dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
17
share rss forum feed


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
reply to C0deZer0

Re: Yet another revision of the PS3 surfaces

A) if you don't like it don't buy it. Simple.

B) So what if it's "late" in the PS3 lifecycle? Do you think PS3 will stop selling after the PS4 comes out which is at least 14 months from now? The PS2 sold millions of units for years after the PS3 came out. The PS3 will be sold for another 3 or 4 years. The PS3 slim came out 3 years ago 3 years after the original PS3 came out.

C) More USB ports? you can buy a 4 port USB hub for like $5.

D) backwards compatibility? Why would they do that? Ok it's "late" in the PS3 lifecycle but you want to play PS2 games? Kind of oxymoronic. Anyways they sell PS2 games at the Playstation store. The goal of the remodel is to make it cheaper and less power hungry. Adding BC does the opposite. Really for how many people is this an issue? Hell they don't even make PS2 games anymore.

The only real complaint is the lack of wireless N. As I said no one is forcing you to buy one. That doesn't mean others don't have the right to.


C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ

1 recommendation

You just... don't get it, do you?


danawhitaker
Space...The Final Frontier
Premium
join:2002-03-02
Urbandale, IA
reply to 88615298
"The goal of the remodel is to make it cheaper and less power hungry."

If they're looking to make it cheaper, why is it actually going to be higher priced than the lowest model currently on the market? Yes, they're bundling it with games, but still. That's the biggest flaw I see with this. If it were in that speculated $150 price point range, I'd almost be sold.

And actually, one of the things I've hated about the way Sony operates is they KEEP making games for their previous generation systems longer than other companies seem to. It seems to be a way to just milk a little more money. Nintendo's getting guilty of this lately too - making 3DS and DS versions of stuff instead of just one or the other. I'd prefer to see them focus development on the next generation rather than try to support multiple ones at once. It seems somewhat counter-intuitive. Maybe more people would have upgraded to the PS3 initially if the cost hadn't been $500-600 for just the console itself and they wouldn't have needed to keep supporting the PS2 to pander to people who couldn't justify upgrading. I always thought it was a bit crazy when I'd go into the store even a few years ago and would see brand new PS2s for sale. It's not like you could still find Gamecubes and original Xboxes on the shelves.

I'd love to see better backwards compatibility, but I have no expectation it will happen. I still have PS1 and PS2 games that I'd enjoy playing, and it would be nice from a space-saving perspective to not need to set up other consoles to handle them when I want to play them, especially since the controller design has remained pretty much unchanged and the games all play the same. At the same time, I suspect I'm not in the majority on this.

I was hoping to see the price point come down on this, that's where my main disappointment lies.
--
You're watching Sports Night on CSC so stick around...


C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ
I'm okay with them making games for the prior generation. What I'm not okay with them is removing the BC.

At least the older games on my hardware BC ps3 (since 2.40) looked cleaner and better on the PS3 than it did on their original systems... even when using the same cables as I would on my PS2. So there was that as a motivator to upgrade.

But yea, it's one of my big gripes with Sony and how they handle things... it is depressing that you're better off buying their launch unit because almost always the revised ones end up being a whole lot worse; this creates the paradox of whether you bite it and deal with the buggy and problematic launch units, or wait it out and suffer through a neutered new one?

Sad as it is to say, of the three console makers now, Microsoft did it the most 'right', in that at least none of the functionality was removed by making a revised model.
--
Because, f*ck Sony


captokita
Premium
join:2005-02-22
Calabash, NC

1 recommendation

reply to 88615298
said by 88615298:

A) if you don't like it don't buy it. Simple.

Says the one crapping on the Wii-u thread. That's truly funny.


captokita
Premium
join:2005-02-22
Calabash, NC
reply to danawhitaker
said by danawhitaker:

And actually, one of the things I've hated about the way Sony operates is they KEEP making games for their previous generation systems longer than other companies seem to. It seems to be a way to just milk a little more money.

Milk a little more money? You make it sound underhanded. Not everyone can afford to shell out the high $$$ for brand new systems, and there is an existing base still wanting life out of that $200-$300 system they just bought a year ago. What about them? Tell them they're SOL because a NEW thing is out? That's not smart business. There are far more established prior gen owners than new after ANY launch, and those numbers probably don't change for at LEAST a year after a new system's launch, if not longer, which is why the games still come out for the prior gen in that timeframe.

Japan is still cranking out PSP titles, rather than PSV titles, why? Because people WANT PSP TITLES, and the system is still very popular there. Should Sony just piss off that whole base because it wants Vita to sell better? Better to sell PSP titles to happy owners vs alienating the whole bunch by just cutting them loose.


captokita
Premium
join:2005-02-22
Calabash, NC
reply to C0deZer0
said by C0deZer0:

But yea, it's one of my big gripes with Sony and how they handle things... it is depressing that you're better off buying their launch unit because almost always the revised ones end up being a whole lot worse; this creates the paradox of whether you bite it and deal with the buggy and problematic launch units, or wait it out and suffer through a neutered new one?

Hmmmm, good question! I don't think the BC is a deal maker/breaker for me, it's a nice perk, but not all games were BC, and with my luck, the ones I'd want to play most would be on the list of "Nope, sorry, not gonna work!" My PS3 won't play PS2 games, but WILL play PSOne games..... go figure.

So for me, I'm fine waiting a year or 2, until the initial costs come down, and some of the bugs are ironed out. My PS3 and PS2 are both connected to my TV, and I very rarely touch my PS2 since getting the PS3, so having BC on it wouldn't change that much.

Will this be as big a problem on the next gen systems? Will your PS4 HAVE to play PS3 games? What about PS2/One games? How far back should a system accept older stuff? While the PS4 will have more under the hood power wise, will it do MORE than a PS3 does now for average folk? I'm interested to see.

I don't mention 360 cause I don't own one, but the same would apply to a 720 or whatever they plan to call the next unit.


C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ
Actually, according to G4, the PS4 will not be backward compatible with the PS3. Conversely, the WiiU is BC with Wii games, but not GameCube games, as those would be offered for Virtual Console later. Microsoft could not legally offer full BC on the 360 for their Xbox 1 titles, as they did the 'rookie mistake' of not securing the IP for the essential hardware of their Xbox 1 (namely, the intel CPU and nVIDIA GPU). They remedied that one quick with the 360, and the contracts ending for the Xbox 1 gave them time pressure to get the 360 out there more than the competition.

Going into it, I knew that the 360 would not have 100% BC, and at least Microsoft was pretty up front in fessing up to this leading up to the console's launch. But at least their BC efforts focused on the landmark, higher-rated titles... the kind of titles that were important to the Xbox 1 as much as possible... even if some games running similar code got a side benefit (like a few curious additions I remember popping in and out of that list). To date, the 360 has BC for about ~51% of the entire Xbox 1 library... and the only caveat needed to make it work on any Xbox 360 out there is to have A hard drive installed. Doesn't have to be any particular size... you just have to have one. Which means, even a brand new 360 S you pick up right now can still play those older games from its prior generation that have been confirmed. And if you can't find the disc or your disc(s) are ruined beyond repair, Microsoft does have the option for Games-on-Demand, where you could download it and play it without fear of that happening to your rarer titles.

The Wii didn't really need to play up the fact that it could play its GC games directly; and save for a few accessories (GB player comes to mind), the Wii has effectively supplanted any need for me to keep a GameCube, because the games play, and for those that support it, I can automatically enable 480p on them. Current Wii's coming out are missing these ports, but it is my understanding that the leads on the motherboard are still there... so if you are so inclined, you could buy the requisite ports and solder them back on the Wii and regain the functionality. Or well, it's not like there isn't an abundance of Wii systems out there that retain the ports to buy used or refurb'd.

Which then leads me back to the PS3. While Microsoft did fess up that 100% BC wasn't going to be possible on their Xbox, Sony played up the fact that their system would be BC at E3... it was practically a selling point talking about how "over 10 years of games" would be playable from ONE console. I can't remember which E3 it was (if memory serves, it was the one before the "$599 US Dollars" debacle), but it was definitely a keynote slide in their presentation. So they knew that for many, it was a deal maker/breaker situation to bring up BC. And when the system finally launched, yes, it had the hardware inside for it, but the BC wasn't perfect... and while Sony would go on to then state that "about 200 titles don't work," the problem was that these 200 or so games that initially didn't work or were glitched were HIGH PROFILE games! This wasn't stuff that was like obscure to the point you'd have only seen it in stores for like a week or something... it was best sellers that were just flat out not working. At the same time, there was hope and reason to update firmware then because the successive updates did improve playability of these BC titles (applying AA and improved scaling for HDTV's), and helped fix many games. Then in an effort to "save money", Sony would then make a limited edition model that removed one of the two chips required for PS2 BC, doing some of it in software mode. This then made for only about ~60% of PS2 games to remain working... PS1 has been done in software since the first slim PStwo; unlike the PStwo though, the improved hardware on the PS3 allowed for more accurate emulation than that hap-hazard redesigned console.

And this is where I was finally able to seriously save up for having a PS3 finally. So, I did the research... and even according to Sony's own game lists, it was a case of:
•A given game(s) in my library not working at all on the softBC unit while it worked on the full BC model, or...
•Given game(s) was/were fixed in a much earlier firmware than on the softBC unit.

So, the choice was obvious... I needed a full-BC model.

And then Sony did the most blatant neutering yet, with the first 40GB ps3, which removed...
•PS2 compatibility completely
•half the USB ports
•The flash memory slots

Thus, neutered. Then neutered again with the first Slim, only to then retroactively remove Linux support from all PS3 systems, after Sony went out of its way to say that all existing systems that had it would not lose it.

So when I finally had the money together for a PS3, I sadly could not go new... no store would carry any full BC models whatsoever. And I was not spending $1000 on eBay for one that claimed to be new, only to get a pair of cinder blocks in a PS3 box. So, off to gamestop it was, to get the first of four PS3's I'd have to go through before ending up with the system I have now.

So now, let's take a moment to think about this... if my existing unit died on me, and I had no way of getting it repaired, that means that my only options are to get:
•Another neutered PS3
•An extra USB hub or two to replace the missing USB ports
•A flash memory reader to replace the slots that did it on my current CECHA model
another PS2
•A hardware upscaler to replace the functionality that the BC PS3 did for my PS1 and PS2 games
Nevermind having to try and find memory cards, cables, and all that to manage both systems...

So while G4 is saying PS4 won't have BC for PS3, WiiU will obviously have BC for Wii directly, and as far as the next Xbox, Microsoft has no legal reason why they can't implement proper BC on it for existing 360 games. Gee, I wonder which one(s) are going to look good come the holidays?
--
Because, f*ck Sony
Expand your moderator at work


danawhitaker
Space...The Final Frontier
Premium
join:2002-03-02
Urbandale, IA
reply to captokita

Re: Yet another revision of the PS3 surfaces

said by captokita:

said by danawhitaker:

And actually, one of the things I've hated about the way Sony operates is they KEEP making games for their previous generation systems longer than other companies seem to. It seems to be a way to just milk a little more money.

Milk a little more money? You make it sound underhanded. Not everyone can afford to shell out the high $$$ for brand new systems, and there is an existing base still wanting life out of that $200-$300 system they just bought a year ago. What about them? Tell them they're SOL because a NEW thing is out? That's not smart business. There are far more established prior gen owners than new after ANY launch, and those numbers probably don't change for at LEAST a year after a new system's launch, if not longer, which is why the games still come out for the prior gen in that timeframe.

Japan is still cranking out PSP titles, rather than PSV titles, why? Because people WANT PSP TITLES, and the system is still very popular there. Should Sony just piss off that whole base because it wants Vita to sell better? Better to sell PSP titles to happy owners vs alienating the whole bunch by just cutting them loose.

I should have been more specific I guess. It doesn't bug me so much that they still release *some* games for the older platform. But it bugs me when the exact same game gets released on both systems.

Obviously there's going to be some overlap. No one's disputing that, as there will be some games that were in development prior to launch that still need to make it through that full process and into production. Nintendo just did the same thing last week with some new game - DS and a 3DS release. Band Hero got a PS2 and PS3 release simultaneously - almost THREE FULL YEARS after the PS3 launched.

Not to sound like a jerk, but if you buy a console near the end of that console's lifespan just because it's cheap, you shouldn't be expecting the same amount of new titles being released - there's already a very established library of games for the PS2, for instance, and was at the time of the PS3's launch. But you shouldn't be expecting developers to make versions for both consoles. Maybe it doesn't actually waste much time or add much to the development cost or take up too much in the way of resources. I ran into this issue when I bought my daughter a 3DS last year for Christmas. Yes, the DS was cheaper - but I knew inevitably there would be games coming out that would be 3DS only that she'd want to play. So I ponied up and sprung for the more expensive but backwards compatible version so we could have the best of both worlds. If you really can't afford the extra $100-$150 for, say, a PS4 instead of a PS3 now, should you really be buying either?
--
You're watching Sports Night on CSC so stick around...


captokita
Premium
join:2005-02-22
Calabash, NC
said by danawhitaker:

If you really can't afford the extra $100-$150 for, say, a PS4 instead of a PS3 now, should you really be buying either?

Why shouldn't I? When PS4 comes out, it won't be a $100 - $150 difference in price, more like $250 - $300 or more - and that's until Sony brings the PS3 price down when the PS4 goes out, which will broaden the gap even further. That's a big deal to a gamer on a budget.

It's not that I expect a plethora of new games to come out for it, but I also don't expect it to be cut loose and treated like it doesn't exist either.

The thing this time around, is that the jump from PS2 - PS3 was pretty big. Bluray, PSN, wireless controllers that work, wifi connectivity, and so forth. What will PS4 offer that should put an end to the PS3? Better graphics? To some yeah, that's the ONLY thing that matters, but what can they make it do that would make me want to replace my PS3 that does everything I want of it now? Could PSN in its current form support both systems? I don't think so, so what then? A break between the two?

360 owners could see more reason to move on, if MS makes the jump to Bluray, that alone would make many 360 owners nab one I'd guess.

I'm interested to see what the companies will come up with for a new console, I just think this generation pushes the limits to what a home console can do, and be a reasonable cost.

jack322

join:2012-09-19
I absolutely agree with you captokita.


Jackarino
YacCity
Premium
join:2006-12-28
Allendale, NJ
kudos:1
reply to captokita
+1


C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ
reply to captokita
said by captokita:

It's not that I expect a plethora of new games to come out for it, but I also don't expect it to be cut loose and treated like it doesn't exist either.

Sadly, that's what I've come to expect from Sony.

They went out of their way to brag about the ten year lifespan for the PS1, but trying to find any new peripherals or memory cards for PS1 stuff after the first six months of the PS2's release was next to impossible. And despite the PSP still being well within its supposed ten-year span globally, only the Japanese release schedule really shows a significant amount of new games coming to the handheld, while it's basically treated like an abortion here in the states, in favor of their absurdly overpriced, non-BC Vita.

One reason I could see 360 owners moving on to the next system quickly, is that unlike the Xbox 1 to 360 transition, Microsoft did keep the IP rights to the hardware in the 360, so there's less reason for them to not include proper BC for the 360 on the newer system, and get people who adopt early a good, revised system to play their current games, and maybe even with better graphics and/or load times to boot. At the least, unlike Sony nor Nintendo (to a lesser extent), Microsoft didn't take away functionality of their systems with successive revisions of their consoles.
--
Because, f*ck Sony


danawhitaker
Space...The Final Frontier
Premium
join:2002-03-02
Urbandale, IA
said by C0deZer0:

said by captokita:

It's not that I expect a plethora of new games to come out for it, but I also don't expect it to be cut loose and treated like it doesn't exist either.

Sadly, that's what I've come to expect from Sony.

They went out of their way to brag about the ten year lifespan for the PS1, but trying to find any new peripherals or memory cards for PS1 stuff after the first six months of the PS2's release was next to impossible. And despite the PSP still being well within its supposed ten-year span globally, only the Japanese release schedule really shows a significant amount of new games coming to the handheld, while it's basically treated like an abortion here in the states, in favor of their absurdly overpriced, non-BC Vita.

One reason I could see 360 owners moving on to the next system quickly, is that unlike the Xbox 1 to 360 transition, Microsoft did keep the IP rights to the hardware in the 360, so there's less reason for them to not include proper BC for the 360 on the newer system, and get people who adopt early a good, revised system to play their current games, and maybe even with better graphics and/or load times to boot. At the least, unlike Sony nor Nintendo (to a lesser extent), Microsoft didn't take away functionality of their systems with successive revisions of their consoles.

It seems like there's an interesting dichotomy of attitudes about this concept though. Not necessarily here, but I mean within the gaming community overall. I built my PC about four years ago. I know people with more recent PCs than mine who game as well. Many of us have had trouble with some newer games (Diablo 3, and the Mists of Pandaria expansion for WoW) in terms of sucking up GPU processing power and generally causing slowdown on the system whenever the game's running, even at very low graphics settings. Whenever I've mentioned this on forums for either of those games, I get attacked, and am told that PC games should not be designed with machines that are older than 1-2 years in mind. Their solution: Go build a new PC, or don't expect to play.

Yet console developers should be expected to support those for a lifespan of up to 10 years? Why is it the attitude of "upgrade often or fall behind" is acceptable when it comes to PC gaming, yet when it comes to console gaming a console that's 7, 8, 9+ years old should still be clinging to some semblance of life?

I do think that at the very least, memory cards and peripherals for the last generation console should still be made available for a considerable length of time, and existing games should still be sold. Gamestop (evil as they may be) does a great job of this with their used game market, supporting one generation behind what's currently on the market.
--
You're watching Sports Night on CSC so stick around...


C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ
said by danawhitaker:

I do think that at the very least, memory cards and peripherals for the last generation console should still be made available for a considerable length of time, and existing games should still be sold. Gamestop (evil as they may be) does a great job of this with their used game market, supporting one generation behind what's currently on the market.

My experience would disagree.

None of the Gamestop locations that I could get to even gave the Dreamcast 24 hours before liquidating everything they had after Sega's official announcement to drop out of the hardware market. Their hatred of PC gaming in general is notorious to the point of ridiculousness.

Honestly, it's heart-wrenching how quick they'll nukify stock of something as soon as a new gen come out, while trying to pressure everyone into preorders for stuff that want to buy whatever they actually do carry.
--
Because, f*ck Sony


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
Well that's your fault from buying from a store that sells used games as new. That includes everything.


C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ
Well, it's kind of hard to look at other options when they basically are the only line of stores that even accept used games and accessories.

Even here where I currently live, I'll find about five gamestop locations before I'll find a single pawn shop that would even deal in any video game systems, games, or accessories.

What makes it all the more depressing, was that I do know of a better store that handles this stuff much more responsibly, and with much better policies, than GameFailstop. Problem is, they're on the other side of the country.
--
Because, f*ck Sony


captokita
Premium
join:2005-02-22
Calabash, NC
reply to danawhitaker
said by danawhitaker:

I do think that at the very least, memory cards and peripherals for the last generation console should still be made available for a considerable length of time, and existing games should still be sold. Gamestop (evil as they may be) does a great job of this with their used game market, supporting one generation behind what's currently on the market.

I think there is no reason (besides more sales duh) why the storage needs to change at all between versions of the consoles. Why should I have to buy a new memory card for my new console which usually costs another $30-$40 or so? (just answered that) If it were compatible with previous memory cards, you would still sell memory cards for $30 - $40, because that card will eventually fill up, and you will want another. Sell the gamer the 32GB model vs the 4GB they had before! ooooh more space! Not some completely new version. That's where I get annoyed at it.

Back to your analogy of the PC/console bit. You're right, you build a rig, and the sucker is generally obsolete a year later, you need more RAM, a better video card, etc. to keep current. My current system cost me $600 when I got it, and since having it (4-5 years now) I've added better video cards to it. It's true, we expect more "life" out of a console, since it's sole purpose is gaming, whereas your computer does more things. But that is changing with more integration on home consoles to do multiple things. (play bluray, netflix, etc)


Metatron2008
Premium
join:2008-09-02
united state
reply to C0deZer0
ebay?


C0deZer0
Oc'D To Rhythm And Police
Premium
join:2001-10-03
Tempe, AZ

1 edit
said by Metatron2008:

ebay?

Oh yes, and spend $1000 on a "new" 60GB PS3 and then it arrives to be a ps3 box with a couple of cinder blocks inside or something. I don't think so.

**EDIT**

Funny... same day I post this, and now my PSP Go won't charge from either the USB cable it came with, nor from the official Sony cradle/dock made for the thing.

And the amount of broken to intact PSP's on eBay for that matter is pretty telling in its own right.
--
Because, f*ck Sony