- Status
bulldozer83
Honorable
- Sep 19, 2012
- 7
- 0
- 10,510
[citation][nom]tbq[/nom]What features are they removing with this latest update? They've stripped out PS2 hardware emulation. They've stripped out Linux capabilities. It probably doesn't have memory card readers either. What's next, DVD playing?[/citation]
they haven't had memory cards readers for PS2 to use on the PS3. you had to buy an accessory for that.
you pretty much get hdmi, component, wi-fi, ethernet, optical audio, and two usb ports.
they haven't had memory cards readers for PS2 to use on the PS3. you had to buy an accessory for that.
you pretty much get hdmi, component, wi-fi, ethernet, optical audio, and two usb ports.
tbq
Distinguished
- Jan 13, 2009
- 103
- 4
- 18,695
[citation][nom]bulldozer83[/nom]they haven't had memory cards readers for PS2 to use on the PS3. you had to buy an accessory for that. you pretty much get hdmi, component, wi-fi, ethernet, optical audio, and two usb ports.[/citation]
I didn't mean PS2 memory cards. Some models of PS3 have slots for SD, CF, and MS memory cards.
I didn't mean PS2 memory cards. Some models of PS3 have slots for SD, CF, and MS memory cards.
"In order to maintain the superior gaming experiences"
Lemme just stop you right there
Slimmer doesn't mean shit. It's not performing better, unless you're actually changing shit, you're just milking the cash cow which....wasn't even that great anyway.
What the fuck man.
Lemme just stop you right there
Slimmer doesn't mean shit. It's not performing better, unless you're actually changing shit, you're just milking the cash cow which....wasn't even that great anyway.
What the fuck man.
Vladislaus
Distinguished
- Jul 29, 2010
- 1,290
- 0
- 19,280
[citation][nom]MidnightDistort[/nom]Console gaming was better back then as they were not as expensive as PC's were but now since they're selling consoles for ridiculous prices $600 for the launch of the PS3 you might as well spend that money building a PC which could give you better resolution for that price range (or a bit higher) and PC's won't restrict you to just gaming as you can do much more with a PC. It's more cost effective to PC game nowadays.[/citation]
So you're telling me that if you spent $600 back in 2006 on a PC, you would still be able to play most games released in the present day? Also when the PS3 was launched there were another version available besides the 60GB PS3. The 20GB PS3 had a price of $499.
So you're telling me that if you spent $600 back in 2006 on a PC, you would still be able to play most games released in the present day? Also when the PS3 was launched there were another version available besides the 60GB PS3. The 20GB PS3 had a price of $499.
Antimatter79
Distinguished
- Jul 24, 2009
- 293
- 0
- 18,810
Would it kill Sony to make a FLAT console that you can quickly and easily set two controllers on top of? Jeez. I don't know, it was fun to think about buying the next Playstation console when it comes out, just in case I ever decided to play the few console games I'd be interested in, but the way prices are going, it's just not worth it to buy a console that's as much as a mid-range PC or laptop, especially when I could just upgrade my current video card for under 200 bux and still be years ahead of whatever Sony comes out with next. Maybe if they manage a $400 price point, $450 tops, I'll reconsider, but it better be backwards compatible at least with PS3, still have an optical drive, CIFS capable, and able to play files in an MKV container. I don't think these are unreasonable requests. The only reason I use my gaming PC as an HTPC is b/c the PS3 is so limited in its current state. One more thing, it better have games that are native 1080p. I don't currently play console games; my wife does, and I get so sick of seeing that I've just wasted another 60 bux on a new game for her that is a horribly jaggy, lo-res upscaled mess. I'm glad she mostly enjoys her ugly games, but for all that HD hype around PS3 when it launched, I feel like they egregiously misrepresented their product's capabilities.
This "new" console should have a user replaceable drive,card reader,4 usb, wifi-n, ability to copy games and play off hdd(as xbox does) but those are reasonable requests that a unreasonable company will not listen to. At least make it backwards compatible....don't even get me started on the linux deal(my fat still is on 3.15 
). I was boycotting $ony before it became cool lol.
). I was boycotting $ony before it became cool lol.DRosencraft
Distinguished
- Aug 26, 2011
- 743
- 0
- 19,010
I won't get into the whole console vs. PC argument because that has been beaten to death. If you can't understand why people would prefer a console over a PC at this point then just let it go.
First, this isn't designed to get somebody who owns a PS3 to buy a new one. Anyone who thinks that was expecting far too much considering we are supposedly so close to the next gen. anything more than a change in storage and very basic design would itself be a new console, and they would announce that at E3, not TGS. No, this is for those who break theirs, or haven't bought one yet. Remember, just because you were around 6 years ago doesn't mean people stopped being born. There's plenty of people out there who were too young to have a console 6 years ago, or even a month ago. This is for that newer generation of gamers - a smaller, lighter machine they can have some fun with if they want before the next generation comes out, which if rumors are correct will not be backwards compatible anyway.
As for price, I too would like for the price to be lower. But let's think about it for a second. $250 or so is actually at the Wii U price point. Take out the fancy new controller, and the basic fact that it's new, the Wii U has minimal if any performance advantage over the PS3 at 6-years old. On a competition front, that simply means that they don't have much to worry about there. Also, which gets to why they would build a new one at all, the big price tag was because of the parts. powerful CPU, powerful GPU, new tech of Blu-ray, and big storage. If i remember correctly, the O.G PS3 was sold at a loss. Sony lost money on each console they sold.
Now, if you want to build a PS3 today, its specs are still gonna cost you. a Blu-ray drive on average is $70 or more, a HDD or SSD is gonna be near the $100, and you still have to add the CPU, GPU, and the rest of the stuff in there, and you've only got about $80 before you hit the $250 mark.
Yeah, I would love it for the price to drop more. But for what piece of hardware you're getting, you don't really have a lot of space to bring the price down without getting deeper in the red there. I find it a little disingenuous that so many are clamoring that the next gen systems have at least the best current gen graphics and still cost under $400 when you can hardly buy a top class GPU today for that much, let alone build an entire computer to use that GPU, for less than $400.
First, this isn't designed to get somebody who owns a PS3 to buy a new one. Anyone who thinks that was expecting far too much considering we are supposedly so close to the next gen. anything more than a change in storage and very basic design would itself be a new console, and they would announce that at E3, not TGS. No, this is for those who break theirs, or haven't bought one yet. Remember, just because you were around 6 years ago doesn't mean people stopped being born. There's plenty of people out there who were too young to have a console 6 years ago, or even a month ago. This is for that newer generation of gamers - a smaller, lighter machine they can have some fun with if they want before the next generation comes out, which if rumors are correct will not be backwards compatible anyway.
As for price, I too would like for the price to be lower. But let's think about it for a second. $250 or so is actually at the Wii U price point. Take out the fancy new controller, and the basic fact that it's new, the Wii U has minimal if any performance advantage over the PS3 at 6-years old. On a competition front, that simply means that they don't have much to worry about there. Also, which gets to why they would build a new one at all, the big price tag was because of the parts. powerful CPU, powerful GPU, new tech of Blu-ray, and big storage. If i remember correctly, the O.G PS3 was sold at a loss. Sony lost money on each console they sold.
Now, if you want to build a PS3 today, its specs are still gonna cost you. a Blu-ray drive on average is $70 or more, a HDD or SSD is gonna be near the $100, and you still have to add the CPU, GPU, and the rest of the stuff in there, and you've only got about $80 before you hit the $250 mark.
Yeah, I would love it for the price to drop more. But for what piece of hardware you're getting, you don't really have a lot of space to bring the price down without getting deeper in the red there. I find it a little disingenuous that so many are clamoring that the next gen systems have at least the best current gen graphics and still cost under $400 when you can hardly buy a top class GPU today for that much, let alone build an entire computer to use that GPU, for less than $400.
kinggremlin
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2009
- 574
- 41
- 19,010
[citation][nom]billgatez[/nom]What feature's did they remove this time.IMO it is a dumb move by Sony. There is no need to refresh the PS3 a third time. Why no spend the cash on the PS4.[/citation]
Which is probably why Sony is unlikely to refresh the PS3 again. This is only the 2nd refresh, not the 3rd. The refreshes are done to reduce the cost of producing the console, not to boost sales, though there might be a side benefit slight uptick in sales at release. The PS3 is going to be sold for many more years. The reduction in size will save Sony a lot of money down the road and many times over pay for the R&D necessary for this variant while allowing for further price drops when necessary.
Which is probably why Sony is unlikely to refresh the PS3 again. This is only the 2nd refresh, not the 3rd. The refreshes are done to reduce the cost of producing the console, not to boost sales, though there might be a side benefit slight uptick in sales at release. The PS3 is going to be sold for many more years. The reduction in size will save Sony a lot of money down the road and many times over pay for the R&D necessary for this variant while allowing for further price drops when necessary.
CaedenV
Splendid
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,829
- 3
- 23,465
@bulldozer83
keep in mind that those xbox numbers are a little inflated because xbox counts every RRoD replacement as a new sale and had a 20% failure rate for quite a while, which really puts MS and Sony neck-and-neck when it comes to market penetration. The Wii sold phenomenally well, but that is because they were selling it to EVERYBODY. this was the first console to truly reach the 'casual gamer' market, and in a big way. I do not think that the WiiU will be anywhere near the same success (though I doubt it will be a failure either).
What is more interesting are those sales numbers! If they are accurate, then it means that there was 17% growth between the '1st gen' and '2nd gen' consoles, and then only 10.33% growth between the 2nd and 3rd gen. When you figure the monumental ammount of time between generations, those growth numbers are pathetic! This is especially true when you figure in how popular gaming was when I was a kid, compared to what it has turned into now. When I was a kid it was only kids who would game, and now even my parents and grandmother have a wii, and now there are 2.5 generations of people who have grown up with video games. Those are just really surprising numbers considering gaming has gone from a 'fun side thing' to the serious gaming industry that it has turned into. Also, consider that when I was a kid you only typically had 1 console, where now it is much more common for someone to have 2, or even all 3 consoles. This means that with this last console generation there was little, to even no growth in the number of users of consoles. The people using them may have shifted to a wider audience, but as a whole, less people per segment have bought in.
Anywho, my point in the previous post is that Sony (or MS) do not need to make a $600 console to make people happy this time around. The tech is available and cheap enough to run 1080p games at ~60fps with some AA/AF on medium settings with a $6-800 custom rig. Knock that frame rate down to 30fps, and make it a dedicated game machine with machine level programming, and have the bulk purchasing power of console companies, and I am sure they could easily make such a rig for $350 or less, and sell it for $400-500 at launch. All that today's consoles really need is a little more GPU power, and a lot more Ram to make this possible.
The other point was that there is little motivation to drop prices. WiiU will be coming out at $250 and will barely beat these consoles on hardware, but have a lack of games to play, and very expensive periphrials. Sony and MS are making killer profits from their consoles now, and people are still buying them pretty steadily, so why rock the boat with a price drop?
I think an extra point is that they (and Sony in specific) do not want a repeat of the last generation. The PS2 outsold the PS3 for something like 2 years after the PS3 launch, the PS2 even outsold the Wii during that time, it was amazing!. It diffused development across the platforms which made for slow title releases, slow title releases made for slow adaptation of the new hardware, and then Sony had to support the old environment much longer than they wanted to. I think with the next console release we will see prices stay relatively high through the end of the product cycle, and then we will see the old consoles disappear very quickly to usher people to the new ecosystem. Kill it off quickly, move people over, and then shut it down to save money.
keep in mind that those xbox numbers are a little inflated because xbox counts every RRoD replacement as a new sale and had a 20% failure rate for quite a while, which really puts MS and Sony neck-and-neck when it comes to market penetration. The Wii sold phenomenally well, but that is because they were selling it to EVERYBODY. this was the first console to truly reach the 'casual gamer' market, and in a big way. I do not think that the WiiU will be anywhere near the same success (though I doubt it will be a failure either).
What is more interesting are those sales numbers! If they are accurate, then it means that there was 17% growth between the '1st gen' and '2nd gen' consoles, and then only 10.33% growth between the 2nd and 3rd gen. When you figure the monumental ammount of time between generations, those growth numbers are pathetic! This is especially true when you figure in how popular gaming was when I was a kid, compared to what it has turned into now. When I was a kid it was only kids who would game, and now even my parents and grandmother have a wii, and now there are 2.5 generations of people who have grown up with video games. Those are just really surprising numbers considering gaming has gone from a 'fun side thing' to the serious gaming industry that it has turned into. Also, consider that when I was a kid you only typically had 1 console, where now it is much more common for someone to have 2, or even all 3 consoles. This means that with this last console generation there was little, to even no growth in the number of users of consoles. The people using them may have shifted to a wider audience, but as a whole, less people per segment have bought in.
Anywho, my point in the previous post is that Sony (or MS) do not need to make a $600 console to make people happy this time around. The tech is available and cheap enough to run 1080p games at ~60fps with some AA/AF on medium settings with a $6-800 custom rig. Knock that frame rate down to 30fps, and make it a dedicated game machine with machine level programming, and have the bulk purchasing power of console companies, and I am sure they could easily make such a rig for $350 or less, and sell it for $400-500 at launch. All that today's consoles really need is a little more GPU power, and a lot more Ram to make this possible.
The other point was that there is little motivation to drop prices. WiiU will be coming out at $250 and will barely beat these consoles on hardware, but have a lack of games to play, and very expensive periphrials. Sony and MS are making killer profits from their consoles now, and people are still buying them pretty steadily, so why rock the boat with a price drop?
I think an extra point is that they (and Sony in specific) do not want a repeat of the last generation. The PS2 outsold the PS3 for something like 2 years after the PS3 launch, the PS2 even outsold the Wii during that time, it was amazing!. It diffused development across the platforms which made for slow title releases, slow title releases made for slow adaptation of the new hardware, and then Sony had to support the old environment much longer than they wanted to. I think with the next console release we will see prices stay relatively high through the end of the product cycle, and then we will see the old consoles disappear very quickly to usher people to the new ecosystem. Kill it off quickly, move people over, and then shut it down to save money.
billgatez
Distinguished
- Feb 7, 2012
- 225
- 0
- 18,680
[citation][nom]kinggremlin[/nom]The refreshes are done to reduce the cost of producing the console, not to boost sales, though there might be a side benefit slight uptick in sales at release.[/citation]
Sony not going to see much savings as there is no change to the over all hardware. Look at the Xbox slim. MS went from two chips to one. A single chip is cheaper to make requires only one HSF and allows for a smaller PCB. All will save MS money. Sony will save a little on plastic but the over all component count remains the same. If you are going to re do something make it better at least add wireless-N.
Sony not going to see much savings as there is no change to the over all hardware. Look at the Xbox slim. MS went from two chips to one. A single chip is cheaper to make requires only one HSF and allows for a smaller PCB. All will save MS money. Sony will save a little on plastic but the over all component count remains the same. If you are going to re do something make it better at least add wireless-N.
Antimatter79
Distinguished
- Jul 24, 2009
- 293
- 0
- 18,810
[citation][nom]billgatez[/nom]Sony not going to see much savings as there is no change to the over all hardware. Look at the Xbox slim. MS went from two chips to one. A single chip is cheaper to make requires only one HSF and allows for a smaller PCB. All will save MS money. Sony will save a little on plastic but the over all component count remains the same. If you are going to re do something make it better at least add wireless-N.[/citation]
You mean the current slim isn't wireless N?? No wonder my wife's slim started buffering more during Netflix when she asked me to move it from the 2nd floor (where the router is) to the 3rd floor (bedroom).
You mean the current slim isn't wireless N?? No wonder my wife's slim started buffering more during Netflix when she asked me to move it from the 2nd floor (where the router is) to the 3rd floor (bedroom).
frombehind
Honorable
- Feb 18, 2012
- 351
- 0
- 10,810
zZzZzZz... Wake me up when they stop charging 60 bucks per game.
Those streaming services that are like 20 bucks a month are promising... but still have a long ways to go.
Those streaming services that are like 20 bucks a month are promising... but still have a long ways to go.
[citation][nom]olaf[/nom]yes vote me down but console are still dumb, with 99% of there games being dubbed down, and most of the time the PC version suffers as well...[/citation]
What's dumber is people like you taking a side like some pointless territorial war.
What's dumber is people like you taking a side like some pointless territorial war.
kinggremlin
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2009
- 574
- 41
- 19,010
[citation][nom]billgatez[/nom]Sony not going to see much savings as there is no change to the over all hardware. Look at the Xbox slim. MS went from two chips to one. A single chip is cheaper to make requires only one HSF and allows for a smaller PCB. All will save MS money. Sony will save a little on plastic but the over all component count remains the same. If you are going to re do something make it better at least add wireless-N.[/citation]
Because of economy of scale, they don't need to save much on the individual units to see big savings. Just $1 cut off unit production costs will save them 10's of millions over the rest of the life of the product. They probably saved more than that just moving to a clamshell blu-ray player from the current slot loading design.
Because of economy of scale, they don't need to save much on the individual units to see big savings. Just $1 cut off unit production costs will save them 10's of millions over the rest of the life of the product. They probably saved more than that just moving to a clamshell blu-ray player from the current slot loading design.
dark_lord69
Splendid
- Jun 6, 2006
- 3,227
- 8
- 22,015
[citation][nom]mp562[/nom]You could always drop a 500 GB in yourself and not have to wait.[/citation]
Yeah, I have an original PS3 and I put in a 250GB 7200RPM drive several years ago. (I was surpised when I ran out of space but I got the original launch system with 60GB HDD.
Yeah, I have an original PS3 and I put in a 250GB 7200RPM drive several years ago. (I was surpised when I ran out of space but I got the original launch system with 60GB HDD.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question User RX 580 8gb red devil powercolor, asking original BIOS- Started by PizzaInGame
- Replies: 7
-
-
-
News Microsoft updates Windows 11 24H2 requirements, CPU must support SSE4.2 or the OS will not boot- Started by Admin
- Replies: 19
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram