80gb PS3 price dropped to $499 (and 40gb announced for Nov. 2)

[quote name='keithp']Not this one. Lack of BC is making me look to the 360, at least until more must-have PS3 games come out.[/quote]I think you're looking for an excuse. There are still fully BC PS3s out there on shelves. My TRU, for example, has 3 or 4 in front and they said they had some in the back. You justdon't want to like the PS3... Which is fine, just don't give a bull reason. 360 has a hack job of BC. PS3 60GB has the full thing and 80GB has the same thing as 360.

[quote name='xcoax']didn't see this coming... kind of a slap to the face of people who just got a 60GB one. between the better five free movies offer they've got now and the $100 off the 80GB model, I'm starting to feel cheated.

Goes to show maybe if you're on the fence about buying one you should just wait it out until they drop it another $100 a month or two down the line.[/quote]If you really don't care about the EE, you're the only one to blame. The 80 GB has been out for awhile now. And it was known about for at least a few weeks or even a month or two before it showed up. While it's exitstence was still a rumor, it was also rumored they were phasing out the 60 and would then drop the price of the 80 by Christmas. Sorry, I don't feel bad for you.
 
see this is where the consumer gets confused...

80gb w/game with no BC or 60gb with BC...

honestlyi dont care about the Motorstorm..although its nice becuz it seems free...and the HDD can be replaced just as easily..

so naturally... 60gb w/ BC + HDD(if wanted) - 600. give or take..

or 80gb w/game no BC - 500(without tax i know)
..
its a tough decision..so i wont make any until i hear something of BC...
 
I own a PS3 so I don't need to join the discussion, but if I DIDN'T own one, BC would be key in buying a system. I have played FFX and FF12 on my PS3 so far and have tons of other PS2 games that I will play as well. Since there aren't any PS3 games out, this seems important to me.
 
Good for them lowering the price by $100.

I say damn good of them for chancing the 40gb version, lacking backwards compatibility for $399. At this rate, I applaud them for taking chances. They're in a dire situation, and who knows... the average consumer might bite on the cheaper one.

And that means a better chance of the PS3 becoming highly successful. Which would lead my beloved 360 getting more competition, which it really needs.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']I think you're looking for an excuse. There are still fully BC PS3s out there on shelves. My TRU, for example, has 3 or 4 in front and they said they had some in the back. You justdon't want to like the PS3... Which is fine, just don't give a bull reason. 360 has a hack job of BC. PS3 60GB has the full thing and 80GB has the same thing as 360.

If you really don't care about the EE, you're the only one to blame. The 80 GB has been out for awhile now. And it was known about for at least a few weeks or even a month or two before it showed up. While it's exitstence was still a rumor, it was also rumored they were phasing out the 60 and would then drop the price of the 80 by Christmas. Sorry, I don't feel bad for you.[/QUOTE]

No, Sony Fanboy, you're wrong. I'm not looking for an excuse, what I'm really looking for is a cheaper price, which is why I haven't plunked down any of my cashola for either one at this point. That said, if I was to buy one I would definitely lean towards the 360, since Sony taking away BC is just another strike against it for me, and there are far more games I'm interested in for it rather than the PS3.

Oh, and I HAVE played lots of PS1 games on my PS2.
 
[quote name='BelieveTheHype']i bit on the 60gb deal when there was a glitch on amazon that brought it down with the buy 2 get 1 free blu rays.[/quote]
Damn. When was that?
 
I went ahead and pulled the trigger on the 80G. Most of the games I have yet to play for the PS2 supposedly work fine (according to Sony's site) on the PS3 80G, and I'll leave my PS2 hooked up as well. $540 total, got Motorstorm, plus I think the 5 free Blu-Ray deal is still in effect. Not bad (plus 12 months no interest, no payments).

Funny thing was, the manager at the SonyStyle store didn't even know the price had dropped. He didn't believe me, had to look it up on his computer, then he made an announcement in the store once he confirmed it. And as he was ringing me up, he made the same comment I did - why would anyone buy a 60G if the 80G was the same price + Motorstorm. I proceeded to explain to him what some of the prior posters explained to me, and he then decided he was going to buy one of the 60G units (they just got 4 in today, he said). Anyway, my point is I love CAG and the people who post here. Thanks to everyone who took the time to explain the facts of PS3 to me earlier this AM.

Another amusing side note - one of the clerks apparently just bought an 80G 4 weeks ago and was pissed when he found out the price dropped. I expect one of the registers at that SonyStyle will come up $100 short in the near future.
 
I think I'll just wait until decent rpg's start hitting the system(already have a 360 and a Wii), hopefully by then the ps3 will be even cheaper and a new model will come out with a rumble controller.

Or maybe there will be a kick ass black Friday deal on one of the of the older ps3 models.
 
[quote name='keithp']No, Sony Fanboy, you're wrong. I'm not looking for an excuse, what I'm really looking for is a cheaper price, which is why I haven't plunked down any of my cashola for either one at this point. That said, if I was to buy one I would definitely lean towards the 360, since Sony taking away BC is just another strike against it for me, and there are far more games I'm interested in for it rather than the PS3.

Oh, and I HAVE played lots of PS1 games on my PS2.[/quote]Let's look at your post again:
[quote name='keithp']Not this one. Lack of BC is making me look to the 360, at least until more must-have PS3 games come out.[/quote]
Again, PS3 does not lack BC. 60GB has full BC and 80 GB has the same that 360 offers. Stop lying. If you think it's too expensive, fine. But don't make stupid claims and then lie about what you said.

And Sony fanboy? LoL. Anyone who has known me for a few years on here can probably tell you that I have always been known as a Sony flamer. Just look at the picture in my sig. The PS3 is the first Sony hardware I have ever owned and I only got it a few weeks ago. Up until that impulse buy I swore I would never buy a PS3. I have a Wii and last gen I had a GCN and and Xbox (and still have them). I have GHII and two guitars for 360 as well as an HD-DVD drive that I use on my roommate's 360. You have no idea who I am, so don't claim that you do, you ignorant fool.
 
[quote name='Mr. Pink']IGN had an interview with Sony's vice president about the new 40GB PS3.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/828/828443p1.html[/quote]

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.

LMAO

Looks like Sony's still trying to convince themselves that the Xbox 360 and Wii don't have backwards compatibility and never touched on it.
 
Why can't they just drop the 60GB to $400 already? >_< If it drops to $400, then I'd totally bite. I wanna play me some Heavenly Sword and Folklore!
 
40GB is backwards compatible with PS1 games so it's not completely useless. And unless they are keeping the graphic synthesizer versions (80GB in NA, 60GB in Europe) around for a long time then it seems suspicious that they would put so much effort into using software to emulate the Emotion Engine for only a span of 6 months to a year and then drop it.

Despite what sony says they know BC can be used as a selling tool. To make all software emulation for PS2 games can let them cut costs by not using hardware/chips for it and they can carry this over to PS4, PS5, etc.

Even what Kaz said at TGS a few weeks back, he would have you believe there was no price cut planned for the holidays. They said they couldn't put rumble and motion sensor in the same controller a long time back and downplayed rumble. Sony will say what suits them at the time. They want to sell 60GB and 80GB versions today.

This is no guarantee but take what sony says with a grain of salt. If they are planning it, it's still in their interest to hide it to get rid of 60GB and 80GB versions through the holidays. They don't want retail stores stuck with old stock they can't sell.

And if the 60GB really is out of production and all are sold to retail stores then Sony may have no control over a price drop. It's not their call, they sold them all and it's the retail store's decision on whether or not they want to clearance it or not.
 
[quote name='keithp']Not this one. Lack of BC is making me look to the 360, at least until more must-have PS3 games come out.[/quote]

I think you totally missed my point. 1) Since you post on this site aand own both a Wii and a PS2, I doubt that you qualify as a NON-hardcore gamer. 2) And more importantly, I said that PS3 software will be the determining factor in a PS3 purchase and you seem to be saying that if "more must-have PS3 games come out" that would determine if you buy a PS3 or not.....which is exactly my point.

Sure, BC is a nice *addition*, but if there isnt compelling ps-THREE software, there is no reason to buy a PS3 at all. You can just play your PS2. But since you (like me) already *have* a PS2, you really dont *need* BC for your gaming pleasure. I think, while on the surface it seems asinine, Sony has a good point...the same on Microsoft had about 3 years ago.."Nobody *buys* a new-gen system to play last-gen games". It's really all up to the new-gen games to sell the new gen systems.

And to thurston the 80GB version *does* have backwards compatibility. Yes there are *limited* issues, but remember, the PS2 was not 100% BC with the PS1 either. I cannot imagine that there are that significant number of games that you want to play on BC that have issues to make it a deal-breaker.
lata, hostyl1
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']
Again, PS3 does not lack BC. 60GB has full BC and 80 GB has the same that 360 offers. Stop lying. If you think it's too expensive, fine. But don't make stupid claims and then lie about what you said.
.[/QUOTE]

Someone piss in your cornflakes? It was pretty clear he was talking about lack of BC in the $400 console. i.e. the only one he thinks is remotely reasonably priced.
 
i've had my 60 GB ps3 for a few months and i've been enjoying it since day one. i upgraded the interal HDD to 160 GB so HDD size wouldn't be an issue. as for BC, i did try playing ps1 games on it and to me it just wasn't worth it. some of the graphics on a HDTV just look horrible (r-type delta). ps2 games were fine, but it just wasn't as nice a picture as a 1080p ps3 game (of course).

i've got a huge stash of ps1 games but i don't have a ps1 anymore. with that, i say take out ps1 BC and leave in ps2 BC and we have a winner! :D

just my 2 cents
 
[quote name='hostyl1']And to thurston the 80GB version *does* have backwards compatibility. Yes there are *limited* issues, but remember, the PS2 was not 100% BC with the PS1 either. I cannot imagine that there are that significant number of games that you want to play on BC that have issues to make it a deal-breaker.
lata, hostyl1[/quote]
The PS2's BC issue was faaaar smaller to that of the PS3. Not only that, but most were pretty much fixed when the slimline came around.
 
[quote name='Tsukento']Alright sparky, let's look at it from this perspective. Say you have a PS2 and a 40GB PS3. Now let's say your PS2 eventually breaks down.

Now you're left with a busted PS2 because your PS3 can't play the PS2 games, thus forcing you to fork over $100 for a new one.

Let's say this happens even further down the line, when the PS2 is eventually discontinued and no longer sold in stores. Now you're really fucked as this makes you search around for a decent, used PS2 for who knows how much.

The fact that the 80GB can't play some and the 40GB plays none makes this TERRIBLY inconvenient and contradicts Sony's early rambling about the PS3 being fully capable of playing all of your old games on the new system, while taking pot shots at Microsoft and trying to make up false claims that Wii wasn't 100% backwards compatible with GameCube.[/QUOTE]

I agree 130% with this.

The lack of backwards compatibility in this industry also hurts it's credibility as art IMO. Not to mention the practical side that the PS1 was viable for years after the PS2 came out because of BC, and the PS2 would have gone even longer...although at this point it wouldn't shock me horribly if the PS2 outlived the PS3, since they're now distinct platforms.

Frankly I think I'm done with the Playstation 3. The main thing that really kept me interested (despite I think a vastly inferior lineup going forward than the 360) was it's backwards compatibility, which I assumed would stretch indefinetly into the future on the PS4, PS5.... That's what I loved about the PS2 also. If they drop that, I have no reason to bother with a PS3. I'll probably pick up another PS2 when the price drops, to maintain access to my PS1 and PS2 libraries.

And no, buying a 60GB PS3 now isn't a solution, because it's the same situation as with my PS2-if it ever dies, I can't replace it once the PS2 is out of production.

The pathetic thing is Microsoft is now BEATING Sony at backwards compatibility. And at least they have a real excuse. They don't own the X-Box's hardware. They couldn't fold it into an "X-Box on a chip" like Sony could for the PS1 and PS2. In Sony's case, they should have done the exact same thing they did for the PS2. They should have used the PS2 on a chip as an IO controller, or whatever. The cost starts out pretty negligible compared to the cost of the system, and within a few years it wouldn't cost anything, as they'd be able to fold the PS2 on a chip into the PS3 hardware, just as they have with the PS1 on a chip.
 
I think the problem is, like others have pointed out, is that Sony's REFUSING to take some hits and just deal with whatever losses come their way. The PS3 was going to lose money for each one made when it first came out, no matter what. So why not actually risk it? Sony has the money to back themselves up. They're still thinking they're the high and mighty of video games. So why the hell not take some losses for the benefits of the fans?
 
[quote name='Tsukento']I think the problem is, like others have pointed out, is that Sony's REFUSING to take some hits and just deal with whatever losses come their way. The PS3 was going to lose money for each one made when it first came out, no matter what. So why not actually risk it? Sony has the money to back themselves up. They're still thinking they're the high and mighty of video games. So why the hell not take some losses for the benefits of the fans?[/QUOTE]

Do you expect them to have the EE and/or graphics synthesizer inside a PS4 or PS5 10-20 years from now? The same people would complain if the PS4 pulled it out. They're eventually going to be pulled out one way or another.

Has the NA 80GB even officially been annnounced as going to be cancelled? When it is cancelled and disappears from shelves and there's no sign of software BC on the 40GB then people can complain. As of now you have both 60GB and 80GB as options. 40GB is BC with PS1.

Sony risked sales with saying no rumble and denied it for awhile and now look what happened. Their position can change tomorrow. Until then you have options. For those looking at the long term then simply wait it out, stop jumping to conclusions that everything sony says is set in stone. Making software emulation for PS2 games can carry over to PS4, etc.

Not to mention this helps make selling PS2 as downloadable games an option in the future. BC is also a selling tool to moving consoles. There are demos now that are over 1GB, there is a market for selling PS2 games in the future.
 
It isn't going to help if retailers don't get their stories straight-- Best Buy just put up a listing for the 40GB PS3 pre-order and it includes the "Plays your old PlayStation 2 and PlayStation games, DVDs and CDs, so you can merge all of your entertainment into one machine" bullet point.

Oops.
 
[quote name='Tsukento']I think the problem is, like others have pointed out, is that Sony's REFUSING to take some hits and just deal with whatever losses come their way. [/QUOTE]

Exactly. And that's what they SHOULD do to try to get back in the race, as the dug their own grave by launching with a $500-600 console soley because they wanted to force Blu Ray on people.

That killed most of the PS2 base, as HDTV adoption is low still, and many people just don't give a shit about HD disc formats right now regardless. Much less willing to pay a premium to early adopt a machine and pay a premium on HD movie discs.

I loved the PS1 and PS2, but a PS3 will never be in my home. Wii and 360 have me covered this gen. PS4 I'll consider if Sony pulls their head out of their ass and launches a reasonably priced machine next gen, gets back some exclusives I give a shit about, and drops their nonsense arrogance.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Someone piss in your cornflakes? It was pretty clear he was talking about lack of BC in the $400 console. i.e. the only one he thinks is remotely reasonably priced.[/quote]Like I said, if it's too expensive for him, fine. But his original claim was that PS3 lacked BC. Period. That's a lie. In fact, it does BC better than 360. There is supposedly a junked down version (40GB) on the way that eliminates BC, but it also eliminates a bunch of other stuff too. Sony is losing a ton of money on each of these still. They have to eliminate costs to offer a cheaper price point. And it's not even on the market yet anyway.

Let's look at an example from a different angle. Lots of people are miffed that Rock Band for 360 doesn't ship with a wireless guitar. Suppose they offered a separate package for $20-30 more that instead had a wireless guitar. You get to choose your price according to the features. Some would choose the lower price, some would choose the higher price for convenience later on. But this dude would say, "They don't offer wireless! I'm going to buy Guitar Hero III instead!!!" His choice is fine, but it is still based upon a premise that is a lie.

Now when someone is just lying to themselves, sometimes I let it pass and sometimes I mention it. Either way, I don't really care that they live in a world of delusion. But when they call me a fanboy because I simply pointed out their misconception, I am going to call them out. And that is an acceptable, normal reaction in civilized society. I wasn't trying to hurt anyone, just making conversation and I was needlessly attacked. The wrong thing to do is to let people go around being schoolyard bullies. Sure, it may not hurt me at all that he attacked me personally, but there is someone else out there who he is going to be a bigger jerk to who is more sensitive and it may affect them more.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']Like I said, if it's too expensive for him, fine. But his original claim was that PS3 lacked BC. [/QUOTE]

My point was it was clear that his post was saying that just the ONE model of PS3 that he would buy was lacking PS3.

Not that all of their upmteen ridiculous skus lacked BC.
 
[quote name='y2kenjination']Why can't they just drop the 60GB to $400 already? >_< If it drops to $400, then I'd totally bite. I wanna play me some Heavenly Sword and Folklore![/quote]

Same here. I was hoping that's what they would do.
 
If Sony really wanted to win the console race they'd give the PS3 away for free. Its obvious they're just being stubborn. They don't really want to win the console war obviously.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']If Sony really wanted to win the console race they'd give the PS3 away for free. Its obvious they're just being stubborn. They don't really want to win the console war obviously.[/QUOTE]

No, if they really wanted to win, they would have priced it the same as the 360 from launch.

If they'd done that, they'd have won on brand name alone. Just like they trounced the Dreamcast which had a killer game lineup at the time, while the PS2 game lineup was terrible the first 6 months or so in comparison.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']No, if they really wanted to win, they would have priced it the same as the 360 from launch.

If they'd done that, they'd have won on brand name alone. Just like they trounced the Dreamcast which had a killer game lineup at the time, while the PS2 game lineup was terrible the first 6 months or so in comparison.[/QUOTE]

...and if they had launched at the 360's price they would have had to make the thing out of inferior parts (which as much of a 360 fan as I am is definetly 360's achilles heel) or tuned down the specs considerably. Sony will rebound, I'm certain of it, otherwise I wouldn't have bought a PS3. Right now, PS3 is the console most equipped for the future. It has the tech for the long-run and it'll show.

And you know, as expensive as the PS3 is, its still considerably cheaper than PC gaming yet no one continiously rags on PC gaming like they do the PS3
 
I'm curious as to what exactly is deleted from the 40 GB PS3 that eliminates PS2 compatibility. It must be a piece of hardware, as it wouldn't save money to just eliminate a software flash. It has to be a chip of some sort in the 80 GB PS3 that controls the PS2 software emulation. And if it is just a single chip or two (we all know the 60GB was the last to have the miniaturized EE), then how much could they really have saved eliminating it? Hopefully someone with more money than sense will dissect one.
 
Would playing PS2 games on a PS3 burn down the life of the drive? For example playing PS2 CD (blue colored discs) games instead of PS2 DVD games on the earlier models and the laser stopped reading the blue colored ones?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']My point was it was clear that his post was saying that just the ONE model of PS3 that he would buy was lacking PS3.

Not that all of their upmteen ridiculous skus lacked BC.[/quote]And my point is it's now clear how he feels after him trying to insult me, but his initial post wasn't clear. It's fine for someone to add comments. But it's not okay for someone to say that what they said before was something they didn't say and then to call me names.

Clarification happens all the time in life. And that's why peole should question opinions is to better understand what is meant. But backpeddling and name calling are not okay. That's what I have issue with.

[quote name='pcktlnt']Would playing PS2 games on a PS3 burn down the life of the drive? For example playing PS2 CD (blue colored discs) games instead of PS2 DVD games on the earlier models and the laser stopped reading the blue colored ones?[/quote]No, or else watching regular DVDs would do the same thing. DVD movie playback would have been pulled too if that were the issue. Also, BC isn't being pulled altogether. It's still being put in the 80GB model. If PS2 games were causing warranty problems, I guarantee you the 80GB would be fully gimped as well.
 
I guarantee you if the 40GB had BC like 80GB but no wifi some of these guys would still complain. They want everything handed to them on a silver platter.

And dmaul judging by your posts you were trying to save every penny you could but you still chose the premium 360 over the core. You just bought it recently. You could have bought the new cores that have wireless controller, HDMI port, memory card bundled, etc. Without the hard drive you lose BC so you paid the extra money for it. Same applies to the PS3. For $100 more you get the extra USB ports, card slots, 20GB extra space, and near perfect BC, something that can't be said of the 360 or 80/40 GB PS3.

And if pulling out the graphics synthesizer means offering the PS3 $100 cheaper then I'm all for it. That gives them a better chance at selling more consoles, thus getting more PS3 games.

40GB PS3 is a great value from a hardware standpoint. Reliable hardware with built in wifi, blu-ray drive, 20GB extra hard drive space, built in battery in controller (saves you some pennies), free online, etc. for only $50 more over premium 360. Of course I understand someone choosing a 360 over a PS3 but PS3 has now become a great value compared to the 360.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']...and if they had launched at the 360's price they would have had to make the thing out of inferior parts (which as much of a 360 fan as I am is definetly 360's achilles heel) or tuned down the specs considerably. Sony will rebound, I'm certain of it, otherwise I wouldn't have bought a PS3. Right now, PS3 is the console most equipped for the future. It has the tech for the long-run and it'll show.
[/quote]

No, they could have just not forced blu ray in it a generation too early, and otherwise used the same parts and launched at $400 pretty easily.

Winning the console war was not their first priority. Above all, they wanted to win the HD disc format war.

And that's fine as I can live without their first party games, and Final Fantasy aside they've lost any third party exclusives I cared about. So the Wii60 has my bases covered.

And you know, as expensive as the PS3 is, its still considerably cheaper than PC gaming yet no one continiously rags on PC gaming like they do the PS3
Click to expand...


I do. I fucking hate PC gaming. Expensive to keep upgraded. Mouse controls are great but the keyboard blows donkey balls. Can't stand sitting at a computer to game after sitting at one all day at work. Couch much more comfortable than my desk chair (and any desk chair I've tried). 50" HDTV better than monitor (size FTW) and I'm never going to stick a PC in my hometheater room.

There. Enough of a PC gaming rant for you. :D
 
[quote name='zerolens']I
And dmaul judging by your posts you were trying to save every penny you could but you still chose the premium 360 over the core. You just bought it recently. You could have bought the new cores that have wireless controller, HDMI port, memory card bundled, etc. Without the hard drive you lose BC so you paid the extra money for it. Same applies to the PS3. For $100 more you get the extra USB ports, card slots, 20GB extra space, and near perfect BC, something that can't be said of the 360 or 80/40 GB PS3.
[/QUOTE]


Not at all. The deal from Frys.com was only for the Premium, and included 5 games. The two in all consoles now (Forza 2 and Marvel) and Bioshock, Orange Box and Two Worlds for $400.

So that's $180 of games for $50. Two of the games were must buy, and Two Worlds I plan on trying to exchange at Wal-mart for Halo 3. So it was cheaper to get the Premium than the Arcade/Core when you factor those games in.

And I wanted the hard drive for Demos. I don't care about BC on the 360 as the X-box had a shit game library for my tastes and I played and sold all I wanted on it already.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']No, they could have just not forced blu ray in it a generation too early, and otherwise used the same parts and launched at $400 pretty easily.

Winning the console war was not their first priority. Above all, they wanted to win the HD disc format war.

And that's fine as I can live without their first party games, and Final Fantasy aside they've lost any third party exclusives I cared about. So the Wii60 has my bases covered.
[/QUOTE]
I would tend to agree to a certain extent. However, I am beginning to see that blu ray's massive storage could end up giving them a distinct edge in video game quality in the coming years. That's the reason I mentioned that they've got the tech-specs for the long haul.

[quote name='dmaul1114']I do. I fucking hate PC gaming. Expensive to keep upgraded. Mouse controls are great but the keyboard blows donkey balls. Can't stand sitting at a computer to game after sitting at one all day at work. Couch much more comfortable than my desk chair (and any desk chair I've tried). 50" HDTV better than monitor (size FTW) and I'm never going to stick a PC in my hometheater room.

There. Enough of a PC gaming rant for you. :D[/QUOTE]

Well at least we're in complete agreement somewhere...
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not at all. The deal from Frys.com was only for the Premium, and included 5 games. The two in all consoles now (Forza 2 and Marvel) and Bioshock, Orange Box and Two Worlds for $400.

So that's $180 of games for $50. Two of the games were must buy, and Two Worlds I plan on trying to exchange at Wal-mart for Halo 3. So it was cheaper to get the Premium than the Arcade/Core when you factor those games in.

And I wanted the hard drive for Demos. I don't care about BC on the 360 as the X-box had a shit game library for my tastes and I played and sold all I wanted on it already.[/quote]Tsk tsk tsk.
 
[quote name='Richard Longfellow']I'm curious as to what exactly is deleted from the 40 GB PS3 that eliminates PS2 compatibility. It must be a piece of hardware, as it wouldn't save money to just eliminate a software flash. It has to be a chip of some sort in the 80 GB PS3 that controls the PS2 software emulation. And if it is just a single chip or two (we all know the 60GB was the last to have the miniaturized EE), then how much could they really have saved eliminating it? Hopefully someone with more money than sense will dissect one.[/QUOTE]

60GB and 20GB has Emotion Engine and graphics synthesizer built on to one chip I believe. With the 80GB they got rid of the emotion engine and now has graphics synthesizer as a stand alone chip. 40GB got rid of everything but still has PS1 backwards compatibility which is all software.

80GB has been getting better through fireware updates. They are apparently using software to emulate the emotion engine. I'm of the opinion that for them to go through this trouble to use software to make up the emotion engine and make these updates that either the graphics sysnthesizer version will be around for awhile or this is a gradual process leading to all software emulation of PS2 games.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I would tend to agree to a certain extent. However, I am beginning to see that blu ray's massive storage could end up giving them a distinct edge in video game quality in the coming years. That's the reason I mentioned that they've got the tech-specs for the long haul.



Well at least we're in complete agreement somewhere...[/QUOTE]

no offense but How can anyone assume that the Playstation will have a long term future at this point. The life cycle of technology is very small and whos to say that the PS3 will be around in a few years. You have to think short to limited long term (1 year) with these systems.
 
[quote name='lowgear26']no offense but How can anyone assume that the Playstation will have a long term future at this point. The life cycle of technology is very small and whos to say that the PS3 will be around in a few years. You have to think short to limited long term (1 year) with these systems.[/QUOTE]

Systems usually get 4-6 years.
 
Now before I go out and splurge on a 60GB PS3, there's something I need to know:

The PS3 controllers with rumble should work on the 60 GB systems, right? I don't see any reason why it wouldn't but just checking...
 
[quote name='y2kenjination']Now before I go out and splurge on a 60GB PS3, there's something I need to know:

The PS3 controllers with rumble should work on the 60 GB systems, right? I don't see any reason why it wouldn't but just checking...[/quote]

Yes the controllers with rumble will be compatible with any PS3 version.
 
[quote name='zerolens'] I'm of the opinion that for them to go through this trouble to use software to make up the emotion engine and make these updates that either the graphics sysnthesizer version will be around for awhile or this is a gradual process leading to all software emulation of PS2 games.[/quote]

Well let's not forget, that when the PS3 was *first* announced, Sony stated that it was their intention from the beginning to use software emulation. They only later went with a hardware solution, IMO, because the software solution was not going to be ready in time for a Holiday 2006 launch.

I think the *one* thing that we can all agree on is something ChepyD mentioned in on of the recent GAGcasts: Sony clearly did not *want* to launch Holiday 2006. Every decision so far seems to point to Holiday 2007 being the proper launch time. Of course, as someone said, BluRay as a format *was* a consideration (though I'd argue not the *primary* consideration) so they rushed a bit.

But I think the point remains that no one here is *really* buying a PS3 to play PS2 games. Again, I fully admit that it is a nice feature to have, but the real problem with the PS3 is not PS2 games. If it was, all the fully BC console would have *been* gone from the shelves. No, the PS3's problem is two-fold: price and PS3 software. Getting a PS3 down to $400 is a good start, whether it has BC or not. Now they need to work on the PS3 software side of things, as new-gen software is why Microsoft is handing them their azz!

As for the point about being "screwed" several years down the line if your EE/synthesizer PS3 dies, I'm a bit shocked that this is such a concern. If older hardware wears out, you basically just deal with it. I bought a stero many years ago that gave me the promise of playing both cassettes and vinyl. The turntable broke recently. Does that company owe me a new system that can play both tapes an vinyl even though that company doesnt make consumer turntables anymore? No, that would be silly.

If for some reason your PS3 craps out several years from now. You'd simply search around for a replacement. No different than if I needed a new Sega Genesis cord or an NES 72pin connector. 20+ plus years later these parts are still available. Why do you think it would be such a burden in the future for PS3/PS2 compatibility?

And people who say they wish they could get a full BC system for $400, you still *can*. The 20GB is still being sold @ Gamestop. You can buy systems from ebay. There are other deals around that bring down the effective price. We are all CAGs here so I *know* you are smart enough to find the deals.

But, IMO, I dont think price is a big a deal to most ppl posting here as they would have you to believe. The biggest issue is software, specifically PS3 software. I know that's the deal breaker for me. I think the pricing on the systems is okay, but there just isnt anything out on the system that I feel I *need* to play today. My 360 keeps me full up with games to play so why would I buy a second system to play the same games?

So get on it Sony. Get that PS3 library up to snuff!
(sorry for the disseretation length post)
 
Hey, did anyone see this snippet from Jack Tretton, from a Wall Street Journal interview, summarized by Gamespot:

"Tretton told the paper that taking support for PS2 games out of the new system isn't dramatically cutting manufacturing costs. However, by omitting the option of playing PS2 games, Sony hopes that new customers will instead spend their money on more PS3 games. He added that Sony's own research suggests that customers won't miss the feature because they probably already own a PS2."

I'm speechless. While I do at least respect him for telling the truth about it, this sort of thing still pisses me off. Sony has been so fucking schizophrenic and boneheaded this console cycle it blows my mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top