Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Sony: don't play old games anymore buy new ones.

11719212223

Posts

  • JulesJules Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Neva wrote: »
    Jules wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Jules wrote: »
    ITT posting in Red doesn't make you more right.

    Apparently neither does posting in white.

    I'm not going to be able to afford a PS3 until first quarter next year when tax returns come back.

    Will I still be able to get a 60GB version with BC in store? I don't have a PS2, and it's terribly convenient to play both PS3, PS2, and Blue Ray games on one system.

    Why does Sony hate me?

    That's like asking why the devil wears black. It's just what they do.

    I just want to know if there will be an in-store 60GB somewhere in 5-6 months when six hundred dollars of disposable income lands on my lap?

    Possibly, but most likely through an online retailer or ebay.

    F***. Thanks for the info. I figured as much, this is exactly why I'm angry about this change.

    What gets me is that this HAS to happen when I have other pressing fiscal responsibilities.

    I guess I'll add the obligatory: OLOL Sony?

    (USER WAS INFRACTED FOR THIS POST)
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    Jules wrote: »
    Neva wrote: »
    Jules wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Jules wrote: »
    ITT posting in Red doesn't make you more right.

    Apparently neither does posting in white.

    I'm not going to be able to afford a PS3 until first quarter next year when tax returns come back.

    Will I still be able to get a 60GB version with BC in store? I don't have a PS2, and it's terribly convenient to play both PS3, PS2, and Blue Ray games on one system.

    Why does Sony hate me?

    That's like asking why the devil wears black. It's just what they do.

    I just want to know if there will be an in-store 60GB somewhere in 5-6 months when six hundred dollars of disposable income lands on my lap?

    Possibly, but most likely through an online retailer or ebay.

    F***. Thanks for the info. I figured as much, this is exactly why I'm angry about this change.

    What gets me is that this HAS to happen when I have other pressing fiscal responsibilities.

    I guess I'll add the obligatory: OLOL Sony?

    It really depends on how fast those 60s sell and how many are left. In our store though the things are selling like hotcakes, but the deal is really good. 50 quid more for 2 games and 2 movies plus the BC. Though I think the intention is obviously to get rid of them as fast as possible.

    My major concern is, despite its stability now, in a yera or so it could suddenly start experiencing massive traumas and what will happen at that point when people return to the store and say "Hey my 60 gig is fucked up, I need a new 60Gig." except we don't sell them anymore nor are they obtainable.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    (edit: I edited out some of the angry.)

    You edited OUT some of the angry? Wow, dude. That post musta been some serious angry.

    Anyway, I'm just curious why they're doing uncompressed audio. Just to brag about filling a disc? There's about a zillion algorithms out there that do lossy audio compression, but still uncompress to high quality sound and use about as much processing power as graphing calculator. Ogg Vorbis, MP3, Atrac3 (This being a Sony platform) will all do it. So why leave it uncompressed?

    Hell, you could do lossless compression and still save a ton of bytespace.

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: IronBorealis
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If they've got the space, why bother?

    Programmers are lazy fucks, and only getting lazier as the years go on.

  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Have they actually come out and said that the space is for uncompressed audio? Everyone seems to think this, but besides conjecture is there actually any proof?

  • JulesJules Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Have they actually come out and said that the space is for uncompressed audio? Everyone seems to think this, but besides conjecture is there actually any proof?

    No, it could be high def FMV for all we know.

    (USER WAS INFRACTED FOR THIS POST)
  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    shryke wrote: »
    If they've got the space, why bother?

    Programmers are lazy fucks, and only getting lazier as the years go on.

    Programmers? Except the technology is already mature. And Sony owns the rights to a compression algorithm. So it costs them nothing to use it, the programmers have to do almost nothing to implements it.

    I guess I'm just flabbergasted at this. On the verge of multiple BD releases. It's freakin' AUDIO. Are they doing 3D positional? Because then it's probably recorded mono and then processed spatially in real time. If it's not 3D positional, then that's retarded considering what Sony is claiming the PS3 is. 16 bit? 24 bit? Who knows. But a mono signal at 16 bits on studio level frequency (around 49 khz I think) is only 784Kbit/s, which is 98KB/s. That's like 57 hours of uncompressed audio in 20 GB. Even double their bitrate and that's 28 hours of uncompressed audio in 20GB. And that's assuming their other assets are taking over half of the 50GB BD. Which is a big freakin' assumption.

    I mean, that's all conjecture, but I just don't get what they're filling that space with.

    EDIT: Jules above post. Oh, hell, if it's FMV, then I get it. Everyone was just saying audio.

    EDIT2: I doubt it's FMV. None of the Metal gear games had any - all the cinematics were real time.

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: IronBorealis
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    Nova_C wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    If they've got the space, why bother?

    Programmers are lazy fucks, and only getting lazier as the years go on.

    Programmers? Except the technology is already mature. And Sony owns the rights to a compression algorithm. So it costs them nothing to use it, the programmers have to do almost nothing to implements it.

    I guess I'm just flabbergasted at this. On the verge of multiple BD releases. It's freakin' AUDIO. Are they doing 3D positional? Because then it's probably recorded mono and then processed spatially in real time. If it's not 3D positional, then that's retarded considering what Sony is claiming the PS3 is. 16 bit? 24 bit? Who knows. But a mono signal at 16 bits on studio level frequency (around 49 khz I think) is only 784Kbit/s, which is 98KB/s. That's like 57 hours of uncompressed audio in 20 GB. Even double their bitrate and that's 28 hours of uncompressed audio in 20GB. And that's assuming their other assets are taking over half of the 50GB BD. Which is a big freakin' assumption.

    I mean, that's all conjecture, but I just don't get what they're filling that space with.

    EDIT: Jules above post. Oh, hell, if it's FMV, then I get it. Everyone was just saying audio.

    EDIT2: I doubt it's FMV. None of the Metal gear games had any - all the cinematics were real time.

    Who uses FMV anymore with any kind of justification? Surely its easier to do everything in-game now and cheaper.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Who uses FMV anymore with any kind of justification? Surely its easier to do everything in-game now and cheaper.

    See: Square Enix

    EDIT:

    I'm gonna expand on that and say it's technically simpler to do it pre-rendered. All your effects can be just drawn in by 3D animators whereas real-time, all your stuff has to be done programatically. I'll agree that programmers are lazy. I AM one, and YES. Programmers are lazy. Whereas 3D art is 3D art regardless of what it is you're drawing (I say this as someone who can't draw to save his life). So FMV while expensive may actually be simpler and easier and less time consuming than setting up all your cinematics as real time.

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: IronBorealis
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Who uses FMV anymore with any kind of justification? Surely its easier to do everything in-game now and cheaper.

    See: Square Enix

    Yeah, on the PS2. Not really the same thing.

    Spoiler:
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I'm saying if they've got a bunch of extra room, they won't go through the effort of saving space.

    Example:

    Your storage medium can hold 9 gigs.
    Your game, uncompressed, is 8.5 gigs.
    Your game, compressed, is 5 gigs.

    Why would you compress it? Unless it speeds up performance, it's not worth the effort. You've got the space, so who cares.

  • PancakePancake Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Who uses FMV anymore with any kind of justification? Surely its easier to do everything in-game now and cheaper.

    See: Square Enix

    You can't forget Mistwalker. Their games keep getting brought up because they're being released on 3 or more DVDs.

    There are probably many things you can't really do and make look convincing in-game, but for most devs, there's no real reason to use FMV and HD video takes up a ton of space.

    wAgWt.jpg
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I wonder how long it will be before we reach the point where speech can be handled in-engine without anyone noticing. It would probably save a good deal of disk space.

  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The only explanation for MGS4 taking up a whole bluray disc that I can think of is uncompressed audio and uncompressed textures. Not one or the other, but both. But it really doesn't matter anyways. It'll be a solid game.

    Anyway, can someone please explain to me how expecting a AAA title to have a large budget is unreasonable?

  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    august wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Who uses FMV anymore with any kind of justification? Surely its easier to do everything in-game now and cheaper.

    See: Square Enix

    Yeah, on the PS2. Not really the same thing.

    No? Metal Gear has been doing real time since PS1. Nintendo did all real time on N64 (woo carts!). Hell, you could say the 2D eras of the SNES and whatnot were all real time as well. FMV is the NEW thing. It's the new thing as a result of streaming technology (woo CDs!). The actual power of a system isn't really relevant to the suitability of FMV on that platform.

    EDIT: Any word on FMV in FFXIII? If they haven't said they're doing it all real-time I will bet money there will be FMV in it.

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: IronBorealis
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    The new Ratchet and Clank looks fucking amazing in-game, I doubt those cut-scenes are pre-rendered but if it is all in-game, then theres no excuse for SE to be doing FMV anymore.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Nova_C wrote: »
    august wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Who uses FMV anymore with any kind of justification? Surely its easier to do everything in-game now and cheaper.

    See: Square Enix

    Yeah, on the PS2. Not really the same thing.

    No? Metal Gear has been doing real time since PS1. Nintendo did all real time on N64 (woo carts!). Hell, you could say the 2D eras of the SNES and whatnot were all real time as well. FMV is the NEW thing. It's the new thing as a result of streaming technology (woo CDs!). The actual power of a system isn't really relevant to the suitability of FMV on that platform.

    EDIT: Any word on FMV in FFXIII? If they haven't said they're doing it all real-time I will bet money there will be FMV in it.

    Can you think of any current gen games that use FMV?

    Spoiler:
  • DarkWarriorDarkWarrior __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2007
    The only explanation for MGS4 taking up a whole bluray disc that I can think of is uncompressed audio and uncompressed textures. Not one or the other, but both. But it really doesn't matter anyways. It'll be a solid game.

    Anyway, can someone please explain to me how expecting a AAA title to have a large budget is unreasonable?

    Because theres no definition to what a large budget is? 300 mill is a lot for a movie. As far as I'm aware, 20 mil is a lot for a game. Are you saying its larger than 20 mill, less? You're not. You're just saying large. Any game that isn't a movie cash-in or some kiddy crap is gonna have a considerable chunk of a budget. Being a good game doesn't automatically mean it has the most cash pumped into it.

    ...it's in the shape of a giant c**k.
  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    august wrote: »
    Can you think of any current gen games that use FMV?

    I don't have any current gen consoles, but I have a bleeding edge gaming rig: ET:QW does, Civ4 does. Go back a couple years FEAR did not, HL2 did not. Oh, also, C&C3 does.

    Considering my PC pumps out better graphics than the XBox360, I really REALLY think it has nothing to do with the graphical power of a system. It's all about budget and time. FMV is quicker than real time for complex stuff. The PS2 was capable of amazing, literally ground breaking graphics at it's release. And yet, it's FMV was touted as a big step forward because of DVD technology. I highly doubt with the capacity of BD that the PS3 is going to see fewer games with FMV.

    My blog: www.jonathanirons.net
    My Twitter: IronBorealis
    Be advised, I'm not the best at keeping either updated. >.>
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The only explanation for MGS4 taking up a whole bluray disc that I can think of is uncompressed audio and uncompressed textures. Not one or the other, but both. But it really doesn't matter anyways. It'll be a solid game.

    Anyway, can someone please explain to me how expecting a AAA title to have a large budget is unreasonable?

    Because theres no definition to what a large budget is? 300 mill is a lot for a movie. As far as I'm aware, 20 mil is a lot for a game. Are you saying its larger than 20 mill, less? You're not. You're just saying large. Any game that isn't a movie cash-in or some kiddy crap is gonna have a considerable chunk of a budget. Being a good game doesn't automatically mean it has the most cash pumped into it.

    So it's wrong to say it has a large budget because you don't know what I mean by that?

    Ok, I'll explain what I mean by that. It more than likely has a larger budget than MGS3 or MGS2. Why do I think this? Because it's being produced with higher res assets. It's a generation later and it's more expensive to make higher res textures and models.

    It more than likely has a larger budget than, say, Heavenly Sword or Motorstorm. Why do I think this? Because it's more than likely going to be a longer game. It's the last game in a popular franchise. It has a lot of story to tie up. It's going to have more to it than most games on the PS3 so far. Which means more art assets. And Kojima seems to be the type of developer that tries to throw in everything and the kitchen sink.

    It's not going to have a larger budget than say... Halo 3 or Shenmue. It's not too high. It's justifiably high. It's the summer blockbuster of gaming. And summer blockbusters always have a fairly decent budget.

    So basically what I'm trying to say is that compared to most games released every year it's going to have a high budget. Compared to any game released ever? No, it won't be even close to the highest budget ever. Not even in the top 10.

    Is it easy to understand what I mean now? Can people stop acting like I'm being unreasonable here?

  • StonecutterStonecutter Registered User
    edited October 2007
    ITT posting in Red doesn't make you more right.

    I'm sorry, I know this isn't kosher, but what the hell does ITT mean?


    Just to keep things on topic...


    I was totally going to buy a 40 GB ps3 when it dropped to $350, but without the BC I'll probably never own the system. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had this thought.

    Sony, I guarentee I'd have bought at least a dozen games over the life of the system.

    ....12>0 (?)

  • BarrakkethBarrakketh Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    ITT posting in Red doesn't make you more right.

    I'm sorry, I know this isn't kosher, but what the hell does ITT mean?

    In this thread.

  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited October 2007
    The only explanation for MGS4 taking up a whole bluray disc that I can think of is uncompressed audio and uncompressed textures. Not one or the other, but both. But it really doesn't matter anyways. It'll be a solid game.

    Anyway, can someone please explain to me how expecting a AAA title to have a large budget is unreasonable?

    Because theres no definition to what a large budget is? 300 mill is a lot for a movie. As far as I'm aware, 20 mil is a lot for a game. Are you saying its larger than 20 mill, less? You're not. You're just saying large. Any game that isn't a movie cash-in or some kiddy crap is gonna have a considerable chunk of a budget. Being a good game doesn't automatically mean it has the most cash pumped into it.

    So it's wrong to say it has a large budget because you don't know what I mean by that?

    Ok, I'll explain what I mean by that. It more than likely has a larger budget than MGS3 or MGS2. Why do I think this? Because it's being produced with higher res assets. It's a generation later and it's more expensive to make higher res textures and models.

    It more than likely has a larger budget than, say, Heavenly Sword or Motorstorm. Why do I think this? Because it's more than likely going to be a longer game. It's the last game in a popular franchise. It has a lot of story to tie up. It's going to have more to it than most games on the PS3 so far. Which means more art assets. And Kojima seems to be the type of developer that tries to throw in everything and the kitchen sink.

    It's not going to have a larger budget than say... Halo 3 or Shenmue. It's not too high. It's justifiably high. It's the summer blockbuster of gaming. And summer blockbusters always have a fairly decent budget.

    So basically what I'm trying to say is that compared to most games released every year it's going to have a high budget. Compared to any game released ever? No, it won't be even close to the highest budget ever. Not even in the top 10.

    Is it easy to understand what I mean now? Can people stop acting like I'm being unreasonable here?

    Give it up, man. He's being a fucking brick wall of stupid. It's not worth arguing.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • BakerIsBoredBakerIsBored Registered User
    edited October 2007
    ITT posting in Red doesn't make you more right.

    I'm sorry, I know this isn't kosher, but what the hell does ITT mean?


    Just to keep things on topic...


    I was totally going to buy a 40 GB ps3 when it dropped to $350, but without the BC I'll probably never own the system. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had this thought.

    Sony, I guarentee I'd have bought at least a dozen games over the life of the system.

    ....12>0 (?)

    You know, you can still get a 20G from ebworld for 379.99 which does your BC. :|

    I also think it’s quite funny that people say they don't want a PS3 because of no BC... were you planning on spending tons of money to play just PS2 games or for playing PS3 games? Also you people need to read up on your shit. The 40G CAN STILL DO BC. IT CANNOT DO PS2 BC BUT STILL CAN DO PS1 BC. So if you never owned a PS2 and there’s a bunch of titles that you would like to play, why not get a PS2 slim now.. play the games you’re wanting to play, and get a PS3 later (maybe after another price drop?). To say I'll 'never own the system' just because a PS3 can't play PS2 games is pretty stupid (I think). I personally didn't get my PS3 to play PS2 games... I'm pretty sure I was planning on getting it to play PS3 games and BC is just nice to have. If you already have PS2 games, don't you still have a PS2/if not ... PS2's are pretty cheap... especially if all you’re really wanting is to play PS2 games. The point of getting a PS3 should be for playing PS3 games. I bought my DreamCast to play DC games.. I didn't say OMG it has 0 BC with Genesis so there’s no way I'll ever own a DC. Same with my N64.. no BC with NES/SNES... I got it to play N64 games. I didn't get a GC to play N64 games, I didn't get a PS2 to play PS1 (well actually :P )

    But again... 20G... in stock... $379.99... has your BC.

    BTW... I plan on getting an X360, I don't have a XBoX and I don't plan on getting the X360 to play Xbox games, I'm getting one to play X360 games. If I really wanted to play XBOX games.. I would go out and buy a XBOX ... used.. for dirt cheap... and it will probably come with 15+ games (thank you cragislist). Some of you (I think) probably don't ever 'really' plan on getting a PS3.. just say "oh yea, I'd get a PS3.. oh wait no BC, never mind".

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FCDFCD Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    ITT posting in Red doesn't make you more right.

    I'm sorry, I know this isn't kosher, but what the hell does ITT mean?


    Just to keep things on topic...


    I was totally going to buy a 40 GB ps3 when it dropped to $350, but without the BC I'll probably never own the system. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had this thought.

    Sony, I guarentee I'd have bought at least a dozen games over the life of the system.

    ....12>0 (?)

    You know, you can still get a 20G from ebworld for 379.99 which does your BC. :|

    And Sony isn't making any more of them. So if it breaks down at some point in the future, and none of Sony's PS3s have BC at that point anymore, you are officialy up shit creek without a paddle.

    "If anyone tried to steal your WAX LIPS, you would eat their eyeballs and deliver an angry lecture into their empty sockets." Hearts Boxcars, The Midnight Crew
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    re: the FMV discussion...

    I'm fairly certain that a lot of the XII FMVs would still be impossible on the PS3. And if not, there is always an improvement that could be made via FMV, if nothing other than scale such as a battlefield full of incredibly detailed soldiers fighting independently as a million ships dogfight in the sky above them. Sure, a few of each could be done in-engine, but on the scale of XII's intro movie? I don't think so.

    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • BakerIsBoredBakerIsBored Registered User
    edited October 2007
    FCD wrote: »
    ITT posting in Red doesn't make you more right.

    I'm sorry, I know this isn't kosher, but what the hell does ITT mean?


    Just to keep things on topic...


    I was totally going to buy a 40 GB ps3 when it dropped to $350, but without the BC I'll probably never own the system. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had this thought.

    Sony, I guarentee I'd have bought at least a dozen games over the life of the system.

    ....12>0 (?)

    You know, you can still get a 20G from ebworld for 379.99 which does your BC. :|

    And Sony isn't making any more of them. So if it breaks down at some point in the future, and none of Sony's PS3s have BC at that point anymore, you are officialy up shit creek without a paddle.

    If the main reason your purchasing a PS3 is to play PS2 games, wouldn't it be better to just go with a PS2 and save some cash?

    80Gs still have BC. So if your 20G breaks, raise hell and push for getting it replaced with an 80G. Look at how many X360 have broke, and the ones your getting back (for the most part) are REFERBS... meaning units that are NOT straight off the production line. Same goes with 20Gs.. If it breaks, Sony will replace it with a referb, no more referbs available, then request to have it replaced with an 80G which still does BC.


    If you get it now... and it breaks in 3 years.. it would be out of warrenty... which you would be up a shit creek w/o a paddle anyways.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FCDFCD Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    FCD wrote: »
    ITT posting in Red doesn't make you more right.

    I'm sorry, I know this isn't kosher, but what the hell does ITT mean?


    Just to keep things on topic...


    I was totally going to buy a 40 GB ps3 when it dropped to $350, but without the BC I'll probably never own the system. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had this thought.

    Sony, I guarentee I'd have bought at least a dozen games over the life of the system.

    ....12>0 (?)

    You know, you can still get a 20G from ebworld for 379.99 which does your BC. :|

    And Sony isn't making any more of them. So if it breaks down at some point in the future, and none of Sony's PS3s have BC at that point anymore, you are officialy up shit creek without a paddle.

    If the main reason your purchasing a PS3 is to play PS2 games, wouldn't it be better to just go with a PS2 and save some cash?

    Certainly, but given Sony's attitude to people simply playing PS2 games instead of PS3 games, I'm guessing they(Sony) aren't going to be producing PS2s for much longer. So again, shit creek, no paddle, lol sony.

    "If anyone tried to steal your WAX LIPS, you would eat their eyeballs and deliver an angry lecture into their empty sockets." Hearts Boxcars, The Midnight Crew
  • sonictksonictk Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Goddamnit, I just make a speculative statement that MGS2 probably needed a DVD DL due to its insane amount of audio, and it progresses to MGS4 being bloated with excessive uncompressed audio without any sources listed. Good job Internet. I'm betting that most people can't tell the difference between MP3 320 kbps CBR and FLAC audio anyway.

    And:
    Can you think of any current gen games that use FMV?
    Sometimes I wish games would, but since everyone is on the 'if it's not realtime it's NOT GOOD" bandwagon these days you don't see it very often anymore. I know that Crisis Core did (yea ok it's a PSP game but they had to deal with the limitations of the UMD and that's impressive in itself considering the amount of content in the game), and it's much more awesome for it.

  • BakerIsBoredBakerIsBored Registered User
    edited October 2007
    FCD wrote: »
    FCD wrote: »
    ITT posting in Red doesn't make you more right.

    I'm sorry, I know this isn't kosher, but what the hell does ITT mean?


    Just to keep things on topic...


    I was totally going to buy a 40 GB ps3 when it dropped to $350, but without the BC I'll probably never own the system. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had this thought.

    Sony, I guarentee I'd have bought at least a dozen games over the life of the system.

    ....12>0 (?)

    You know, you can still get a 20G from ebworld for 379.99 which does your BC. :|

    And Sony isn't making any more of them. So if it breaks down at some point in the future, and none of Sony's PS3s have BC at that point anymore, you are officialy up shit creek without a paddle.

    If the main reason your purchasing a PS3 is to play PS2 games, wouldn't it be better to just go with a PS2 and save some cash?

    Certainly, but given Sony's attitude to people simply playing PS2 games instead of PS3 games, I'm guessing they(Sony) aren't going to be producing PS2s for much longer. So again, shit creek, no paddle, lol sony.

    So can we say lol Microsoft since they no longer make XBOX's? O_o X360 doesn't have full BC... so if I have a few XBOX games that I can't play on the X360, and since Microsoft doesnt make XBOX's no more... I'm also up a shit creek with no paddles right?

    What about all that money I invested in my SNES... they don't make those anymore... so if mine breaks, I find a USED one. Or like you, I could just say lol Nintendo. :...:

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Inglorious CoyoteInglorious Coyote Registered User
    edited October 2007

    So can we say lol Microsoft since they no longer make XBOX's? O_o X360 doesn't have full BC... so if I have a few XBOX games that I can't play on the X360, and since Microsoft doesnt make XBOX's no more... I'm also up a shit creek with no paddles right?
    No, because MS has spent the last 2 years making their BC better, not inexplicably making it worse.

  • FCDFCD Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    FCD wrote: »
    FCD wrote: »
    ITT posting in Red doesn't make you more right.

    I'm sorry, I know this isn't kosher, but what the hell does ITT mean?


    Just to keep things on topic...


    I was totally going to buy a 40 GB ps3 when it dropped to $350, but without the BC I'll probably never own the system. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had this thought.

    Sony, I guarentee I'd have bought at least a dozen games over the life of the system.

    ....12>0 (?)

    You know, you can still get a 20G from ebworld for 379.99 which does your BC. :|

    And Sony isn't making any more of them. So if it breaks down at some point in the future, and none of Sony's PS3s have BC at that point anymore, you are officialy up shit creek without a paddle.

    If the main reason your purchasing a PS3 is to play PS2 games, wouldn't it be better to just go with a PS2 and save some cash?

    Certainly, but given Sony's attitude to people simply playing PS2 games instead of PS3 games, I'm guessing they(Sony) aren't going to be producing PS2s for much longer. So again, shit creek, no paddle, lol sony.

    So can we say lol Microsoft since they no longer make XBOX's? O_o X360 doesn't have full BC... so if I have a few XBOX games that I can't play on the X360, and since Microsoft doesnt make XBOX's no more... I'm also up a shit creek with no paddles right?

    Except BC has been a big selling point of Sony's since the PS2 first came out seven years ago. Not so much for Microsoft and Nintendo(except on the Game Boy front, of course).

    "If anyone tried to steal your WAX LIPS, you would eat their eyeballs and deliver an angry lecture into their empty sockets." Hearts Boxcars, The Midnight Crew
  • BakerIsBoredBakerIsBored Registered User
    edited October 2007
    FCD wrote: »
    FCD wrote: »
    FCD wrote: »
    ITT posting in Red doesn't make you more right.

    I'm sorry, I know this isn't kosher, but what the hell does ITT mean?


    Just to keep things on topic...


    I was totally going to buy a 40 GB ps3 when it dropped to $350, but without the BC I'll probably never own the system. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had this thought.

    Sony, I guarentee I'd have bought at least a dozen games over the life of the system.

    ....12>0 (?)

    You know, you can still get a 20G from ebworld for 379.99 which does your BC. :|

    And Sony isn't making any more of them. So if it breaks down at some point in the future, and none of Sony's PS3s have BC at that point anymore, you are officialy up shit creek without a paddle.

    If the main reason your purchasing a PS3 is to play PS2 games, wouldn't it be better to just go with a PS2 and save some cash?

    Certainly, but given Sony's attitude to people simply playing PS2 games instead of PS3 games, I'm guessing they(Sony) aren't going to be producing PS2s for much longer. So again, shit creek, no paddle, lol sony.

    So can we say lol Microsoft since they no longer make XBOX's? O_o X360 doesn't have full BC... so if I have a few XBOX games that I can't play on the X360, and since Microsoft doesnt make XBOX's no more... I'm also up a shit creek with no paddles right?

    Except BC has been a big selling point of Sony's since the PS2 first came out seven years ago. Not so much for Microsoft and Nintendo(except on the Game Boy front, of course).

    All I'm trying to say, anytime I ever bought a console, it was because I wanted to play the games for that console. I never got one simply due to BC. X360 doesnt have full BC, do people care? Seems like 'nah not really'. Did that stop them from buying an X360... no not really... cause they bought it for X360 games. At least thats what it seems like by throwing around the exclusive list all the time.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • SirUltimosSirUltimos Don't talk, Rusty. Just paint. Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    But Microsoft also never claimed they would have full BC and then mocked the competition for not having it.

    Just saying.

  • BakerIsBoredBakerIsBored Registered User
    edited October 2007
    SirUltimos wrote: »
    But Microsoft also never claimed they would have full BC and then mocked the competition for not having it.

    Just saying.

    Thats very true.

    I guess for me BC isn't a deciding factor whether I purchase a console or not. I purchase a new console to get the new games. Thats what I've been doing since NES. Other than my PS2 Slim and GameBoy Advanced (still debating to go with DS or PSP), not one of my other consoles has BC. Just seems silly for people to be like OMFG NO BC NO WAY. I never realized that was the whole point of getting a new console anyways.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • SirUltimosSirUltimos Don't talk, Rusty. Just paint. Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    For a lot of people (especially those who never owned a PS2) the BC is a tipping point. No one gets a console only because it can play the previous console's games, but the feature never hurts. It just so happens that for a lot of people the removal of just one feature places the system back into "no buy" territory.

    Besides, the reason they gave is idiotic. They're removing a feature many people like just because they want to, basically.

  • Blake TBlake T Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    SirUltimos wrote: »
    For a lot of people (especially those who never owned a PS2) the BC is a tipping point. No one gets a console only because it can play the previous console's games, but the feature never hurts. It just so happens that for a lot of people the removal of just one feature places the system back into "no buy" territory.

    Besides, the reason they gave is idiotic. They're removing a feature many people like just because they want to, basically.

    This is my situation, there are a good 10 or so really good games for the PS2 that I would like to play, there are a handfull of PS3 games coming out that I wouldn't mind playing and I wouldn't mind a Blu Ray player. There is also the convience of not having to jump through hoops and hooking shit up to play PS2 games again (that and wired controllers are evil evil beasts)

    The current problem for me is the price.

    Now they drop the price (yay) but gimp the features (boo). Also in Australia they have annouced that they are dropping all SKU's bar the 40 gig one (and it's still around 200 dollars (total of $AUS700 which is ridiculous considering in $US it's around $620) more than a 360 Pro bundle) which is making me even more disinterested in the product.

  • MumblyfishMumblyfish Registered User
    edited October 2007
    SirUltimos wrote: »
    For a lot of people (especially those who never owned a PS2) the BC is a tipping point. No one gets a console only because it can play the previous console's games, but the feature never hurts.
    For those who do own a PS2 and aren't swimming in money, not only is backwards compatability a tipping point, but lack of backwards compatability does hurt. If a console lacks backwards compatability, then (assuming I would buy the new console, which I wouldn't) I could not sell my previous generation console to, in effect, lower the cost of a new console. At a conservative estimate, I could sell my like-new olde style PlayStation 2 and its accessories for at least £100. That's £100 added on to the already insane price of the PlayStation 3 due to a feature being cut, not being added. Fucking nuts.

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Mumblyfish wrote: »
    SirUltimos wrote: »
    For a lot of people (especially those who never owned a PS2) the BC is a tipping point. No one gets a console only because it can play the previous console's games, but the feature never hurts.
    For those who do own a PS2 and aren't swimming in money, not only is backwards compatability a tipping point, but lack of backwards compatability does hurt. If a console lacks backwards compatability, then (assuming I would buy the new console, which I wouldn't) I could not sell my previous generation console to, in effect, lower the cost of a new console. At a conservative estimate, I could sell my like-new olde style PlayStation 2 and its accessories for at least £100. That's £100 added on to the already insane price of the PlayStation 3 due to a feature being cut, not being added. Fucking nuts.

    But think of all the money that you could make by selling your PS2 games!

    They're really completely killing BC in Australia? I know that Sony has been acting completely insanely lately, but I won't believe that without a link. There's just no way.

  • LewiePLewieP Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    jothki wrote: »
    They're really completely killing BC in Australia? I know that Sony has been acting completely insanely lately, but I won't believe that without a link. There's just no way.

    here you go

    I said Europe, but I meant PAL region.

Sign In or Register to comment.