Hell, I'll accept that one just for coming out of left field.
Still waiting for two, Sony!
Still waiting for two, Sony!
utforums.epicgames.com/sh...p?t=577885
360 version was already set for 2008 since like summer time anyways. And there is still the matter of 360 not having mod support and might not have disc capacity to carry all the game content.
360 version was already set for 2008 since like summer time anyways. And there is still the matter of 360 not having mod support and might not have disc capacity to carry all the game content.
Hahahahahaha.
@#%$ you.
Good luck selling that brand-new tard pack (now with extra tard!) on the merits of the PS3 library alone.
I'm not buying another PS2 to replace my dying one.
And it looks like I'm not ever buying a PS3 to do so, either.
@#%$ you.
Good luck selling that brand-new tard pack (now with extra tard!) on the merits of the PS3 library alone.
I'm not buying another PS2 to replace my dying one.
And it looks like I'm not ever buying a PS3 to do so, either.
What I don't understand is, if the 80GB model (and all of the EU models) use software emulation for backwards compatibility....why wouldn't it be included in this new model?
It couldn't possibly be done intentionally to give people the idea that the higher-end model is "better" than this one, and thus maybe worth more money, right?
Or maybe to stem off complaints from those in the EU who paid quite a bit more for the system only at launch only a little more than half a year ago? (IE, "Well, I guess I didn't mind paying that much more, since I can play many of my PS2 games. Well, most of them. Or...some of them...aside from certain pressings of Final Fantasy X. Or X-2. Or XII. Or San Andreas. Or Vice City. Or Gran Turismo 4. Or God Of War. Or many versions of Winning Eleven. But I wasn't planning on playing any of those obscure games!").
It couldn't possibly be done intentionally to give people the idea that the higher-end model is "better" than this one, and thus maybe worth more money, right?
Or maybe to stem off complaints from those in the EU who paid quite a bit more for the system only at launch only a little more than half a year ago? (IE, "Well, I guess I didn't mind paying that much more, since I can play many of my PS2 games. Well, most of them. Or...some of them...aside from certain pressings of Final Fantasy X. Or X-2. Or XII. Or San Andreas. Or Vice City. Or Gran Turismo 4. Or God Of War. Or many versions of Winning Eleven. But I wasn't planning on playing any of those obscure games!").
The original 20 and 60 GB PS3s had both EE and GS chips inside for BC. Easiest, most compatible, but most expensive.
The 80 GB only emulates the EE, losing more compatibility, but keeps the GS because it's different enough that it can't be replicated with the RSX or Cell.
The 40 GB cuts out the GS, too. PS2 games cannot be played, at all. Suddenly the 360's backwards compatibility isn't looking so bad.
The 80 GB only emulates the EE, losing more compatibility, but keeps the GS because it's different enough that it can't be replicated with the RSX or Cell.
The 40 GB cuts out the GS, too. PS2 games cannot be played, at all. Suddenly the 360's backwards compatibility isn't looking so bad.
Who wants to bet how long it will be before Sony cancels the 40GB model because it is not making enough sales?
In all honesty? I think the 40GB will sell reasonably well. It just won't sell to us.
I think the general public will not know how badly gimped it is. All they will see is that, for the first time in its existence, a PS3 model is price-wise comparable with a 360 (for now...).
And then they will try to play a PS2 game and realize that every successive PS3 hardware revision has been worse than its predecessor.
Next up: You all don't really need an optical drive that plays more than Bluray, do you?
I think the general public will not know how badly gimped it is. All they will see is that, for the first time in its existence, a PS3 model is price-wise comparable with a 360 (for now...).
And then they will try to play a PS2 game and realize that every successive PS3 hardware revision has been worse than its predecessor.
Next up: You all don't really need an optical drive that plays more than Bluray, do you?
I wonder why the "LOL XCOCK3SHITTY CAN'T EVN PLAY HAFE OF THERE OLD XCRAP GAMES! LOLZOL" crowd, who was so vocal for the past two years, is either silent or mostly in support of Sony regarding this.
www.gamespot.com/news/618...ws;title;4Quote:
Speaking with the Wall Street Journal, Sony Computer Entertainment America CEO Jack Tretton shed a little more light on the issue this week. Although the move to software for PS2 backward compatibility was driven by cost concerns, the outright elimination of it was not.
Tretton told the paper that taking support for PS2 games out of the new system isn't dramatically cutting manufacturing costs. However, by omitting the option of playing PS2 games, Sony hopes that new customers will instead spend their money on more PS3 games. He added that Sony's own research suggests that customers won't miss the feature because they probably already own a PS2.
