Support NeoGAF

[MasterKillla]

I would take it but I'd have to say is there really a reason why I need to spend $200 more than the what's on the market. Considering that the 4 exclusives of which I'm only interested in Warhawk & Heavenly Sword...I'm thinking I'll wait for the quickie price drop when sales start to get sluggish after launch.

 

[Yoshi]

They should remove everything that's not important for gaming and leave BC in.... it' a console, I want to play games with a console.

 

[gutter_trash]

rather get rid of Blue Ray then backward compatability

 

[karasu]

I don't want them to get rid of squat. I adore the technology that's in this thing. I just want them to release games that show people why it's worth the price.New shit, not only a bunch of sequels.

 

[dark10x]

They need remove blue-ray. No one needs it.

I want it.

I want HD movies.

 

[ichigo kurosaki]

Dropping B/C wouldn't decrease PS3's cost. It's all done by software, not hardware, so... the answer's "no."

 

[littlewig]

I want it.

I want HD movies.

Buy an BR player then.

 

[SapientWolf]

The PS3 will not offer 100% backwards compatibility with PS2 and PS1 games. This shouldn't be news to anyone. It is also possible that the games that are compatible won't have the exact same performance (as was the case with the XBox 360).

Since the backwards compatibility is being accomplished with software it won't have an effect on the price of the hardware.

edit: ichigo beat me to it

 

[truffleshuffle83]

no because i plan on selling my ps2 to help offset the cost......100 bucks is a 100 bucks




BTW SIX-HUNDRED-DOLLARS

 

[NWO]

serious response: of course, in the magical fairyland where removing BC from PS3 actually reduces the cost to make one by $100. But it doesn't make a price difference anywhere NEAR what you say, so it's a stupid question.

How about instead they remove the worthless Blu Ray instead (worthless for gamers interest). That would probably eliminate the whole cost issue. I don't get why gamers AGAIN have to suffer and take a hit on gaming shit to make up for Sony's decision and you think that would be okay. BC is a positive feature for the PS3 and its something that gamers want. If you remove that your just going to piss off gamers even further and make the decision of all the PS2 gamers to go to Nintendo or MS even easier.

 

[cheekymunky]

No way to losing B/C!!

I would rather lose rumble.....


...oh wait.....

 

[Flo_Evans]

NO x 600

 

[Nerevar]

How about instead they remove the worthless Blu Ray instead (worthless for gamers interest). That would probably eliminate the whole cost issue. I don't get why gamers AGAIN have to suffer and take a hit on gaming shit to make up for Sony's decision and you think that would be okay. BC is a positive feature for the PS3 and its something that gamers want. If you remove that your just going to piss off gamers even further and make the decision of all the PS2 gamers to go to Nintendo or MS even easier.

thanks everyone for the logical fallacy.

I obviously (from my posts in numerous other threads) think they should remove BRD to reduce cost. But that's not the question. the question is, "if removing backwards compatability reduced the price by $100, would you be in favor of removing it?" My answer to that, as someone who onwed a PS1 and a Ps2, is "hell yes,get rid of BC". No way is the feature worth $100 to me. Apparently it is to some people, which I think is crazy. That's all just IMO, though. I haven't met one person who spent more than 2% of their time playing PS1 games on PS2.

 

[Moonwalker]

Let's say no backwards compatibility for PS1 or PS2 but just select titles a la X360. Would it be an acceptable loss to get the PS3 price down by $100?

removing bc would do virtually nothing to the cost of the PS3 because doesn't use any previous gen hardware inside the ps3 for BC. Sony are following exactly what ms is doing and using software emulation to provide BC. So in the end you are faced with the exact same situation 360 is in with regard to BC.

 

[RaijinFY]

Buy an BR player then.

or a PS3...

oh wait!

EDIT: An advice, keep your PSTwo, if you want to play your PS2 games.

 

[dark10x]

Buy an BR player then.

Those are set to cost more than a PS3. Why would I do that? Especially when both HDMI ports on my TV are going to be occupied already.

I don't believe for a second that BR is the main reason why the system costs as much as it does either...

 

[cheekymunky]

thanks everyone for the logical fallacy.

I obviously (from my posts in numerous other threads) think they should remove BRD to reduce cost. But that's not the question. the question is, "if removing backwards compatability reduced the price by $100, would you be in favor of removing it?" My answer to that, as someone who onwed a PS1 and a Ps2, is "hell yes,get rid of BC". No way is the feature worth $100 to me. Apparently it is to some people, which I think is crazy. That's all just IMO, though. I haven't met one person who spent more than 2% of their time playing PS1 games on PS2.

B/C is a pretty big deal to me. I have more than ten PS2 games that I havent beaten yet and would like to continue playing those games on PS3. I also think that the PS2 games could really benefit from the graphical tweaks due to the power of the PS3. I dont think it is fair just to ask if B/C is worth a 100 price drop because everyone has their own opinions about what they would remove to make the damn machine cheaper.

 

[MetalAlien]

I am buying a ps3 this winter for it's enhanced BC. (and blu ray). I haven't even really looked into what games are coming at lanuch..

 

[Speevy]

How about a $299 PS3 that doesn't play games at all?

(I'll bet you there's at least one person on this forum that doesn't think that's a crazy idea)

 

[Beowolf]

stop bitching about price and get a fuckin job. No, your mommy won't buy you a PS3 because you are now 38 years old. 600 is not a bad price for what you get. I am sick of these goddamn pissing and moaning about the price of the PS3.

Get the fuck over it already, Either buy it or don't. But posting these "Sony needs to, or Sony should" messages is fuckin annoying.

STFU

 

[Speevy]

stop bitching about price and get a fuckin job. No, your mommy won't buy you a PS3 because you are now 38 years old. 600 is not a bad price for what you get. I am sick of these goddamn pissing and moaning about the price of the PS3.

Get the fuck over it already, Either buy it or don't. But posting these "Sony needs to, or Sony should" messages is fuckin annoying.

STFU

38 years old? :lol

 

[RaijinFY]

Those are set to cost more than a PS3. Why would I do that? Especially when both HDMI ports on my TV are going to be occupied already.

I don't believe for a second that BR is the main reason why the system costs as much as it does either...

If the system costs so much this is because of the addition of expensive components. Not only Blu-Ray.

CELL + RSX + Blu-Ray + 2.5"HDD (20GB or 60GB) + the desire to not take a too big hit = PS3 expensive.

 

[Y2Kev]

How about a $299 PS3 that doesn't play games at all?

(I'll bet you there's at least one person on this forum that doesn't think that's a crazy idea)

OMG speevy you are being so silly

Spoiler

Does it come with Genji 2?

 

[jetjevons]

stop bitching about price and get a fuckin job. No, your mommy won't buy you a PS3 because you are now 38 years old. 600 is not a bad price for what you get. I am sick of these goddamn pissing and moaning about the price of the PS3.

Get the fuck over it already, Either buy it or don't. But posting these "Sony needs to, or Sony should" messages is fuckin annoying.

STFU

It's not $600. Assuming (like me) you're buying a PS3 to play games it's $600 + tax and $59.99 + tax for the (non-gimped) system and one game.

I don't have a calculator handy but I'm pretty sure that's more than $700.

 

[MetalAlien]

I wish I could post in threads before they're made.

My favorite is when randomly the forum won't let me load a whole page from a thread... post a replay on page 2, and then later I can read the whole thread, but that page...LOL

 

[Mr_Furious]

Really dumb question to ask. It would only be a temporary solution to the price fiasco.

"There's no such thing as a dumb question, just dumb people."

The PS3 will not offer 100% backwards compatibility with PS2 and PS1 games. This shouldn't be news to anyone. It is also possible that the games that are compatible won't have the exact same performance (as was the case with the XBox 360).

Since the backwards compatibility is being accomplished with software it won't have an effect on the price of the hardware.

Where in that link does it say the PS3 won't be 100% BC with PS2/1?

 

[MassiveAttack]

Where in that link does it say the PS3 won't be 100% BC with PS2/1?

It's actually 99.89% backwards compatible but the .11% is more than enough to continue bashing Sony for the rest of the year.

 

[cheekymunky]

It's actually 99.89% backwards compatible but the .11% is more than enough to continue bashing Sony for the rest of the year.

Seems like there doesnt even have to be a reason to bash Sony. After launch I am sure someone will find the most fucking ridiculous game that has one glitch and Sony haters will have a 10 page thread about how Ken and Kaz are child eating, dog beating liars.......LIARS I tell you!!!!! lol.

 

[MassiveAttack]

Seems like there doesnt even have to be a reason to bash Sony. After launch I am sure someone will find the most fucking ridiculous game that has one glitch and Sony haters will have a 10 page thread about how Ken and Kaz are child eating, dog beating liars.......LIARS I tell you!!!!! lol.

Correct you are, good sir.

 

[davepoobond]

they should just release the PS2 again, and call it the PS3.

 

[BigBoss]

they should just release the PS2 again, and call it the PS3.

Then people would critisize Sony for stealing ideas from Nintendo again.

 

[davepoobond]

Then people would critisize Sony for stealing ideas from Nintendo again.

at least we wouldn't have to hear shit like "take out bc and make it cheaper" and "take out blu-ray i don't care about it"

 

[Ponn]

This has to be the stupidest goddamn thread i've seen in the last couple weeks. And thats saying something. Look if you are ok with Xbox 360's FUBAR'd BC thats fine but don't go wishing it on other systems. Sony's track record is pretty damn awesome and i'm confident Nintendo won't screw up theres. BC has become essential to consoles now.

 

[Big Takeover]

Then people would critisize Sony for stealing ideas from Nintendo again.

Oh snap! :lol

 

[davepoobond]

BC is a very important feature, for those with a collection of past Playstation games, it keeps the worth in them so you don't have to pull out an old console from a box in the back of your closet

 

[jetjevons]

Then people would critisize Sony for stealing ideas from Nintendo again.

No, that'd be if they added tilt sensitivity to the dual-shock and THEN re-released the PS2.

 

[j^aws]

stop bitching about price and get a fuckin job. No, your mommy won't buy you a PS3 because you are now 38 years old. 600 is not a bad price for what you get. I am sick of these goddamn pissing and moaning about the price of the PS3.

Get the fuck over it already, Either buy it or don't. But posting these "Sony needs to, or Sony should" messages is fuckin annoying.

STFU

I agree. Just by doing a quick comparison,


PS3 premium: $599

60 GB HD: standard
Wifi: standard
PS1/ PS2 b/c: standard
Controler recharger: standard
Blu-ray: standard
HDMI: standard
Card slots: standard
Online gameplay: standard
Linux: standard
---------
$599



X360 premium: $399

20 GB HD: standard
Wifi: $100
Xbox b/c: meh!
Controler recharger: $20
HD=DVD: $200 ?
HDMI: n/a
Card slots: n/a
Online gameplay: $50 per annum
Linux: n/a
---------
$769 + $50 per annum after first year



Hidden costs FTW!

Probably missed some stuff but took some approx. prices from Amazon... Anyway, MS are trying to screw you just as much if not more, so a price drop is very likely at PS3's launch and I find this expensive whinging full of hypocrisy...

 

[dark10x]

Then people would critisize Sony for stealing ideas from Nintendo again.

Brilliant! :lol

 

[cheekymunky]

Then people would critisize Sony for stealing ideas from Nintendo again.

I just coughed coffee through my nose because of you!! lol

 

[Fafalada]

but but but..

1080i high-res texture filtered (maybe better framerate) Colossus, is the only reason i have for owning a PS3 right now

I wouldn't hold my hopes up if I were you.
I've said this before - it'll either be good bc without any real enhancements, or crap bc with big enhancements.

 

[mashoutposse]

Then people would critisize Sony for stealing ideas from Nintendo again.

awesome

 

[Mrbob]

How is taking out BC going to help drop the price? It is done through software emulation.

 

[Reilly]

Get jobs people, damn, $600 isn't that much money.

 

[Speevy]

Probably missed some stuff but took some approx. prices from Amazon... Anyway, MS are trying to screw you just as much if not more, so a price drop is very likely at PS3's launch and I find this expensive whinging full of hypocrisy...

You just added 200 bucks to the Xbox 360 for something most gamers won't want or need (HD-DVD). You also added Linux as something that should be more valuable in a GAMING CONSOLE. If the PS3 doubles as a functioning satellite dish, do you get to add several hundred more dollars to its value?

MS isn't trying to screw people as much as accessories and peripherals are expensive. I remember buying my PStwo then forgetting to get the $20 memory card because I was so used to hard drives.

 

[Luscious LeftFoot]

Then people would critisize Sony for stealing ideas from Nintendo again.

:lol

Nicely done.

 

[Zaphod]

NO!!!

That is all.

 

[koam]

Let's say no backwards compatibility for PS1 or PS2 but just select titles a la X360. Would it be an acceptable loss to get the PS3 price down by $100?

How about they remove features that don't affect GAMING from their console to reduce cost?

I would be ALL for a $299 PS3 where the games were on DVDs (multiple if needed) and didn't include useless shit like the betamax drive.

 

[Speevy]

How about they remove features that don't affect GAMING from their console to reduce cost?

*insert picture of hammer and nail*


Especially with the MASSIVE selection of $20 PS2 games, why would anyone choose to forego that? PS2 games may have aliasing, but the best ones are clean and not the pixellated mess you had on PS1.

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

They need remove blue-ray. No one needs it.

NO.

I don't want developers to spend a substantial chunk of the console's processing power just to decompress textures.

I don't want developers to limit the scope and potential of their game just to fit it on one disc. I want massive, highly detailed environments to explore. (Goodbye GTA ;_; )

I want multiple language tracks and tons of extras in my games

I want a cheap blu-ray player.

 

[j^aws]

You just added 200 bucks to the Xbox 360 for something most gamers won't want or need (HD-DVD).

Perhaps developers do and we shall see... anyway, take that $200 off and they are comparably priced and you get a FREE Blu-ray player! And what's so expensive about something FREE? Read what I was replying to above...

You also added Linux as something that should be more valuable in a GAMING CONSOLE. If the PS3 doubles as a functioning satellite dish, do you get to add several hundred more dollars to its value?

And Linux is still FREE. Linux games, apps, emulators, homebrew stuff that are Linux based will be availble for download...

MS isn't trying to screw people as much as accessories and peripherals are expensive. I remember buying my PStwo then forgetting to get the $20 memory card because I was so used to hard drives.

This is the hypocrisy. They both have different business models but MS is still screwing you with hidden costs and accessories, whilst PS3 premium has everything standard with a high initial cost instead...