figures.
 
Does every game you play have to be a AAA blockbuster or something?
I buy systems for their smaller, less-played games.

Blockbusters like MGS4 and FF13 are just a treat.
 
[quote name='dallow']I thought the PS3 was a tremendous value at $499, and even $599.

However, I do feel the price was too high for most people, including me.
And it was.[/quote]Yes but the difference between value and expensive is another matter. Buying a space shuttle for 50 million dollars is a great value but I don't think they would sell many.
 
[quote name='FxhoundADAM']Yes but the difference between value and expensive is another matter. Buying a space shuttle for 50 million dollars is a great value but I don't think they would sell many.[/quote]wtf? I SAID THAT.
 
[quote name='Apossum']somebody start a new thread. I don't own a PS3 and I'm sick of keeping track of their convoluted pricing structure.[/quote]LOL and this from the OP.
 
[quote name='dallow']Does every game you play have to be a AAA blockbuster or something?
I buy systems for their smaller, less-played games.

Blockbusters like MGS4 and FF13 are just a treat.[/QUOTE]I agree. I buy consoles for the small games no one talks about. Most all my favorite PS2 games are niche games.
 
[quote name='dallow']Does every game you play have to be a AAA blockbuster or something?
I buy systems for their smaller, less-played games.

Blockbusters like MGS4 and FF13 are just a treat.[/quote]
You're right. It's the whole package I'm looking at, and so far only three games I can't get on my PC or Xbox 360: Ratchet and Clank, MGS4, and FF13 are ALL that currently pique my interest.

I have to spread my gaming spending between my PC, Xbox 360, PS2, PSP, Wii, and DS -- when you factor in limited funds, I constantly have to decide between really good, unique games for all the systems. I personally just find that the PS3 doesn't have games that appeal to *me* -- yet -- to warrant the purchase.

edit: I feel I need to note I have never once purchased a Madden game.

edit2: per Manaknight
LittleBigPlanet probably will when it comes out. ;) That's a game I honestly think will appeal to most everybody.
Click to expand...

Thats probobly accurate, 4 games that pique my interest.
 
[quote name='BattleChicken']You're right. It's the whole package I'm looking at, and so far only three games I can't get on my PC or Xbox 360: Ratchet and Clank, MGS4, and FF13 are ALL that currently pique my interest.[/QUOTE]LittleBigPlanet probably will when it comes out. ;) That's a game I honestly think will appeal to most everybody.

I badly want Ratchet myself. The reason I continue buying PlayStation is, I really like Sony's first party games a lot and that alone makes any PS worth it. I also gotta have Tekken 6 badly (I play Tekken 5 DR online on my PS3 too much).
 
I have to do the same (spread out funds between all systems).
So yes, it is difficult.

I wanted a BD player though, so I'm actually happy the PS3 can play them back.
 
[quote name='dallow']I have to do the same (spread out funds between all systems).
So yes, it is difficult.

I wanted a BD player though, so I'm actually happy the PS3 can play them back.[/QUOTE]Meh, I don't spread out my funds between consoles really. I'm known to mostly concentrate on 1-2 at a time, while the rest just get a game every once in a while. Such as last gen, around 75% or more of my games were for PS2, while the percentage was even higher the generation before that. This gen, I own two times more PS3 games than 360 games (I still need a Wii). On handhelds, last gen was just GBA (so it got tons of support), but since I have a PSP and DS, my PSP collection is much bigger because I made it my main handheld. Supporting too many platforms at once becomes too hectic for me (and I usually prefer having one main console/handheld I take with me to places). Some may ask why don't I just own one platform, but I just can't do that, since every gaming platform has a few exclusives I want and I just can't live without having access to all video games.

I'll be honest, part of the reason I bought my PS3 second last year was because I had the money and there's no way I wanted to have that Wii and 360 combo (without a PS). ;)
 
[quote name='dallow']I thought the PS3 was a tremendous value at $499, and even $599.

However, I do feel the price was too high for most people, including me.
And it was.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Definitely a great value for what you get. Just too expensive for most. Especially for people who don't need or want a Blu Ray player right now.


[quote name='dallow']Does every game you play have to be a AAA blockbuster or something?
[/QUOTE]


For me, pretty much. Used to play more smaller, B-games etc. when I had more time and interest. Now I really don't even have time to keep up with all the AAA games across the consoles, so I try to maximize my time by playing the cream of the crop.

I do dip down a bit on the DS as there are less AAAs there and it gets more time as I travel a lot and like to play for 20 mins or so before going to sleep.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. Definitely a great value for what you get. Just too expensive for most. Especially for people who don't need or want a Blu Ray player right now.





For me, pretty much. Used to play more smaller, B-games etc. when I had more time and interest. Now I really don't even have time to keep up with all the AAA games across the consoles, so I try to maximize my time by playing the cream of the crop.

I do dip down a bit on the DS as there are less AAAs there and it gets more time as I travel a lot and like to play for 20 mins or so before going to sleep.[/quote]What the hell? This is the 2nd time someone has quoted me, and said exactly what I said.

As for you only playing blockbusters.
Sorry, but you're the one missing out.

I'd trade all the AAA games on PS2 for the smaller titles that I had the most fun with.
 
[quote name='dallow']What the hell? This is the 2nd time someone has quoted me, and said exactly what I said.
[/quote]

It's called people agreeing with you. :D But I know it doesn't happen often around here so I can see why you


As for you only playing blockbusters.
Sorry, but you're the one missing out.

I'd trade all the AAA games on PS2 for the smaller titles that I had the most fun with.
Click to expand...

To each their own. I generally don't like many smaller titles anyway. Usually I give something like Katamari a try, have a WTF? reaction and go back to shooting shit in Halo etc. :D

Though of course I have enjoyed smaller gamers in normal genres like Okami (one of the best games of last gen) and Beyond Good & Evil (very good, but overrated by it's niche of fanboys).
 
[quote name='dallow']

I'd trade all the AAA games on PS2 for the smaller titles that I had the most fun with.[/QUOTE]
To me it is skipping weaker games, like skipping Growlanser for Persona 3 and skipping Grandia 3 for Tales of the Abyss. At the same time I can try niche games like Katamari.
 
[quote name='62t']To me it is skipping weaker games, like skipping Growlanser for Persona 3 and skipping Grandia 3 for Tales of the Abyss. At the same time I can try niche games like Katamari.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's a great way of putting it, as I do try to try most of the highly touted niche games.

I mainly just skip the marginal games that are only for huge fans of the given Genre as I'd rather play solid titles.
 
Just sounded like you were correcting me.

PS3 was overpriced for most people.
I don't think it is now. (well, maybe a little :) )
 
[quote name='dallow']Just sounded like you were correcting me.

PS3 was overpriced for most people.
I don't think it is now. (well, maybe a little :) )[/QUOTE]


Yeah, $400 is a pretty good price for a next gen gaming machine and a Bluray Player, lack of BC aside.

But I guess probably still $50 overpriced for anyone who doesn't want or can't use to full benefit (no HDTV) the BR player, since they could get a 360 for $50 less.
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']Get thehere troll. We know you hate Sony and PS3.[/QUOTE]
I do? How would that explain my PS2 and all those PSOne and PS2 games I own? :applause:

[quote name='The Mana Knight']I can tell you love your precious Nintendo trying to say their BC is so good, only because the Wii is basically a Gamecube 2.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I love Nintendo because of backwards compatibility. I love Nintendo so much, I need you to say it for me. :lol:

[quote name='The Mana Knight']That's why BC isn't a problem for them. Nintendo hasn't even conquered real BC because they aren't deal with hardware a generation ahead.[/QUOTE]
Regardless. The fact of the matter is, Wii and Xbox 360 have backwards compatibility. PS3 is slowly slipping away from that. The CEO of Sony of America is still BSing everyone by claiming they're the only ones to touch BC.

[quote name='The Mana Knight']Sony could spend money making more PS3 games, or try to emulate every single game on PS2. In reality, they want to push more games for PS3, and that's why that is their priority. Still, the 80GB PS3 emulation is being updated and more games get added. If you want fucking BC, buy the fucking 80GB.[/QUOTE]
Software emulation ain't for me, thanks. I'll buy the 60GB for proper BC. Plus considering the PS3 is $500 (both 60GB and 80GB), I have no intention on getting either until the 60GB drops to truer clearance prices.

[quote name='The Mana Knight'] The reason for the 80GB is the EE costs $30 to put in every console, along with its components and such. Not including it allows them to get the price lower, use less comments, need less traces on the circuit board (causing circuit board to be easier to make), using less solder due to fewer parts, lower wattage resistors because higher wattage rating resistors aren't needed anymore due to lower current, etc.[/QUOTE]
Yet each 80GB comes with a free copy of Motorstorm. :applause:

[quote name='The Mana Knight'] And no, Sony isn't in the same position as Sega. In reality, Sega was in trouble because they were ONLY a video game company and already had several failed platforms. Sony on the other hand makes a profit off of every PS2 they sell, after every PSP they sell, and they are doing pretty well right now on the electronics side (people are buying their HDTVs). If you're saying they will go bankrupt due to losing money in the gaming division, then tell me why MS hasn't given up on gaming when they still haven't make a single profit (they continue losing money every year, promised investors they'd be profitable in 08, and had to spend $1 billion in repair costs)? Sony will be fine whether you like it or not.

I'm going to ignore you now.[/quote]
Someone's fucking blind as I clearly said Sony is NOWHERE near the position Sega was in. I said they had the finances to back themselves up to take risks. They're not doing that. So why are they so concerned about costs if they CAN support themselves?

Oh wait. You're too busy sticking your head up Sony's ass to listen to logic and choose to put people who disagree with your fanboyish logic.
 
[quote name='dallow']Does every game you play have to be a AAA blockbuster or something?
I buy systems for their smaller, less-played games.

Blockbusters like MGS4 and FF13 are just a treat.[/QUOTE]
I really try to play only AA or AAA.

I seldom have the desire to finish or even start a B title.

What's the point?
 
[quote name='zewone']I really try to play only AA or AAA.

I seldom have the desire to finish or even start a B title.

What's the point?[/quote]When I say Triple A, I'm talking about big names that are sure hits. Like Halo, MGS, etc.

The smaller games, like Okami, and even ICO.
They're triple AAA in quality, but not big famous titles.

I just meant well known, vs lesser known.
 
[quote name='dallow']When I say Triple A, I'm talking about big names that are sure hits. Like Halo, MGS, etc.

The smaller games, like Okami, and even ICO.
They're triple AAA in quality, but not big famous titles.

I just meant well known, vs lesser known.[/QUOTE]


Ahh, we're probably more in agreement then. When I say AAA I just mean AAA in quality. And by quality I mean my personal ranking.

Now a lot of the time for me these are blockbuster games, but also stuff like Okami as I said above.
 
Yeah, there's the obviously fun and cool games that are hyped for a given system.

And then there are the smaller fun and cool games that get lost in the shuffle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top