Author Topic: Sony's secret weapon is PS3 Slim... Jim? (Read 51521 times)

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #150 on:** June 29, 2009, 08:12:19 PM »

Everyone who bought a PS3 between its launch and the release of this are going to be pissed off that they spent so much for something that isn't as good.

Stratos · « **Reply #151 on:** June 29, 2009, 08:14:31 PM »

I thought the original PS3 released did have some type of backwards compatibility and then they removed it.

Deguello · « **Reply #152 on:** June 29, 2009, 09:03:16 PM »

SCE lost nearly $600 million in the Holiday Quarter last year. So I don't think things look too rosy over there right now.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #153 on:** June 29, 2009, 09:25:34 PM »

So you're saying, Sony just lost out on ONE HUNDRED 6-Million-Dollar Mans?

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #154 on:** June 29, 2009, 11:47:21 PM »

Meh, Sony can afford those kinds of loses. They made billions from the PS2, right?

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #155 on:** June 29, 2009, 11:50:09 PM »

That's gone already.

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #156 on:** June 30, 2009, 12:08:16 AM »

Hell, by the end of 2007 the video game division of Sony had already lost all the profits they had made with the PS2. Sony as whole (meaning not just SCE, but also adding in the TV/camera/movie/etc. divisions) lost over $1 billion last quarter.

Stratos · « **Reply #157 on:** June 30, 2009, 12:08:31 AM »

They spent it all to make Blue-Ray the HD format of choice. The question it if they can hold together while waiting for that to pay out.

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #158 on:** June 30, 2009, 12:22:59 AM »

I don't think them winning the Blu-ray war really matters because it seems like most consumers are perfectly content with their DVDs. Blur-ray will end up being like Laser-Disc and Super Audio CDs, by which I mean they will be niche products for technophiles and for the rich but they just won't catch on with the mainstream.

Hell, most people don't even have HD tvs. They either can't afford it, or are content with what they have. There's absolutely no point in having a Blur-ray player (or even PS3 for that matter) if you just have a Standard defniiton TV.

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #159 on:** June 30, 2009, 12:26:19 AM »

I guess Sony is not doing a good job of educating people on "Blu-ray Disc" (which is they say is the correct way to spell it, including the "Disc" part).

I like all of the extra features on Blu-ray Discs, but the real reason (not just lack of HDTV's in homes) I think most people are not adopting Blu-ray Disc yet is because they are over-priced. There is no valid reason for a new movie to be priced at $25 (yet alone $30 or even $40 like I have seen some movies on BD). The average consumer sees the DVD version at about $15 and the BD version at $30, which do you think they will buy? At least Disney has come up with a good idea by releasing all of their titles in a DVD/BD/Digital copy combo package.

Mop it up · « **Reply #160 on:** June 30, 2009, 12:31:00 AM »

Don't forget boxed sets of television shows, those are $100 or more on Blu-ray whereas they are $50 or less on DVD. And a lot of shows aren't even available on Blu-ray and probably never will be.

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #161 on:** June 30, 2009, 12:44:51 AM »

True, but to be fair Blu-ray players are reverse compatible with DVD so that isn't the same problem that VHS programs not being available on DVD was...

And to this day there are STILL many things only available on VHS. They probably always will be...

TJ Spyke · « **Reply #162 on:** June 30, 2009, 12:54:19 AM »

Don't forgot licensing. The Blu-ray Disc version of "Total Recall" is actually inferior to the DVD version since it lacks the audio commentary by the director and Arnold (since the distributor didn't want to pay Arnold another $100,000 like they had to in order to get him on the DVD commentary).

There are some odd decisions too. Fox has released seasons 1 and 3 of Prison Break on BD, but not season 2. Season 12 of South Park is $85 on BD (although walmart.com has it on sale for $46.86).

Stratos · « **Reply #163 on:** June 30, 2009, 02:02:55 AM »

Quote from: Chozo Ghost on June 30, 2009, 12:44:51 AM

True, but to be fair Blu-ray players are reverse compatible with DVD so that isn't the same problem that VHS programs not being available on DVD was...

And to this day there are STILL many things only available on VHS. They probably always will be...

Poor Angus. My friends favorite movie because he relates so much to it. We watch it every year for his birthday and it has never had a DVD release.

Quote from: TJ Spyke on June 30, 2009, 12:54:19 AM

There are some odd decisions too. Fox has released seasons 1 and 3 of Prison Break on BD, but not season 2. Season 12 of South Park is $85 on BD (although walmart.com has it on sale for $46.86).

Are you sure that's not a fluke? Is that a store price or Amazon's price? Because sometimes Amazon will feature marketplace seller who overcharge for the product. Sometimes you can still see the Amazon one for sal at a cheaper price but you have to look under the different sellers.

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #164 on:** June 30, 2009, 02:23:20 AM »

Quote from: Stratos on June 30, 2009, 02:02:55 AM

Poor Angus. My friends favorite movie because he relates so much to it. We watch it every year for his birthday and it has never had a DVD release.

Also my "Dinosaurs!" VHS featuring a very young Fred Savage. I 'm pretty sure that hasn't been upgraded to DVD, and probably never will. Things like this are the only reason I still keep a VCR around..

Stratos · « **Reply #165 on:** June 30, 2009, 02:33:32 AM »

That show was hilarious. "I'm the baby!"

It is too bad, really. Over the ages movies have suffered from this. There are many classics from the early days of film that are now lost forever due to confusion and copyright issues.

The same problem is now happening to games as well. Old liscenced games and other old titles are not legally able to be released on digital services and run the risk of being lost forever as well.

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #166 on:** June 30, 2009, 02:57:02 AM »

Quote from: Stratos on June 30, 2009, 02:33:32 AM

That show was hilarious. "I'm the baby!"

I know what you're talking about (which is also cool), but that isn't what I was talking about.

I actually meant this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs!

If you've never seen it, I STRONGLY recommend you look up the "Mesozoic Mind" video on youtube. Trust me, you won't be disappointed.

Mop it up · « **Reply #167 on:** June 30, 2009, 03:11:12 AM »

Quote from: Chozo Ghost on June 30, 2009, 12:44:51 AM

True, but to be fair Blu-ray players are reverse compatible with DVD so that isn't the same problem that VHS programs not being available on DVD was...

This only makes Blu-ray seem all the more worthless. DVD is a clear improvement over VHS, so much so that some people even replaced their VHS collections with DVDs. But if it isn't worth it for people to replace DVDs with Blu-ray then does it really offer any worthwhile improvement?

At best Blu-ray will co-exist with DVD until a real next-generation format is released but it will never replace it.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #168 on:** June 30, 2009, 03:41:43 AM »

Quote from: Chozo Ghost on June 29, 2009, 11:47:21 PM

Meh, Sony can afford those kinds of loses. They made billions from the PS2, right?

A few. Way less than Nintendo made from the Gamecube. Anyone have the chart at hand?

Mop it up · « **Reply #169 on:** June 30, 2009, 03:45:42 AM »

You mean this?

http://n-europe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22100&page=3

Chozo Ghost · « **Reply #170 on:** June 30, 2009, 04:54:49 AM »

Quote from: Mop_it_up on June 30, 2009, 03:11:12 AM

At best Blu-ray will co-exist with DVD until a real next-generation format is released but it will never replace it.

Exactly. Blur-ray is just a stop-gap format that will fill in until HVD or protein-encoded discs take off.

Stratos · « **Reply #171 on:** June 30, 2009, 04:57:02 AM »

Quote from: Mop_it_up on June 30, 2009, 03:45:42 AM

You mean this?

http://n-europe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22100&page=3

Wow, those are some crazy numbers. What an eye opener.

vudu · « **Reply #172 on:** June 30, 2009, 01:50:36 PM »

Quote from: Chozo Ghost on June 29, 2009, 08:12:19 PM

Everyone who bought a PS3 between its launch and the release of this are going to be pissed off that they spent so much for something that isn't as good.

It sounds like it will be all software emulation, so there's no reason why older PS3's wouldn't be able to download a firmware update to add PS2 functionality.

BlackNMild2k1 · « **Reply #173 on:** June 30, 2009, 01:54:02 PM »

You guys are talking about the patenting of the software emulation of the EE right?
Hasn't the PS3 done that from the beginning? Isn't it the GPU that they need to emulate(that was included in the 1st PS3's) to have proper PS2 BC?

Flames_of_chaos · « **Reply #174 on:** June 30, 2009, 05:40:43 PM »

Quote from: BlackNMild2k1 on June 30, 2009, 01:54:02 PM

You guys are talking about the patenting of the software emulation of the EE right?
Hasn't the PS3 done that from the beginning? Isn't it the GPU that they need to emulate(that was included in the 1st PS3's) to have proper PS2 BC?

The 60 and 20GB PS3s had proper PS2 hardware in it that Sony used to run PS2 games on a PS3. The 80GB PS3 with 4 USB slots and memory card slots had BC on partial PS2 hardware and a mix of general software emulation. All PS3 models with only 2 USB ports and no memory card slots has no PS2 hardware inside which eliminates any backwards compatibility. So that's your key difference BnM. Nintendo and Sony always relied on hardware to pull off backwards compatibility, Microsoft relied on software emulation unfortunately the jump from nVidia to ATi and from Intel to IBM didn't bode well for Microsoft and made such an uphill battle that they gave up on updating BC.

News:

Author Topic: Sony's secret weapon is PS3 Slim... Jim? (Read 51521 times)