 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
| reply to HarryH3
Re: [ps3] Which version of PS3 would you buy? Why? I guess I fail to see the benefit for paying extra money for a backwards compatible PS3 when I can get a PS3 and a PS2 slim used for $100 cheaper or more. Its just a waste to me. If I had a PS3 with backwards compatibility, I would sell it for big money and buy a PS2 and PS3 and pocket the difference.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
| The PS2 slim is just $99.99 new these days.  |
|
 Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
2 edits | reply to HarryH3
go buy a xbox at lest they give a better warranty
4 year warranty(5 years with a credit card that offers a 1 year extended) is great much better then the 1 year you get with careless sony |
|
|
|
 C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL
1 edit | reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:I guess I fail to see the benefit for paying extra money for a backwards compatible PS3 when I can get a PS3 and a PS2 slim used for $100 cheaper or more. Its just a waste to me. If I had a PS3 with backwards compatibility, I would sell it for big money and buy a PS2 and PS3 and pocket the difference. Call it crazy if you want, but some of us appreciate the collection value of the software we buy for our consoles over the years.
And as generations pass on in consoles, there is new hardware. But compared to the leaps in hardware, the number of connectivity options for any given TV on the market (even the most high-end ones) is still limited. And thus, as new consoles come up, it's not so much a question of whether we still want to play a console anymore (even an old one), but how much of a hassle it then becomes to keep it hooked up to a TV to continue playing it. This was especially difficult before backward compatibility became a selling point. But at least back then, the lack of BC was fairly explainable - different voltages, pinouts for cartridges and the like meant an NES cartridge couldn't work in an SNES, and so on. And so, a viable market for system selectors and switches came to be. But even as those filled up, then came the problem of the ever-increasing rat's nest of cables surrounding the TV, the increased difficulty in having everything plugged in correctly, or even selecting the right input from nesting switches.
Then Sony came along with the PS2, with the big bold claim and feature of how it could play your existing PlayStation library, and let you use all your same memory cards, controllers, and (most) other peripherals (some exceptions applied, like the most obvious GameShark and to a lesser extent, the Namco Guncon for Time Crisis, etc.). This was monumental in the industry. Now, even new players to the PlayStation brand were able to pick up last-gen classics and play them fine on the shiny new console, as well as enjoy those next-gen games they kept hearing about. And as the competitors acknowledged and implemented this support, it finally seemed we were able to enter an era where we could finally clear out the rat's nest behind our TV's... where just a few consoles could allow us to play 90~100% of our libraries, and maybe even have an input or two free for if we decide to dig out an ancient console out for the retro fun "as it was originally made to be." Things were looking up.
Given the immense success of the PlayStation2 as a result of this, it was expected in the market that Sony would continue this with the ps3. And at first they did. Granted, initial firmware for the ps3 made ps2 (and to a lesser extent, ps1) BC spotty, with sometimes very bad up/rescaling of games. I knew this would be fixed eventually, and that it could be fixed completely, because at least they had the actual hardware in the (first) ps3's like the first PS2's did.
I (like many in my circle of friends) were simply waiting for the price of the 60 gig hardware to drop to a more reasonable price. We knew there was a lot to like, but nobody I knew could justify getting into a ps3 proper (read: required cabling, one or two games, maybe an extra controller) when the console itself started at $600 with no pack-ins at all, while the 360 (Elite) were at least packed in with all the necessary cabling, the largest hard drive available, and (in holiday bundles) at least one pack-in game.
But of course, Sony chose to start neutering the thing (my opinion, anyway). Yes, it made it cheaper for Sony to make, but that reduced cost didn't directly translate to a lower price for us in all the new sku's they did. Not to mention it now meant that you then had to upkeep two separate consoles, occupying two power plugs, needing two sets of cables, controllers, etc. when mechanically, there wasn't any need to do all of that. And some (like me) felt that basically Sony was trying to sell us half a console at full price, and double-dip by making us buy new pstwo's to support the flood of games the new one won't be able to play. So in a way, it was like Sony was trying to forces to go back to having to daisy-chain and increase the nest of cables on our consoles unnecessarily.
It's sad too, because at least I've noticed that even when using the same component video cables between the ps2 and ps3, most every game I've tried so far on the ps3 looked better than if I'd played the exact same game on the ps2. It seems that with the newer firmware updates, the AA and upscaling issues that previously haunted launch buyers has finally been addressed. But now, anyone trying to get the optimal PlayStation experience can't just buy a new BC ps3 model anymore. And it's directly Sony's fault.
--
Front Line Force Fortress Forever |
|
 ArmainaNot every saint is a foolPremium
join:2002-11-06
Tempe, AZ
1 edit | reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:I guess I fail to see the benefit for paying extra money for a backwards compatible PS3 when I can get a PS3 and a PS2 slim used for $100 cheaper or more. To put it simply I look at it this way, having a new system that is completely backwards compatible means you have new hardware to play old games. So, in the event your current PS2 were to ever die you wouldn't have to look for a replacement PS2, instead you can just use the PS3. It makes more sense to me, personally. |
|
| reply to Anonymous_
said by Anonymous_:go buy a xbox at lest they give a better warranty 4 year warranty(5 years with a credit card that offers a 1 year extended) is great much better then the 1 year you get with careless sony The only reason the Xbox 360 has such a long warranty is because they have also had one of the worst failure rates in the history of console gaming. At one time the 360 had a failure rate as high 33% (that's one of out of three consoles sold that needed to be replaced or repaired). Sony has less than 1%, which is the reason they offer only the industry standard in warranties. Sure the 360 is a lot better now, but the damage is done. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| reply to Armaina
said by Armaina:said by Nightfall:I guess I fail to see the benefit for paying extra money for a backwards compatible PS3 when I can get a PS3 and a PS2 slim used for $100 cheaper or more. To put it simply I look at it this way, having a new system that is completely backwards compatible means you have new hardware to play old games. So, in the event your current PS2 were to ever die you wouldn't have to look for a replacement PS2, instead you can just use the PS3. It makes more sense to me, personally. Ah but if your PS3 with backwards compatibility dies, then you are forced to spend hundreds more because they are not selling them anymore. If the price difference were like $50, then having an all in one unit would make sense. The price difference here is $200-$300 more.
To each their own I guess, but if someone gave me the option of a brand new PS3 and a brand new PS2 slim for $400 or a PS3 that can play PS2 games with BC for $700, I wouldn't pay the $300 premium.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
| The thing is you can get a BC PS3 for something around $300or less if you know where to look. Now that the PS3 has lowered their price and the demand for BC has lowered (likely because everybody who wanted it already bought their Playstation 3's) the secondary market is starting to equalize. It's not like it was a couple years ago. |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| said by SRFireside:The thing is you can get a BC PS3 for something around $300or less if you know where to look. Now that the PS3 has lowered their price and the demand for BC has lowered (likely because everybody who wanted it already bought their Playstation 3's) the secondary market is starting to equalize. It's not like it was a couple years ago. In that case then you should look at getting one if you want one. I didn't think the price dipped that low on them. Looks like my friend who sold his used for $500 did it at the right time.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
ArmainaNot every saint is a foolPremium
join:2002-11-06
Tempe, AZ | reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall:Ah but if your PS3 with backwards compatibility dies, then you are forced to spend hundreds more because they are not selling them anymore. If the price difference were like $50, then having an all in one unit would make sense. The price difference here is $200-$300 more. Eh? I really don't see how the backwards compatible part could die on it's own. I'd think you'd have to worry about the whole system at that point. (and honestly, I would think it would take more than a few years for that to occur, if not I'd seriously rethink getting a PS3 altogether if it can't even last a couple years) |
|
NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI Reviews:
·Site5.com
·Comcast
·Callcentric
| said by Armaina:said by Nightfall:Ah but if your PS3 with backwards compatibility dies, then you are forced to spend hundreds more because they are not selling them anymore. If the price difference were like $50, then having an all in one unit would make sense. The price difference here is $200-$300 more. Eh? I really don't see how the backwards compatible part could die on it's own. I'd think you'd have to worry about the whole system at that point. (and honestly, I would think it would take more than a few years for that to occur, if not I'd seriously rethink getting a PS3 altogether if it can't even last a couple years) I meant the PS3 itself.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to hayabusa3303
So it seems to me that if you have the PS3 Media Server, then the need for a monster hard drive in the PS3 itself is greatly reduced. Is a huge drive really required if you have infinite storage available via the network? 120GB would have room for a lot of games, saves, etc. Is there a good reason to go with the 160GB or 250GB systems with the Media Server available? |
|
| A big hard drive in the PS3 would still be a good idea even if you have the PS3 media server, if for nothing more than gaming data. Game demos alone can start to add up if you are the type who likes to keep them around. Then there are the full game downloads that will definitely need space. Then there are the disk games that put a fair amount of data on the HD for faster performance. So yeah the bigger the better still applies on the PS3 even if you plan on accessing all your other media via network. |
|
C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL
1 edit | reply to HarryH3
Just recently had to start "trimming" some demos that were installed on my PS3. At least a couple of the newer ones were about 2GB already, and that's not including any possibly wasted space due to the install caches, and save data created by them.
Many retail games now have mandatory installs for the ps3 versions; Bioshock itself is about a 5GB install. Others have optional installs like Street Fighter 4. I think the last game for the ps3 that I'd played that didn't require any installations was Midnight Club: LA.
This also doesn't account for Home (3GB) or the space occupied for Life w/ PlayStation (a.k.a. the new F@H app) and whatever temp space it uses for saving and processing work units.
--
Front Line Force Fortress Forever |
|
 Frydays
join:2005-10-21
South Padre Island, TX | reply to HarryH3
i would buy the newest ps3 at the cheapest price say $98 bux and only if it comes with a extended warranty i heard they dont last long |
|
compPremium
join:2001-08-16
Cranberry Twp, PA | not sure where you got that fron. they have some of the lowest failure rates |
|
| reply to Frydays
Read my post above. And keep in mind the PS3 is a good deal more than just a gaming console, which accounts for the price. Also I am wondering. Did you say the same thing about the Xbox 360's price point? |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to HarryH3
Just to follow up... I went out to Walmart at oh-dark-thirty on Black Friday and picked up a 120GB bundle with Batman Arkham Asylum, Infamous and the Dark Knight BluRay disc. I didn't find any deals on the 250GB model and I figure that by the time we need a drive upgrade that even bigger drives will be dirt cheap. I'll also be installing PS3 Media Server on the server that runs our household DVR system so the PS3 will have access to all of the video stored there.
Walmart also price matched the Radio Shack price of $29.99 for an extra Dual Shock 3 controller. 
As for PS2 compatibility, we stopped in at the local Game Stop and found that they had used Fat PS2's on sale for $39.99 and slims for $49.99. We picked up a Fat one and my son has been having a blast playing his old PS2 games that had gone unused since our slim PS2 died.
Thanks to all for the excellent info in this thread! |
|
