PS3 not so expensive for what you get?

[Razor]

 

Originally posted on Wikipedia
Sony has stated that the PlayStation 3 will have backward compatibility with the PlayStation and PlayStation 2, and that every PS1 and PS2 game that observes its respective system's TRC (Technical Requirements Checklist) will be playable on PS3 at launch.[1]

At the 2006 PlayStation Business Briefing, SCE president Ken Kutaragi asked developers to adhere to the TRC to facilitate compatibility with future PlayStations, stating that the company was having some difficulty getting backward compatibility with games that had not followed the TRCs. "Either it's accidental or on purpose; there's actually a lot of games that don't follow the TRC."[16].

Contrary to previous reports that PlayStation 2 emulation would be accomplished through software,[citation needed] the July issue of Japanese magazine Ultra One reports that the current design of PlayStation 3 includes the core PS2 chipset.[17]

The PlayStation 3 does not include interfaces for legacy PlayStation devices such as the DualShock controller. It is not known at this time whether USB devices for PlayStation 2 will be compatible with PlayStation 3[1]

See, I do hope they get that fixed. Otherwise I might not get to play those 4 PS2 games I own! :p

Nah but seriously, I wouldn't mind being able to play EVERYTHING.

[Raen Ryong]

The Ps3 IS backwards-compatible, and I highly agree that you're getting a lot of value for money. I mean, think about how massive the games could be with the increased disc size -- we're talking games which could have about 300-400 hours of gameplay, main plotline alone. With sidequests... I'm expecting the Final Fantasies of Ps3 to be suitably epic, and long. And I cannot wait

But yeah, I would definitely wait until the price drops. The Ps2, when it came out, was hideously expensive (comparatively speaking to other consoles), but did not come with any games which justified its price. Shortly thereafter, the price fell, and good games came out for it... I'm gonna stick with my Ps2 and upgrade to Ps3 only when the price falls.

Ps3 will rock

[ZeroKirbyX]

[Kijuki_Magazaki]

Originally posted by ZeroKirbyX

 

[aboutasoandthis]

I'll eventually get a ps3.

How much will the games themselves cost?

FF Fanboy rumor that there will be 2 simultaneous FF13s that will come out close to each other. I don't wanna blow my pockets (Cause I also want Assassin's Creed, the new MGS, and a FPS too.)

[DarkFlood2]

Originally posted by DragonBlaze
at the most it could be 2.8 gbs. The average ps2 game on the other hand is 6 gbs. Some, such as Star Ocean, needed two dvds. Then, if you look back at snes games, they were maybe 1 or 2 megabytes. With every passing system, games require far more space for the enhanced graphics and whatnot. The PS3 is just following that trend.

You are forgetting that on those types of games, there were FMV sequences which eat up a HUGE amount of space(more than a .avi file to say the least). Not to mention that, given the very large size of the bluray disks, there isn't a necessity to upgrade. At most, I belive that the PS3 games would take up a max of 14GB, which can be better used with an HD DVD or Dual-Layer DVD. The large size of the games does not require such advanced (and barely invented) technologies.

Aside from the game issue, The PS3's cell processor is also barely worthwhile. For the small amount you pay for the 360's cheap tri-core processor, you can get as much power as a cell processor. This is most probably because, at it's current state, the cell processor can only get a 50% yield at best. Therefore the PS3, while it talks big, has lacking and inefficient hardware to back it up.

If Square and Namco leave Sony, it's all over.

[Kijuki_Magazaki]

^ LOL at your sign

Bug fixed.

[MrMister]

For what they are spending per unit, Sony is completely undercharging. Blu-ray was a stupid choice, though. It'll be obsolete in 5 years like laserdiscs. Sony is gonna lose so much money with the PS3, more than they lost with the PS2. By the way, anyone remember how much NESes cost when they first came out? $300 dollars. That was awesome. Heheh. $675 USD for the premium PS3 seems fine to me. It's more than a million times better than an NES(you bitchy "'retro' bitches who sing the Mario theme and think you're so great" bitches might get angry at me for saying this, but NES SUCKS if you're not 6), and that's not an exageration. That said, Sony could have spent less on the PS3s without sacrificing quality, and charge the same price and actually MAKE money.

"PS3 is so superior, it's inferior"
I disagree with this, just because it has great hardware doesn't take away from the games :/ It doesn't cost mad stacks of cheddar to design games.

[Kijuki_Magazaki]

IN other words, NES sucks.
PS3 is stupid.

Your pick really.

[Osmose]

The PS3 price tag is just way too much for me. Even with all it's fancy stuff - do I really need a Blue-Ray player? What's so special about Blue-Ray movies? High Definition? Well then I'd need a High-def television to take advantage of that.

Blue Ray Movies + High Def TV + PS3 + PS3 games = Way more than I'd be willing to pay.

Granted, you could chop off the movies and TV, but then I'm still paying way more than I should for the PS3, when they could just stick with DVDs and knock down the price.

I can definately see the benefits of a Blue-Ray burner and reader for a computer, but for a gaming console? No.

PS: Why do so many people worshop the Dreamcast? I mean, it had some damn good games, but if it's so friggen' awesome, why did it tank?

[Kijuki_Magazaki]

Originally posted by Osmose
PS: Why do so many people worshop the Dreamcast? I mean, it had some damn good games, but if it's so friggen' awesome, why did it tank?

Good things don't last long, or so some dude from the 17th cetury said. Of course you are gonna rgue that this now the 21st century, and I am gonna tell you I heard all before and that is not the case.

[MrMister]

Originally posted by Osmose
PS: Why do so many people worshop the Dreamcast? I mean, it had some damn good games, but if it's so friggen' awesome, why did it tank?

Lack of support from Sega Japan in terms of localization
Rumors of them breaking discouraged people from buying

[Kijuki_Magazaki]

So it was the japanese fault again?
Damn, lol.

The US needs to make their own systems *with their own* exclusive games.

[DragonBlaze]

Originally posted by DarkFlood2

quote:

Originally posted by DragonBlaze at the most it could be 2.8 gbs. The average ps2 game on the other hand is 6 gbs. Some, such as Star Ocean, needed two dvds. Then, if you look back at snes games, they were maybe 1 or 2 megabytes. With every passing system, games require far more space for the enhanced graphics and whatnot. The PS3 is just following that trend.

You are forgetting that on those types of games, there were FMV sequences which eat up a HUGE amount of space(more than a .avi file to say the least). Not to mention that, given the very large size of the bluray disks, there isn't a necessity to upgrade. At most, I belive that the PS3 games would take up a max of 14GB, which can be better used with an HD DVD or Dual-Layer DVD. The large size of the games does not require such advanced (and barely invented) technologies.

Aside from the game issue, The PS3's cell processor is also barely worthwhile. For the small amount you pay for the 360's cheap tri-core processor, you can get as much power as a cell processor. This is most probably because, at it's current state, the cell processor can only get a 50% yield at best. Therefore the PS3, while it talks big, has lacking and inefficient hardware to back it up.

If Square and Namco leave Sony, it's all over.

Those FMVs were at a resolution of 640 x 480 or whatever they are. High Definition FMV's will be a TON larger. Some PS1 games had as much FMVs as PS2 games, but the PS2 games were much larger than the ps1 games. Its not only the FMVs that take up space. With better hardware, games will use textures with higher resolutions, models with more polygons.

I've seen new xbox 360 games at 59.99, $10 more than new xbox games were. I doubt the ps3 will sell games for more than that. Right now, Blue Ray movies cost $10 more than normal ones. I don't think the price will be more because of the blue ray disks. If prices rise, it'll be because games cost more to make now since they require larger teams and more advanced technology, plus more time.


Yes, eventually blue ray technology will be obsolete. Just like beta tapes and VHSs are now. DVDs will soon be obsolete as well since they don't have the space to hold HD movies. So yeah, blue ray technology will be obsolete in the future, but dvd technology will be obsolete before blue ray technology is.

[Blazingheart]

I completely give my 2 cents for dragonblaze