abecedarian paradoxious Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Slightly off topic... but what about an entertainment center large enough, and well-enough organized to support all these consoles we're supposed to have? If I end up buying either or both a PS3 and 360, I'll have to ditch my stereo to make room for them. Either that or they sit on the floor, which isn't a good idea from what I hear. But I'm rather fond of surround sound for the movies and games I have already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Deep down inside we both have the same views on the PS3 as a whole i can see, the one thing that differs is, you seem to give Sony their time with building up their Console in front of you - Where I'd rather just laugh at them and go "Almost a year and you still haven't set off ... Congratulations". My god, would they just release the GT5 Prologue Demo on the EU store ( In English ) I'd lick it off the ground in a New York subway - I'm like a starving man who would do anything for a cracker at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 (edited) Okay, I'm just a bit baffled when you say that Xbox was somehow a failure (a completely new console that was competing heavily with PS2 even though PS2 was on the market for almost 3 years at that point), YET Xbox sold a QUARTER of overall sales of PS2. 25 million my friend for the period from 2001-2005 is PRETTY DAMN good for a new kid on the block.You say that Xbox was a failure, yet somehow you see PS3 as a success? The console has sold roughly 5-6 million consoles in more then a year? Xbox 360 has sold almost 15 million. And this difference is roughly a year since Xbox 360 came out and PS3 came out. As we already know usually buying capacity from people goes DOWN after a while, not UP. So in order for Sony to just MATCH "the failure" of Xbox in the same time period they will have to sell 5-6 million consoles every year until 2010 to reach about 25-30 million consoles. I don't think this will happen at all. They are already struggling with sales even though they would like everyone to think that sales are a KILLER and don't forget, this is all with HIGHLY discounted model. They really stuck it to us people who paid $600 for our PS3 just beginning of this year. Not meaning to argue really, I'm just confused with your views. Also don't forget that in past month or two, Xbox 360 has again outsold PS3 by margins of 3:1 and 2:1 in consoles. This trend is simply not going away. So to say that PS3 has ANY chances of catching up is kind of confusing. I mean by math it would need to sell like 5:1 non-stop in order to catch up. I just simply think this is IMPOSSIBLE at this point. 1) Playstation 2 US launch was October of 2000, giving it a 1 (one) year head start on the XBox, not three. 2) XBox 360 has barely shipped 15 million consoles. 3) Apply the same math to Blu-Ray / HD-DVD software sales, and then analyze your own arguments over the past six months. 4) While I don't necessarily describe 25 million consoles as "failure" (and I don't direct this part towards you personally), the same word seems to be used towards the PSP, which also has sold 25 million handhelds. But when compared against the monster DS and DS Lite (54 million sold worldwide all versions, according to wikipedia), that is called a failure; same as the XBox compared to the monster PS2 (around 120 million and counting), and toss in the $4 billion that Microsoft lost because of bad business deals on the hardware, and yes, you could call that a failure. 5) The games that many Sony followers have bought / will buy their systems for (MGS4, GT5, FF13, GoW3) aren't even out yet. MS has somewhat "blown their load", so to speak, with the biggest guns they have in Gears and Halo. Most of the big games coming next year are titles that would appeal to the same group, so the people who haven't bought a 360 yet are either a) waiting for this year's holidays, b) aren't old enough to buy one on their own yet, c) waiting for it to drop sub-$200. The group that haven't bought a PS3 yet are also waiting for further price cuts, but are also waiting for one of those heavy hitters to come on the market, or at least appear somewhere close on the horizon. So it is entirely possible that the PS3 may catch the 360, or at least close the gap somewhat, and not get beat by a near 5:1 overall margin. Edited December 2, 2007 by soniqstylz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted December 2, 2007 Author Subscriber² Share Posted December 2, 2007 Deep down inside we both have the same views on the PS3 as a whole i can see, the one thing that differs is, you seem to give Sony their time with building up their Console in front of you - Where I'd rather just laugh at them and go "Almost a year and you still haven't set off ... Congratulations".My god, would they just release the GT5 Prologue Demo on the EU store ( In English ) I'd lick it off the ground in a New York subway - I'm like a starving man who would do anything for a cracker at this point. That probably does go down to a bit of loyalty on my side though, I won't deny that. I've owned the PS1 since 97, and then moved onto the PS2 the year it came out, and finally on to the PS3. The PS introduced me to gaming in a different way than my master system/megadrive before. It had good graphics in relation to real life (proper 3D content), and of course, my first real RPG experience - FF7 ;) I've been over the moon with the PS1/PS2 so yeah, it probably sort of comes as natural for me to EXPECT to be over the moon with the PS3. Yeah, I do like what im hearing surrounding future PS3 plans, I know what games I want to see, ect. So while I am not over the moon just now... I do expect to be by the time it comes to move onto the NEXT generation of consoles. Ultimately I think what will my console give me in it's lifetime, not what it will in 1/10th of it's lifetime (1/10th relating to 1st year out of the supposed 10 year life cycle ;)) A console purchase for me is a long term investment (Y), and if that investment pays off in the first 3 months, or the first 3 years, it's ultimately a good invesment either way. ps. I snatched GT5 Prologue Demo from the Japanese store ;) :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 I had a PS1 since launch, played it every day! Exactly the same story with the PS2. I was laughing at the Original Xbox and the Controller. But these are just money greedy companies, if something better comes along I'll jump ship with no hesitation and swim for the bigger boat. Yes, Console is a long term investment, but the company better make it worth it. :) ps. It's gonna be a cold day in hell before i start creating new accounts and downloading non-english demos because they feel Europe is big roll of toilet paper. Ah well, goodnight Mr. Boxer :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbytomorow Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 No one has mentioned the PSone. Sony produced it for 11 years, from 95-06. The PS2 will be around at LEAST another 2 years. So its not hard to believe the PS3 will have a 10 year life span. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Slightly off topic...but what about an entertainment center large enough, and well-enough organized to support all these consoles we're supposed to have? If I end up buying either or both a PS3 and 360, I'll have to ditch my stereo to make room for them. Either that or they sit on the floor, which isn't a good idea from what I hear. But I'm rather fond of surround sound for the movies and games I have already. I have a multi-level shelf that I got for $80 from Target that holds my PS3, Cable box, Receiver, DVD player, and some of my movies, all with quite a bit of open air flow for all systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted December 2, 2007 Author Subscriber² Share Posted December 2, 2007 I had a PS1 since launch, played it every day! Exactly the same story with the PS2. I was laughing at the Original Xbox and the Controller.But these are just money greedy companies, if something better comes along I'll jump ship with no hesitation and swim for the bigger boat. Yes, Console is a long term investment, but the company better make it worth it. :) ps. It's gonna be a cold day in hell before i start creating new accounts and downloading non-english demos because they feel Europe is big roll of toilet paper. Very true (Y) It also comes down to where your expectations are as an individual, which is why we have people loving the PS3 right now, and others hating it. What Sony did wrong besides launching an incomplete product, was hype the PS3 to heaven with promises and then see that hype go to hell when some things went ###### up. Again that has affected some more than others, but either way, unfortunately spawned a lot of ridiculous fanboyism this generation (again moving away for genuine grievances, im talking about the proper "nonsense" we see at times - comments actually deferring AWAY from the console's and getting personal instead - there is NO NEED for that at all) You could say ohhh but that's all Sony's fault we are seeing this rise in gamer "hate"... but at the same time, the article I posted the other week proved a point in, as gamer's do we WANT to be like that regardless of what a company has said/done - As it makes a very hostile enviroment. But anyway, that's a discussion for another day ;) I fall into a category of being happy with my purchase, but being hungry for more. I expect to see a lot more in 2008 though (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 1) Playstation 2 US launch was October of 2000, giving it a 1 (one) year head start on the XBox, not three.2) XBox 360 has barely shipped 15 million consoles. 3) Apply the same math to Blu-Ray / HD-DVD software sales, and then analyze your own arguments over the past six months. 1. Actually it's close to 2 years advatnage as Sony has released PS2 beginning of 2000 and Xbox late 2001. So that's closer to 2 years then 1. I was off with 3 years. Regardless, 2 years is HUGE advantage. 2. No, I think you are mistaken.. they have SOLD actually close to 14 million my bad.. Sony has sold around 5.5 million. 3. Why are we even comparing Blu-Ray and HD DVD.. It has nothing to do with topic in hand. It's just a temporary lead anyways, because standalones will outsell console without a doubt, it's just matter of time. But again, this is not about HD DVD and Blu-Ray at all. The games that many Sony followers have bought / will buy their systems for (MGS4, GT5, FF13, GoW3) aren't even out yet. MS has somewhat "blown their load", so to speak, with the biggest guns they have in Gears and Halo. Most of the big games coming next year are titles that would appeal to the same group, so the people who haven't bought a 360 yet are either a) waiting for this year's holidays, b) aren't old enough to buy one on their own yet, c) waiting for it to drop sub-$200. The group that haven't bought a PS3 yet are also waiting for further price cuts, but are also waiting for one of those heavy hitters to come on the market, or at least appear somewhere close on the horizon. So it is entirely possible that the PS3 may catch the 360, or at least close the gap somewhat, and not get beat by a near 5:1 overall margin. So Microsoft is "blowing their load" by releasing KICK ASS award winning, genre changing games for their console and consumers and Sony is selling a console where most likely you will be watching movies instead of playing games and you won't see any real exclusives by mid-late 2008 and yet you spent $400-$500 for it now. Hm, let me think about that. Yeah, that's awesome. NOT! Do you understand that by the time anticipated PS3 exclusives come out, we will have Halo franchise expansion with new games, Gears of War 2, most likely GRAW 3, Splinter Cell Convictions, Fable 2 maybe Mass Effect 2, possibly Forza Motorsport 3, Alan Wake etc etc. These games will look absolutely ridiculous be rest assured. All new and fresh games that will continue to annihilate already stale franchises like MGS4, Killzone 2 and Gran Tourismo.. Don't get me wrong, these are not necessarily bad games, but they are ALREADY seen. I personally bought PS3 for GT5 and GoW3 but you know, I paid $600 for something that I will get late 2008 or even 2009 for GoW3, that's almost 2-3 years after I got the console. That's absolutely ridiculous to say the least. Again, if you think that PS3 can constantly sell at the pace of 5:1 when compared to Xbox 360 then you have seriously flawed view of reality. Let me make it clear, by recent sales numbers, Sony needs to sell 5 PS3 to 1 Xbox 360 in order to just CATCH UP.. This is simply impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDQuiksilver Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Nothing is impossible. As you have learned with the high definition physical medium debate. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheppard Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 1. Actually it's close to 2 years advatnage as Sony has released PS2 beginning of 2000 and Xbox late 2001. So that's closer to 2 years then 1. I was off with 3 years. Regardless, 2 years is HUGE advantage. 2. No, I think you are mistaken.. they have SOLD actually close to 14 million my bad.. Sony has sold around 5.5 million. 3. Why are we even comparing Blu-Ray and HD DVD.. It has nothing to do with topic in hand. It's just a temporary lead anyways, because standalones will outsell console without a doubt, it's just matter of time. But again, this is not about HD DVD and Blu-Ray at all. So Microsoft is "blowing their load" by releasing KICK ASS award winning, genre changing games for their console and consumers and Sony is selling a console where most likely you will be watching movies instead of playing games and you won't see any real exclusives by mid-late 2008 and yet you spent $400-$500 for it now. Hm, let me think about that. Yeah, that's awesome. NOT! No one is forcing people to buy the PS3, most people wait for the games they want to play before buying the console. Do you understand that by the time anticipated PS3 exclusives come out, we will have Halo franchise expansion with new games, Gears of War 2, most likely GRAW 3, Splinter Cell Convictions, Fable 2 maybe Mass Effect 2, possibly Forza Motorsport 3, Alan Wake etc etc. These games will look absolutely ridiculous be rest assured. All new and fresh games that will continue to annihilate already stale franchises like MGS4, Killzone 2 and Gran Tourismo.. Wow i wish i had your crystal ball that let you see into the future. I dont see how you can claim that all these wonderful xbox 360 sequel games that no one has seen to the "stale" PS3 sequels you mentioned that blow a majority of the other games out of the water graphics wise. I forgot, a sequel franchise game on the 360 is great, while one on the PS3 is clearly rubbish. I too can spew a list of exclusive names that i can claim will beat anything the 360 has even though ive never seen them: Afrika, Driver, Eight Days, Final Fantasy 13 and Versus 13, Folklore, The Getaway 3, God of War 3, Gran Turismo 5, Jak and Daxter the Lost Frontier, Killzone 2, Little Big Planet, Metal Gear Solid 4 and Metal Gear Online, Socom Confrontation, Yakuza 3, the next Team ICO game, Uncharted Drakes Fortune 2, Ratchet and Clank sequel, etc.. etc.. etc.. Don't get me wrong, these are not necessarily bad games, but they are ALREADY seen. I personally bought PS3 for GT5 and GoW3 but you know, I paid $600 for something that I will get late 2008 or even 2009 for GoW3, that's almost 2-3 years after I got the console. That's absolutely ridiculous to say the least. Again you keep babbling on about how you paid $600, no one forced you to go out and buy a PS3, you knew these games werent going to be coming out for at least a year since launch, i dont see why you can blame Sony because you were impatient enough to wait. Again, if you think that PS3 can constantly sell at the pace of 5:1 when compared to Xbox 360 then you have seriously flawed view of reality. Let me make it clear, by recent sales numbers, Sony needs to sell 5 PS3 to 1 Xbox 360 in order to just CATCH UP.. This is simply impossible. How is it impossible, ill bet a good number of people thought the Wii wouldnt sell that great at all and look at it now, the PS3 is selling on par with how many the 360 sold a year ago, again you must let me borrow your crystal ball so i can see into the future as well as you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 * I can't believe you used "NOT". Damn I love goading you into pointless arguments to let you make yourself look foolish. * I never said Halo and Gears weren't good games. But those were the games I'm guessing 90% of the 360-based audience was looking for. If they don't have one by now, how many more will get one? How many people really wanting a 360 just for Alan Wake said "forget Gears and Halo, I'm waiting for that!" But I'm betting that a lot of people who would get a PS3 for Final Fantasy said "forget Resistance and Uncharted, I'm waiting for that!" Hence my point about MS "blowing their load". And really, genre-changing? Seriously? THEY'RE ****ING SHOOTERS. * Last time I checked, Ratchet & Clank, Heavenly Sword, Haze, and Uncharted were "real exclusives". * My HD-DVD / Blu-Ray comparison was to point out that you show MS holding a 3:1 lead over Sony in console sales, and say it's impossible for Sony to ever catch up. Most of the Blu-Ray people on here try to point out the consistent 2:1 / 3:1 sales lead Blu-Ray enjoys in software, yet you never shut up about the "power of HD-DVD" (an actual quote from you). Even in your post back to me, you don't seem to realize that 750k < 5.5 million (not couting the 500k Blu-ray standalones). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 (edited) * I can't believe you used "NOT". Damn I love goading you into pointless arguments to let you make yourself look foolish.* I never said Halo and Gears weren't good games. But those were the games I'm guessing 90% of the 360-based audience was looking for. If they don't have one by now, how many more will get one? How many people really wanting a 360 just for Alan Wake said "forget Gears and Halo, I'm waiting for that!" But I'm betting that a lot of people who would get a PS3 for Final Fantasy said "forget Resistance and Uncharted, I'm waiting for that!" Hence my point about MS "blowing their load". And really, genre-changing? Seriously? THEY'RE ****ING SHOOTERS. * Last time I checked, Ratchet & Clank, Heavenly Sword, Haze, and Uncharted were "real exclusives". * My HD-DVD / Blu-Ray comparison was to point out that you show MS holding a 3:1 lead over Sony in console sales, and say it's impossible for Sony to ever catch up. Most of the Blu-Ray people on here try to point out the consistent 2:1 / 3:1 sales lead Blu-Ray enjoys in software, yet you never shut up about the "power of HD-DVD" (an actual quote from you). Even in your post back to me, you don't seem to realize that 750k < 5.5 million (not couting the 500k Blu-ray standalones). You really love to throw numbers around with no backing them up. You are only looking foolish but that's understandable since you drinking anything that Sony PR and marketing along with other fanboys are serving. There are NO 500k blu-ray standalones. There's around 200k. According to the HD DVD Promotional Group, standalone players have outsold standalone Blu-ray devices, which excludes the Playstation 3. The Digital Entertainment Group agrees, reporting that standalone Blu-ray player sales have not even reached 200,000 units yet. However, when the PS3 is factored in, Blu-ray dwarfs its competitor.According to the Financial Times, PS3 lifetime sales have reached 3.7 million units. Even with that, it seems that PS3 has actually sold 3.7 million units if Financial Times is any indicator. But let's say there is 5.5 million CONSOLES with PS3 capability where less then half use it for movies anyways. There's no denying that there's more console then hd dvd standalones simply because those 2 models are completely different. Sony's failure at that. There's no way in hell that PS3 will have more numbers then standalones in the next year or so. Just watch. As I said before, right now PS2 sold 120 million or so since inception, DVD standalones have sold almost a BILLION worldwide. PS3 is a failure in it's own game, Blu-Ray standalones are failure in theirs and as many smart people have said, the software advantage when counted at the moment are completely irrelevant as they are less then <2% of overall DVD sales. It is obvious to everyone that Blu-Ray move was a bad idea for Sony. This is why Stringer wanted to go back in time. They have lost over 6 billion dollars now on something that's losing the race. The same thing will happen with HD DVD but this time around I doubt Sony will sell more then 25 million.. since inception, just like Xbox 1 did. But again, somehow we went off topic with Blu-Ray and HD DVD, because fanboys need to connect the two so the PS3 and BD don't look like failures in their own fields. When you want to be jack of all trades, you end up being bad at all of them. Edited December 3, 2007 by Boz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troist Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I am kind of annoyed at having purchased a PS3 on launch day. The games that came out for it on launch were alright, but I really didn't consider Resistance to be exceptionally fun (sure, it looked great, but I didn't get into it too much). The best game for the PS3 imo was Oblivion, which I'd already played to death on the 360... Motorstorm got really boring too, the same tracks and it wasn't really anything special as a racing game anyway. We have some decent exclusives out/coming soon now, but still... MGS was meant to come out in 07, I even remember that trailer where it said 2008 and then crossed that out and scrawled 2007 over it. We still have no news on FFXIII which was another game I expected to come out not too long after launch (considering there was rumoured to be a demo at E3 this year, it couldn't be too far off). GoW3 was only confirmed about a month ago, so I can't see that coming very soon (Q4 2008 at the earliest I'd guess). GT5P is finally coming out, although they seem to be screwing over Europe/America on that one since Japan already had it. Sure, we have R&C out now (and Uncharted this week, 3 weeks after the US) but Sony is really not doing too well on the exclusives front. From delays to loss of the exclusiveness they keep going downhill... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowRanger13 Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 2. No, I think you are mistaken.. they have SOLD actually close to 14 million my bad.. Sony has sold around 5.5 million. Around 5.5 million? It's 5.59 million and that was as of September 30th. A lot of units have been sold since the new price drop that aren't included in this number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Around 5.5 million? It's 5.59 million and that was as of September 30th. A lot of units have been sold since the new price drop that aren't included in this number. Okay, well if you want to be picky about 90k units then so be it, but then let's count at least 500k XBox 360 units sold during and after Halo 3 launch and this is based only on those few weeks after release.. Xbox 360 has most likely sold another million or more since Halo 3.. so that takes it at 15 million.. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, especially when Financial Times says Sony actually sold 3.7 million. So I'm not sure what they are refering too but it's either 3.7 million or 5.6 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowRanger13 Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 (edited) Okay, well if you want to be picky about 90k units then so be it, but then let's count at least 500k XBox 360 units sold during and after Halo 3 launch and this is based only on those few weeks after release.. Xbox 360 has most likely sold another million or more since Halo 3.. so that takes it at 15 million.. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, especially when Financial Times says Sony actually sold 3.7 million. So I'm not sure what they are refering too but it's either 3.7 million or 5.6 million. Yes I know PS3 sales are in last I'm not arguing with that, yes I know many people bought a 360 to play Halo 3... I'm one of them and I'm glad I did. But your making the PS3 sales seem much worse then they are. You assumed that they sold 90k in the last two months over all three regions. When in one month in one region they were able to sell double your 90k assumption. Sony’s PlayStation 3 outsold Nintendo’s Wii in Japan in November. According to figures from publisher Enterbrain, Sony shifted 183,217 PS3s during the four weeks ended November 25, in comparison to 159,193 Wiis, reports Reuters. It is the first time the PS3 has triumphed over its rival in Japan over a monthly period since the systems launched last Just November PS3 sold 183,217 PS3s in Japan alone. Yes October wasn't as good as November but this is just in Japan. especially when Financial Times says Sony actually sold 3.7 million. So I'm not sure what they are refering too but it's either 3.7 million or 5.6 million. The number 3.7 million is for the first fiscal year. So between November 11, 2006 and March 31, 2007 3.7 million PS3s were sold. Edited December 3, 2007 by cloudstrife13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartan_X Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 please allow me to add something to this debate... :happy: Microsoft does not consider the resources used during the "Xbox Era" a "waste" of money, we see that as a long term investment into our entertainment business, an investment that has proved to be one of the best the company has ever made as the profit turn around was a lot faster and more far more efficient than other divisions. one thing many of you never take into account is the fact that as a platform builder Microsoft never mixes numbers between divisions and in this case we'd been making piles of cash out of the licensing fees from VisualStudio, Windows and other applications used by game developers that you never see "mixed" with the overall performance of EDD. conclusion, we never go into a war we know we can't win, and if we can't win... well, you know how the story goes... :devil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPyro Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Why do I keep hearing people say Sony didn't have any good games after a year? So did the 360. And the Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD standalones comparison is dumb. Most people who'd buy a blu-ray player are going to buy a PS3 as it's the cheapest blu-ray player available and also doubles as a games console. Someone who mentioned the original Xbox as a financial failure is correct. Regardless of how many consoles they sold, Microsoft didn't make a cent in their first attempt in the games industry. And I'd really like to stop hearing people predict things that will happen, such as Sony never gaining ground on Microsoft. Could Sony not theoretically sell millions more consoles in Japan and Europe compared to Microsoft, who currently hasn't even sold 1 million in Japan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonBetrayal Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 They did cut backwards compatibility in some of their SKU's to cut costs, you can still get the backwards compatibility SKU if you really want it. However, look at how much cutting backwards compatibility saves on the cost of the console. I can now get it for $699 instead of $999. Now add the cost of the PS2 onto that ($199), still a bit cheaper huh? So why not just buy both, you're still saving over the cost of a PS3 with backwards compatibility, then that way you get a new PS2 and PS3 for the same price or less as a PS3 with backwards compatibility. I swear, I think some people complain just for the sake of complaining. Everyone said it was too expensive so Sony did the only thing they could do to bring the cost down. And now everyone complains that there's no backwards compatibility. Just can't please everyone. Sheesh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venomous Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 They did cut backwards compatibility in some of their SKU's to cut costs, you can still get the backwards compatibility SKU if you really want it. However, look at how much cutting backwards compatibility saves on the cost of the console. I can now get it for $699 instead of $999. Now add the cost of the PS2 onto that ($199), still a bit cheaper huh? So why not just buy both, you're still saving over the cost of a PS3 with backwards compatibility, then that way you get a new PS2 and PS3 for the same price or less as a PS3 with backwards compatibility. I swear, I think some people complain just for the sake of complaining. Everyone said it was too expensive so Sony did the only thing they could do to bring the cost down. And now everyone complains that there's no backwards compatibility. Just can't please everyone. Sheesh! Yep can't please all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPyro Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Hmm yes, no one is forcing you to buy the version with no PS2 compatibility...besides that, I'm sure Sony is secretly working on pure PS2 software emulation and will try and use it to boost their console sales later in its life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[bear] Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 in the fine print for the 40GB system it said that PS2 backwards compatibility may be added at a later date via software emulation. I have a 40GB PS3 and I didn't buy it to play ass looking PS2 games. I buy new games.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted December 4, 2007 Veteran Share Posted December 4, 2007 No one is forcing people to buy the PS3, most people wait for the games they want to play before buying the console. Wait wait wait, iirc you just said last month or so, Sony forced you to buy the 60GB before it was discontinued..:blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soniqstylz Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 I get the loss of BC complaints, because that is something Sony touted for the last two generations. Yeah, it cuts costs, but seriously, how much does that chip cost at this point? The entire PSTwo costs less than the price drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts