[PS3] PlayStation 3 Discussion Thread

Originally Posted by Gechmir

Demos to consoles are a new thing, and I'm sure folks cried up a storm just to get said demos.

They are? I remember when I bought a PSX some... eight years ago, I didn't have any games at first, so I just played a demo disc from Official PlayStation Magazine. Same with Dreamcast, played a demo disc that came with the console.

Also, Kojima? What? The topic is Heavenly Sword, and it's one and a half month away, not six to nine.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Have you heard of a little game called The Warriors.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

If you think it's not a good game because of something as minor as that, you have problems. It's the best beat-'em-up of this decade.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I've only played it on PS2, though I don't think there should be any real difference between the versions.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Slayer X

LAIR official scores so far
GamePro (poor source): 7.5/10 (3.75/5)
Play Magazine (more credable): 9/10

Any other scores (unless you HAVE the magazine) are simply rumours spun by fanboys on any side of the fence.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Inhert

wow that suck apparently they manage a way to prevent you from playing demo that are not in your psn store...

It works fine on my US console; it's just a TV compatiblity issue. And the Folklore demo American version is coming today, as has been confirmed on the game's official site, so what does it even matter.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by 2401 Penitent Tangent

Cutting the EE out would not save a whole hell of a lot on manufacturing costs per unit, y'know.

...okay? The EE chip costs about 30 dollars, which means that if Sony had used software emulation right from the start, at this point they would have saved more than a hundred million dollars from that. Throughout the whole lifetime of the PS3, it could save them as much as a billion dollars. It's not exactly small change.

Originally Posted by Qwarky

It sure as hell didn't make the damn thing any cheaper here, that's for sure.

Sony was already losing hundreds of dollars from each unit sold, what a surprise that a price-cut was not the first thing on their minds after reducing the losses a little.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I don't feel sorry for them, I'm just applying common sense. I doubt enough people care about a 9% loss in backwards compatibility to make it worthwhile for Sony to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. And it can't be said that they aren't constantly improving the software emulation. I heard that 1.91 fixed Silent Hill 3 and Hitman: Blood Money, and 1.92 made Digital Devil Saga playable.

And virtually all electronics are more expensive in Europe, that's not exactly news. I personally just ordered the American version like a normal person.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by 2401 Penitent Tangent

Uh, yeah. I know that.

Let me throw a hypothetical situation out there, actually. The profit margin of this console (by itself) is basically zero at this point. Before the price drop, they were losing about 300 bucks on every 20 gig (manufacture cost: 805.85), and 240 on every 60 gig (manufacture cost: 840.35). Assuming, for a moment (since I don't have figures for manufacturing costs that postdate the price drop), that those manufacturing costs remain basically similar, they now lose 340 on every 60 gig.

While saving a little bit on each unit is great, they're going to have to sell 16 80 gig consoles with the 30 dollar savings to make up for one person saying they now won't buy the thing if it doesn't contain hardware emulation. Or, similarly, they'll have to sell 3 80 gigs to make up the 100 dollar price difference if Joe Customer goes to nab a 60 now so that he gets his EE.

Hell, If Joe Customer really wants his EE, and the 60s are no longer made, and he buys secondhand, that's basically the same deal. At this point you'd figure moving MORE units would make more sense than potentially reducing customer support by removing a key feature. (It could be argued that as time goes on, backwards compatibility means less and less, but right now it's still rather important.)

That doesn't take into account how much they are saving in other areas with the move to the 80 gig, but at this point I don't see just removing the EE as that beneficial to them from either standpoint. It also assumes that after the 60s are gone, they'll be putting the 80s at the new, lower price point, which I imagine they will.

This, of course, assumes that people are smart enough or observant enough to care about the backwards compatibility issue, which may or may not be the case. Sony's obviously banking on the fact that they aren't, though.

As was pointed out, people aren't smart, they're fuckin' idiots. I'm fairly sure most people who buy a PS3 don't even know what 'HD console' or 'Blu-ray' means. I very much doubt that one in sixteen potential PS3 buyers would choose to pass on the console because of the missing EE chip. Frankly, I even doubt that one in sixteen buyers knows what the EE chip is and whether the 80 GB PS3 has it or not.

By normal consumer standards, we're all supernerds in this thread, and I think there's no basis to be assuming that the vast majority of potential PS3 customers want anything else than 'that console on which you can play the new GTA, Metal Gear and Final Fantasy'. As much as you'd like to imagine otherwise, perfect backwards compatiblity isn't a 'key feature'. Just look at the 360.

Besides, you're talking as if the 80 GB version doesn't have backwards compatibility, which is simply wrong. Nearly all PS2 games work, and look better than on the original console due to upscaling, and you know that they are constantly updating the compatibility list. I wouldn't be surprised if, in half a year or so, there was no discernable difference between hardware and software emulation. Since spring, they've already improved the compatibility rate from the original 72% to a bit over 90%.

Originally Posted by russ

As far as the EE chip costs are concerned, I am wondering if over the long run it would be more expensive to include the $30 chip per console or to have employees coding for backwards compatibility for some period of time.

Hardware is much more expensive by far. Assuming they sell about five million consoles a year, it means they spend approximately 140 million dollars on EE chips. Even if they have a large team of 50 coders working for backwards compability, each of which receives 200 000$ per year, that's still only 10 million spent.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by BlueBomber

Beautiful Katamari is just screaming for some motion controls.

No it's not, the game is perfect for a pair of analog sticks.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.