Sony does Backwards Compatiblity Right

[bapenguin]

Along with FULL PS2/PS1 backwards compatibility on the PS3 (something XBox 360 severly lacks), Sony is going to offer adapters (for a price) to convert your PS2/PS1 memory cards to a PS3 format. It appears these adapters are one time use kind of things as the files must be copied to the PS3 hard drive (a good thing)."To use saved data on a PlayStation 2 memory card, you must copy the data onto a virtual memory card within the hard disk. This requires a PS2/PSone memory card adaptor to copy the data to your PLAYSTATION 3. A memory card adaptor is designed to edit, up/download game saves to and from EMS flash card or smart media card."

Excellent news for future PS3 owners.

Source: Joystiq (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/04/ps2-memory-cards-need-adaptor-for-ps3/)

[critch]

Actually, Nintendo is doing it right. You don't have to buy an adapter on the wii, and can purchase any of the older games right from the console wirelessly.

Sony's just trying to rook people, as usual. There's NO excuse not to accept memory cards from the original systems.

[AversionFX]

Excellent news for PS3 owners.

Excellent news for... wouldbe(?) PS3 owners?

This is some good news for once from Sony.

Sony's just trying to rook people, as usual. There's NO excuse not to accept memory cards from the original systems.


What the fuck?

[Kamalot]

Hot diggity! I'm gonna drop $600-$500 so I can play me some PS2 and PS1 games!

Woot indeed!

[bapenguin]

Excellent news for... wouldbe(?) PS3 owners?

heh. yeah I fixed that.

[GrinR]

Not that I care, since I'm a collector anyways, but that'll make my console setup decisions a lot easier. We'll see if it works.

[JHemperly]

It looks like this is could be a really good idea, but before you all start saying this is the first thing Sony's done right with the PS3, let's just wait to see how much this thing costs. (and if it installs a rootkit on your memory card that installs on your PS1/2 and dials out to sony when you play pirated PS1/2 games) ;)

[soco]

until i see the list and we know exactly how they're doing backwards compatability, i'm not getting too excited over this. the ps2 chip was just speculation last i read, and unless they've got adapters for joysticks, it's already lost a handful of games.

glad to see they're at least offering the ability to import old saves. although i know why MS didn't add that feature, it still kinda sucks.

[Jack B]

Sony defintely sounds like they are nailing the Backwards compatibility feature. It might not be 100% what they say (been there, done that...), but at this point is looking way better than the 360's BC capabilities.

[Zeal]

Actually, Nintendo is doing it right. You don't have to buy an adapter on the wii, and can purchase any of the older games right from the console wirelessly.
Which will cost more than playing the games you already own for free.

Nice one, retard.

[GrinR]

Sony defintely sounds like they are nailing the Backwards compatibility feature. It might not be 100% what they say (been there, done that...), but at this point is looking way better than the 360's BC capabilities.

I'm not sure why anyone bothers talking about 360 BC. It's just not. It emulates some of the most popular games and that's about it.

[Jacob Singer]

Is Sony going to upgrade the resolution on these old games as well (something all the 360 bc whiners always fail to mention)?

[Jinaar]

How does someone "nail" something on a system that isn't even out, and what is in speculation being "nailed" isn't even being tested by actual gamers in real world environments? Might want to explain that....

[pavlovscow]

I definitely understand the need. Everybody wants backward compatibility when a new system comes out, because you have these games you are still playing and all. But honestly, once I get a new console, I want games for that new console. If I want to play the older games, I bust out the old system.

[Norse]

I expect nothing less for $600

[Kamalot]

I expect nothing less for $600
True.

I've read that since Sony is using a hardware solution for playing old games, the games won't run in a higher resolution or have any additional filtering, anti-aliasing effects or such. Hardware will allow the PS3 to play old PS2 and 1 games exactly like having a PS2/1 at the cost of adding enhancements.

Can anyone verify this?

[Norse]

True.

I've read that since Sony is using a hardware solution for playing old games, the games won't run in a higher resolution or have any additional filtering, anti-aliasing effects or such. Hardware will allow the PS3 to play old PS2 and 1 games exactly like having a PS2/1 at the cost of adding enhancements.

Can anyone verify this?

Well, they are missing one thing: rumble :)

[Kelegacy]

Actually, Nintendo is doing it right. You don't have to buy an adapter on the wii, and can purchase any of the older games right from the console wirelessly.

Sony's just trying to rook people, as usual. There's NO excuse not to accept memory cards from the original systems.
You've got to do the same thing with the 360, though. Both stink that you have to pay for a cable/program thing.

The PS3 memory card reader thingies in the 600 dollar version don't support PS1/PS2 cards? If not, that royally sucks. This would be the only way to get your info onto the PS3 unless you want to restart all those games. Not much of a problem, but I still have save data on my PS1 cards from like 2 weeks ago (and up to 10 years ago)

[Kelegacy]

True.

I've read that since Sony is using a hardware solution for playing old games, the games won't run in a higher resolution or have any additional filtering, anti-aliasing effects or such. Hardware will allow the PS3 to play old PS2 and 1 games exactly like having a PS2/1 at the cost of adding enhancements.

Can anyone verify this?
I thought they were going to be in HD, upconverted or something? I thought that was the purpose of the ten-hour GT4 demo during the keynote at E3.

[Reanimated]

I applaud them for having full compatibility, but for 600 bucks, couldn't they have just built a memory card port into the box? How much is this adapter going to set me back?

[ChiHawk]

So we know that the PS3 is 100% BC? My memory is fuzzy, but aren't there iterations of the PS2 that have trouble with PS2 games, let alone PS1?

100% BC is not only highly unlikely, but completely unnecessary. A significant expense that would be incurred entirely to satiate a vocal few. I personally have no problem with how MS is handling BC on the 360. Make sure the big hiiters and the cult favorites work (even if that is eventually), do it without affecting the cost of the console, and don't worry about the flotsom and jetsom that make up most of every console's library.

[Kamalot]

I thought they were going to be in HD, upconverted or something? I thought that was the purpose of the ten-hour GT4 demo during the keynote at E3.

From what I understood, the purpose was to show how easy it is to port current generation projects to the PS3. Everything I've read since the announcement that PS3 would be using PS2 hardware for backwards compatibility, is that games won't run in HD or with full-screen anti-aliasing but will run in progressive scan.

Oh yeah. And as someone said above, no rumble.

[Kamalot]

I thought they were going to be in HD, upconverted or something? I thought that was the purpose of the ten-hour GT4 demo during the keynote at E3.
I have to call you out on your tag under your name that reads, "The PS3 is $499!" If you are paying an extra $100 for for Bluray playback, why are you buying a version that won't play your movies in HD past 2010 when the broadcast flag gets turned on? If you aren't buying the system for bluray, then why are you buying the PS3?

The PS3 is really $599.

[Kelegacy]

Here's a neat (and obvious) plan to get a PS3 at a lower price: sell your PS1 and PS2. What do we need them for anymore? That is, if you are ine market for a PS3, which we'd pretty much agree that not many here are.

I still have to keep my Xbox hooked up, which is a pain. I'm not getting rid of my PS2 until the day the PS3 is affordable.

100% BC is not only highly unlikely, but completely unnecessary. A significant expense that would be incurred entirely to satiate a vocal few.

But think how appealing BC is to people who haven't owned a previous Playstation 1 or 2. Some folks here on EvAv never owned a Xbox or Gamecube, but are going to reap the rewards of an awesome library they missed (and a cheap one) by buying the new systems. BC is awesome, and there's no way to spin it in a negative.

[Kamalot]

Here's a neat (and obvious) plan to get a PS3 at a lower price: sell your PS1 and PS2. What do we need them for anymore? That is, if you are ine market for a PS3, which we'd pretty much agree that not many here are.

I still have to keep my Xbox hooked up, which is a pain. I'm not getting rid of my PS2 until the day the PS3 is affordable.



But think how appealing BC is to people who haven't owned a previous Playstation 1 or 2. Some folks here on EvAv never owned a Xbox or Gamecube, but are going to reap the rewards of an awesome library they missed (and a cheap one) by buying the new systems. BC is awesome, and there's no way to spin it in a negative.

I'll keep my PS2 system to play my PS2 games with rumble. Can you imagine Shadow of the Colossus without it rumbling?

Weak sauce.

[antoniogaud]

Are we actually saying that there will be PS3 owners who dont own a PS2 to play PS2 games on? C'mon now!

I like game emulation for games that cant be played anymore, but backwards compatibility for PS3 is just a gimmick. I can some some X360 owners wanting some Xbox games, but EVERYONE has a PS2...

[Norse]

I think BC is good, but not really an important feature IMHO. That said, I really enjoyed being able to play Ninja Gaiden on X360 and I'm actually thinking of getting God Of War 1/2 and play it on PS3. So it's a nice feature, but not one I consider to be necessary.

With all the media card capabilities Sony brags about it's quite silly that they left out support for the PS2 memory cards. But hey, they need to make money somehow.

[ChiHawk]

But think how appealing BC is to people who haven't owned a previous Playstation 1 or 2. Some folks here on EvAv never owned a Xbox or Gamecube, but are going to reap the rewards of an awesome library they missed (and a cheap one) by buying the new systems. BC is awesome, and there's no way to spin it in a negative.

Oh, I don't think BC is a negative. I like being able to pop Halo 2 into the 360 every now and then. I just think that shooting for or even expecting 100% BC is ludicrous. Like I said, the PS2 wasn't 100%, the slim PS2 isn't 100% with PS2 games (right? I could be wrong), so expecting the PS3 to be 100% with PS1 and/or PS2 games is a little silly. Actually, I would think that 100% PS1 BC would be more likely than PS2, as you should be able to pretty acurately do software emulation of all of the PS1 hardware given the raw power of the PS3.

[Reanimated]

I'll keep my PS2 system to play my PS2 games with rumble. Can you imagine Shadow of the Colossus without it rumbling?

Weak sauce.



It's not just weak sauce - it's not playable without rumble.

[Kelegacy]

I'll keep my PS2 system to play my PS2 games with rumble. Can you imagine Shadow of the Colossus without it rumbling?

Weak sauce.
Yeah, that's seriously stupid. No rumbling is...hmm. I play with my Wavebird and don't mind missing the rumble feature, but still. This is a next-gen system, rumble has become a standard with gaming.

Though I am hard pressed to notice the rumble feature in many games today. It's either that I ignore it or it's become so ingrained in my mind that I am benefiting from it without knowing. Who knows.

[Lister]

Are we actually saying that there will be PS3 owners who dont own a PS2 to play PS2 games on? C'mon now!

I like game emulation for games that cant be played anymore, but backwards compatibility for PS3 is just a gimmick. I can some some X360 owners wanting some Xbox games, but EVERYONE has a PS2...

I don't own a PS2....

[Rafer]

Hmm, I wonder if I could buy the adapter and return it to the store the next day? I think Sony has the right idea not having an old memory card port built in since it would be something I'd only use once to copy over my Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy saves (with my ridiculously powered up Yuffie).

[kid cabelgo]

don't worry about the flotsom and jetsom that make up most of every console's library.

It's "flotsam and jetsam."

I'm also not sure that works in this context.

[Kamalot]

Hmm, I wonder if I could buy the adapter and return it to the store the next day? I think Sony has the right idea not having an old memory card port built in since it would be something I'd only use once to copy over my Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy saves (with my ridiculously powered up Yuffie).
Then why don't they give away the adapter in every box?

[soco]

True.

I've read that since Sony is using a hardware solution for playing old games, the games won't run in a higher resolution or have any additional filtering, anti-aliasing effects or such. Hardware will allow the PS3 to play old PS2 and 1 games exactly like having a PS2/1 at the cost of adding enhancements.

Can anyone verify this?


from what i've read, nothing has been confirmed yet from Sony. we know that there is a team in England working on software emulation for the PS3, but the last rumor was that it would be a hardware solution for the beginning, and then software after they got the emulator working. they'd remove the hardware, once the software was working completely.

if it's in hardware, it's likely that it won't support scaled graphics until they finish the software emulation. if it's in software, then it will almost definetly support it from the start. they may use the software emulator on titles that run fine, and the hardware as a fail-safe for the additional titles that don't work, so you may get 30% of the games scaled up from the start, and the remaining as the emulator improves.

[kid cabelgo]

Then why don't they give away the adapter in every box?

cmon, they're already practically giving this console away to people.

you wouldn't want them to charge an exorbitant amount for this thing would you?


;)

[solinari6]

I have to call you out on your tag under your name that reads, "The PS3 is $499!" If you are paying an extra $100 for for Bluray playback, why are you buying a version that won't play your movies in HD past 2010 when the broadcast flag gets turned on?
The PS3 is really $599.
because 2010 is still a long way away. And your $500 PS3 will have broken by then, and you will need to replace it. THAT's when you buy the version that comes with the HDMI output.

[Jack B]

How does someone "nail" something on a system that isn't even out, and what is in speculation being "nailed" isn't even being tested by actual gamers in real world environments? Might want to explain that....

Maybe 'nailed' isn't the right word. I'd say Sony is known for exaggerating, but I doubt Sony would claim 15,000 titles as being backwards compatible and not beat Microsoft's 250 by a lot. They'll likely miss but not by 98%...

Also, the game saves could be big for users who care. I've only played a couple of old Xbox games on my 360 and it's not the reason I bought it, but you can't deny for some people it is important.

Especially, those with large old PS2 libraries. The farther we get into this generation, the less it will likely matter, but early on it's more important. Sony has an edge in this area.

Have the 'nailed' it? Of course not, because it isn't out yet, but shooting for 15,000 games and possibilities to transfer saves, sounds like even if they miss the mark on the 15,000 it will still be no comparision to Microsoft's 250.

I'd call that nailing it or close to it.

[donkeydrop]

Actually, Nintendo is doing it right. You don't have to buy an adapter on the wii, and can purchase any of the older games right from the console wirelessly.

Sony's just trying to rook people, as usual. There's NO excuse not to accept memory cards from the original systems.

Nintendo - "Buy another copy of a game you already have, then start again from the beginning. Gamecube games? Forget it suckas mwahahaha!"

Yep thats doing it right lol.

[Kamalot]

Nintendo - "Buy another copy of a game you already have, then start again from the beginning. Gamecube games? Forget it suckas mwahahaha!"

Yep thats doing it right lol.
Uh, you do know that Wii can play GameCube games and has not one, but GameCube Memory card slots, right? Oh, and that you can use all of the controllers, even the bongos and GBA link cables, in the Wii as well, right?

Riiight?

[donkeydrop]

I personally have no problem with how MS is handling BC on the 360. Make sure the big hiiters and the cult favorites work (even if that is eventually), do it without affecting the cost of the console, and don't worry about the flotsom and jetsom that make up most of every console's library.

Wish that's what they were really doing. They'll be lucky to have BC for 30% of the top 100 either in terms of best selling or highest rated.

[Kamalot]

because 2010 is still a long way away. And your $500 PS3 will have broken by then, and you will need to replace it. THAT's when you buy the version that comes with the HDMI output.
You aren't convincing me. I thought the PS3 was supposed to last 10+ years. Why else would anyone spend so much on a playah?

[Borys]

Mmmm... just thinkig about playing FFX in high-resolution PS3 glory makes me very excited.

Hmm... technically I *could* run FFX in 1600x1200 right now if I had a dual-core CPU, some ways to rip the original DVD and the newest PS2 emulator (PCSX2). From what I read it achieves around 70 fps in 1024x768 in FFX with all graphical effects in place (no artefacting).

Bah, I won't even bother, PS3 BC FTW!

[Arphahat]

While I always get excited about BC and think that it is a feature that I really need / want, I've found that I have really NEVER used the feature on my PS2. Once I had the PS2, why would I want to play old games for the PS1 that didn't look as good and had already been played to death? I have to agree with pavlovscow, if you really feel the need to play the old game, just hook up the old console. Or, play the game in an emulator on your PC.

[solinari6]

You aren't convincing me. I thought the PS3 was supposed to last 10+ years.
The "PS3 Phenomenon" will last 10+ years. Your actual PS3 unit will last maybe 2.
Why else would anyone spend so much on a playah?
Because they're sheep?

[Kamalot]

Mmmm... just thinkig about playing FFX in high-resolution PS3 glory makes me very excited.

Hmm... technically I *could* run FFX in 1600x1200 right now if I had a dual-core CPU, some ways to rip the original DVD and the newest PS2 emulator (PCSX2). From what I read it achieves around 70 fps in 1024x768 in FFX with all graphical effects in place (no artefacting).

Bah, I won't even bother, PS3 BC FTW!Can you show me someplace that confirms old PS2 games will play in HD on the PS3?

Please?

[JHemperly]

I have to agree with pavlovscow, if you really feel the need to play the old game, just hook up the old console.

Sony wasn't going to include BC, but decided to after realizing how difficult it would be to balance the PS2 on top of the George Foreman Gr...er...PS3.

[vherub]

I'm glad Sony continues to take a strong stance in allowing older media to play on newer systems. For too may generations, systems abandoned the previous games. Not all games age well, but some, llike music or movies, are always great to play. Both Sony and Nin's intents should hopefully put increased pressure on MS to increase its backlists, or at least open up to the gaming community at learge the means to make games not yet compatible, playable.

[rjcc]

Wish that's what they were really doing. They'll be lucky to have BC for 30% of the top 100 either in terms of best selling or highest rated.

*rolls eyes*

[Ernst_Jager]

Ummm....I won't be buying a 360 or a ps3 to play last gen games. Backwards Compatibility is as useless to me as a asshole right here (points to elbow)

[JHemperly]

Both Sony and Nin's intents should hopefully put increased pressure on MS to increase its backlists, or at least open up to the gaming community at learge the means to make games not yet compatible, playable.
I'm sure Microsoft would love to make more titles Backwards Compatible, since it would likely convince more gamers to buy a 360.
What's stopping them from doing so is the special programming tweaks made to squeeze the most out of the xbox graphics chipset that don't translate well to the new 360 graphics chip.
Also, I don't think that allowing the gamers to program the emulation profiles would work. For live games especially, Microsoft would have to review emulation profiles, choose the best available, and release them so that everybody was using the same one. Different Emulation profiles + Live Games = Connection errors...not what Microsoft wants complaints and bad PR for. And I don't think they want to deal with 300 kids saying "ZOMG, I MADE TEH EMULASHIN PROFILE FOR DOA ULTAMIT AND YOU SHOULD RELESE IT CUZ ITS THE BEST LOLOLOL!11ONE"

[PostedOval]

Though I am hard pressed to notice the rumble feature in many games today. It's either that I ignore it or it's become so ingrained in my mind that I am benefiting from it without knowing. Who knows.

The first thing I do in every new game, is turn off the Rumble feature. I hate it and never use it.

[Morangie]

The first thing I do in every new game, is turn off the Rumble feature. I hate it and never use it.

You do that in Table Tennis, you won't know when you are going to miss a shot. Some games NEED rumble and losing features is never a good thing.

[thecrazyd]

I have to call you out on your tag under your name that reads, "The PS3 is $499!" If you are paying an extra $100 for for Bluray playback, why are you buying a version that won't play your movies in HD past 2010 when the broadcast flag gets turned on? If you aren't buying the system for bluray, then why are you buying the PS3?

The PS3 is really $599.
You are such a goddamn troll. Who says everyone who buys it wants it for Bluray? When I (eventually) buy one, it will be because I like the occaisional console game that is not a FPS. If I were to buy one at launch, it would most definately be the $499 model.

[Kamalot]

You do that in Table Tennis, you won't know when you are going to miss a shot. Some games NEED rumble and losing features is never a good thing.
Yep. Table Tennis comes to mind. Necessary for Gameplay. What about Metal Gear Solid?

[Kamalot]

You are such a goddamn troll. Who says everyone who buys it wants it for Bluray? When I (eventually) buy one, it will be because I like the occaisional console game that is not a FPS. If I were to buy one at launch, it would most definately be the $499 model.
You want games that aren't FPS games but have to buy a PS3 to get one? Where's the logic in that?

[thecrazyd]

You want games that aren't FPS games but have to buy a PS3 to get one? Where's the logic in that?
Cause the 360 is overloaded with FPSs?

[zangster]

Well that's certainly a selling point worth spending an additional $200 on.

[Opty]

Along with FULL Gamecube backwards compatibility on the Wii (something XBox 360 severly lacks), Nintendo is going to place GC memory card slots on the console itself. These will act just like the Gamecube's memory card slots, letting you save directly to the card.

"To use saved data on a Gamecube memory card, you must insert it into one of the two slots on the side of the Wii. That's it!"

Excellent news for future Wii owners. Plus, it's free, no dongle required!

[Jack B]

The first thing I do in every new game, is turn off the Rumble feature. I hate it and never use it.

I wouldn't want to play some games without it. Some I don't even notice... for others it's intregal and a disadvantage not to use it...

Some quick examples:

1. MotoGp - Tires start loosing grip, you notice with rumble. You're at a disadvantage without that clue.

2 Forza Motorsport - Same thing. Also, used here for damage hints. You need it to compete better.

3. Chromehounds - Weapon kick, bullet, cannon blasts etc. Sliding down hills, which damages your mech. Also, when your engine parts light on fire your feel a VERY strong rumble while you are burning. It's so strong it's a "HOLY CRAP I'M ON FIRE" type of rumble! Key immersive and informative info. Fire bad... Run away NOW...

4. Most FPS's use it for weapon kick, reload, getting hit by gun fire ect.

5. Games like MGS, PDZ, Oblivion and others use it for clues on puzzle pieces, lock picking etc..

6. Lost Planet - You feel the ground rumble of the avalanche or the enemy sometimes before your see it... Very cool. immersive and a gameplay disadvantage if you turn rumble off.

7. Sports games - Often used to give umph to tackles, dunks or breaking free of a tackle or when in actual contact with a defender, so you feel when to back up or push forward harder etc.

8. Table Tennis - You determine how close the edge of the table you want your shot to land by how long you hold down the button. When you hold just right it starts to vibrate. The vibration gets stronger the longer you hold. More vibration equals more risk. You can't play effectively without rumble.

The list goes on and on. It's a huge disadvantage on some games to not have it, on others it's a not really needed. It depends on the game. Uno and hearts, don't use rumble at all. Doesn't seem to effect gameplay one bit.

Moral of the story: It depends on the game. A large percentage use it effectively.

Also, try the 360 controller's rumble. Best and strongest rumble I've seen yet. It's not a step forward for gaming to remove this proven feature. You can turn it off, but the argument that it's not needed in gaming is short sighted. For some individuals maybe, but not for an entire gaming community.

[Major Dan]

Don't retro game much.

Certainly don't want to pay to bring old saves on the new system.

I like the fact it can be done, but I am not gonna pay for it.

Hell I haven't done if for any Xbox game either.

[EternalGamer]

This is good news, and I absolutely will be using it. There are just a ton of great PS2 games I haven't gotten around to playing (some of which I own) and I don't have room to keep a bajillion game consoles hooked up at once. Way better than MS's attempt, but not as good as Nintendo's. Being able to use all my old games, my Wavebird, all my Gamecube controllers and memory cards from day one with no additional purchases is just awesome.

[Achilles]

Actually, Nintendo is doing it right. You don't have to buy an adapter on the wii, and can purchase any of the older games right from the console wirelessly.

Sony's just trying to rook people, as usual. There's NO excuse not to accept memory cards from the original systems.With the PS3 you don't need to purchase your old games, you can just play the ones you already have. The adaptor is to transfer your old save games, which is something you will not be able to do on the Wii.

If you want backward compat, it does seem Sony’s doing it the best. I wouldn't want to play some games without it. Some I don't even notice... for others it's intregal and a disadvantage not to use it... (A huge list of uses for tactile feedback follows).Way to bust out a defense for vibration Jack.

[t3g]

bapenguin, your news posts can be really confusing sometimes. Did you say that you can use it only once and you cannot use the adapter anymore? Or can you use it over and over again but cannot reverse the process by putting a save from the PS3 hard drive to a PS2 memory card?

[tombofsoldier]

So.. this beats the Wii's full GC backwards compatibility, with supposed full compatibility with GC memory cards right off the bat how? Oh, it doesn't. But that doesn't matter because how could Nintendo possibly compete against the likes of Sony and Microsoft right... right?

[Vanthar]

So.. this beats the Wii's full GC backwards compatibility, with supposed full compatibility with GC memory cards right off the bat how? Oh, it doesn't. But that doesn't matter because how could Nintendo possibly compete against the likes of Sony and Microsoft right... right?

Sony's supporting two consoles and way more games. I think they win.

[Kamalot]

Sony's supporting two consoles and way more games. I think they win.
Who is going to win the battle for new games, not ond ones?

What happens when/if Virtual Console games have added features like online play, or play in higher resolutions than the original? Does quality or features trump quantity and lack of rumble?

[Achilles]

So.. this beats the Wii's full GC backwards compatibility, with supposed full compatibility with GC memory cards right off the bat how? Oh, it doesn't. But that doesn't matter because how could Nintendo possibly compete against the likes of Sony and Microsoft right... right?Because it's compatible with PS1 games, and saves from those games. Where the Wii is not compatible with N64, Super NES, and NES games and their saves.

[TrackZero]

"severly"

spell check?

[Kamalot]

Here's a great, well thought-out article on backwards compatibility.

http://toase.net/archives/000385.php

Worth the read.

[Vanthar]

Who is going to win the battle for new games, not ond ones?

What happens when/if Virtual Console games have added features like online play, or play in higher resolutions than the original? Does quality or features trump quantity and lack of rumble?


The PS2 had minor enhancements to PS1 games and was hardware emulation. You can't be sure that the PS3 can't do anything to those PS2 games. And the PS1 games should all be able to cranked up to HD seeing as PC emulators have been doing it forever and the PS3 should have software emulation for PS1 games.

I personally don't think rumble will be missed.

I'm not commenting at all on the PS3's success overall, only backwards compatibility.

[thecrazyd]

What happens when/if Virtual Console games have added features like online play, or play in higher resolutions than the original? Does quality or features trump quantity and lack of rumble?
Ummm... I would say that quantity wins in this case. I would rather have every game with a lack of features then just a couple of them with.

[tombofsoldier]

True that Wii won't be N64 backwards compatible, but if Nintendo is smart they'll end up selling virtual console games for extremely low prices. I'd say $5 for playing Ocarina of Time: Master Quest edition in progressive scan will draw a few people to buying a Wii.

[Mr.Condescension]

I applaud them for having full compatibility, but for 600 bucks, couldn't they have just built a memory card port into the box? How much is this adapter going to set me back?

You can't play your Xbox games on the PS3, bro.

[Adam Blue]

Maybe the PS3 needs this. Because with no good games on the horizon, the PS3 will be a Blu-Ray DVD player that supports PS1 and PS2 games. Also, for someone that's not a JRPG-er, PS BC library doesn't hold up to Wii's virtual console. Seriously. PS1/2 games are in quantity...but a quantity of shit. And I can play Symphony of the Night on my 360...

[Mr.Condescension]

You aren't convincing me. I thought the PS3 was supposed to last 10+ years. Why else would anyone spend so much on a playah?

I don't think most people played DVDs on their PS2 after the first few years. I doubt people into electronics enough to buy the PS3 will be using it for video in 2010. Wouldn't the PS4 be out in 2011 or 2012?

[IndependentGMR]

So...$600 system + 1 $60 launch title + 1 $50(?) extra controller for my buddy + 1 $40(?) memory card adaptor so I can play PS2 games = about $800 dollars.

[Jack B]

I personally don't think rumble will be missed.

Missed by whom? By you personally or by every PS3 owner?

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

I skipped a few pages so I dont know if any of this has been said. Everyone complains that this is not needed. WTF? Yet you complain about the 360 not being fully BC with the Xbox...

No one ever mentioned anything about being forced to use a memory card. Maybe theyre going to allow you to save onto a memory stick? Maybe just dont even save? Either way this is another case of good news gone bad due to EA being full of *** whores and blinded Nintendo fanboys.

[Mr.Condescension]

So.. this beats the Wii's full GC backwards compatibility, with supposed full compatibility with GC memory cards right off the bat how? Oh, it doesn't. But that doesn't matter because how could Nintendo possibly compete against the likes of Sony and Microsoft right... right?

Well, the PS3 will play PS2 and PS1 games. The Wii will play GC games. That's an extra 6 years of gaming in Sony's backwards compatible catalogue, and both the PS1 and PS2 had far more games than the GC. All in all it's many times the available number of games.

[Adam Blue]

I skipped a few pages so I dont know if any of this has been said. Everyone complains that this is not needed. WTF? Yet you complain about the 360 not being fully BC with the Xbox...

No one ever mentioned anything about being forced to use a memory card. Maybe theyre going to allow you to save onto a memory stick? Maybe just dont even save? Either way this is another case of good news gone bad due to EA being full of *** whores and blinded Nintendo fanboys.

Well, maybe if Sony decided to spend some time on getting a library of games ready for launch, or around launch at least, then maybe I wouldn't be bitching about them spending time on a reason that doesn't make the PS3 worth as much as it will be. For MS, BC is secondary. Smart move.

Fuck BC when a release list looks like shit.

[Achilles]

Fuck BC when a release list looks like shit.That's when you need it the most. If you don't have a strong launch line-up, the best you can do is have great backward compat. The 360 didn't need such great backward compat as it turns out because their lineup of games at launch and since was very good.

Sony doesn't have a slider that goes from great backward compat to great launch titles. It's probably two entirely different groups in charge of making the two happen.

[Adam Blue]

That's when you need it the most. If you don't have a strong launch line-up, the best you can do is have great backward compat. The 360 didn't need such great backward compat as it turns out because their lineup of games at launch and since was very good.

Sony doesn't have a slider that goes from great backward compat to great launch titles. It's probably two entirely different groups in charge of making the two happen.

No...because if I'm not seeing a list of good games to be released around the consoles release, then I'm not spending $600 for a BC machine. Maybe in Sony's eyes they need it the most, but as a video game collector, the PS3 is useless to me.

Fuck BC, as in don't bother, and work on getting some good IP's.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Adam Blue is there a totally complete 100% true launch title list? Can you show me please? Are we actually close to launch?

[Morangie]

Adam Blue is there a totally complete 100% true launch title list? Can you show me please? Are we actually close to launch?

Yes we are close to launch and quality > quantity. It doesn't matter if you have 10,000 games backwards compatible if 9,950 of them are shit.

[Kelegacy]

I have to call you out on your tag under your name that reads, "The PS3 is $499!" If you are paying an extra $100 for for Bluray playback, why are you buying a version that won't play your movies in HD past 2010 when the broadcast flag gets turned on? If you aren't buying the system for bluray, then why are you buying the PS3?

The PS3 is really $599.
The PS3 is 499. Why do you need all that other stuff?

You don't. It still supports 1080p, so who gives a flip?

[Adam Blue]

Adam Blue is there a totally complete 100% true launch title list? Can you show me please? Are we actually close to launch?

Yes we are near launch. And that's the thing...no %100 launch list. Hasn't Ubi announced seven for the Wii?

Yes we are close to launch and quality > quantity. It doesn't matter if you have 10,000 games backwards compatible if 9,950 of them are shit.

And thank you for backing me up.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

How are roughly 30 games not enough?

~Nvm. Once again can you link me to this list?

[Adam Blue]

How are roughly 30 games not enough?

~Nvm. Once again can you link me to this list?

That's the thing. There is no official list (http://ps3.ign.com/index/release.html). And among the list....just a few exclusives. One is Warhawk, which I'm interested in. Just not $499-$599 interested when the rest of the games are MULTIPLATFORM. It's sad, really.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

So youre complaing about someting you know nothing about? Isnt that what you just said?

[ToxicWaste]

Actually, Nintendo is doing it right. You don't have to buy an adapter on the wii, and can purchase any of the older games right from the console wirelessly.

Sony's just trying to rook people, as usual. There's NO excuse not to accept memory cards from the original systems.

Well, then Nintendo is getting it wrong if you consider that it costs money to reacquire games you technically already own.

[Kefkataran]

I was waiting for this news. Excellent. A+.

[Adam Blue]

So youre complaing about someting you know nothing about? Isnt that what you just said?

Alright, I've said what I said and you should know exactly what I mean. If you're going to start the argument that I contradicted myself so I now have no validity, then I am done. GG.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Alright, I've said what I said and you should know exactly what I mean. If you're going to start the argument that I contradicted myself so I now have no validity, then I am done. GG.

I dont know what you mean. Youre complaing about the launch titles that arent even known yet. How does that make sense. My goal wasnt to make you contradict yourself, though that is in my favor.

[Adam Blue]

I dont know what you mean. Yorue complaing about the launch titles that arent even known yet. How does that make sense.

Alright buddy. Let me try crayon. There's a list out there. It hasn't been %100 confirmed by Sony, but it's out there. According to the list, which is a lot, most of the games are multiplatform. A few are exclusives. But nothing that makes the PS3 a system seller.

So, to sum up the Dr. Seuss story, there is a list, but Sony hasn't confirmed it. But by now, we should have one. So technically, that's it. And I don't like it. Sony, prove me wrong.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Alright buddy. Let me try crayon. There's a list out there. It hasn't been %100 confirmed by Sony, but it's out there. According to the list, which is a lot, most of the games are multiplatform. A few are exclusives. But nothing that makes the PS3 a system seller.

So, to sum up the Dr. Seuss story, there is a list, but Sony hasn't confirmed it. But by now, we should have one. So technically, that's it. And I don't like it. Sony, prove me wrong.

Maybe there will be more maybe there will be less. Lets just tell Sony to hold off releasing the PS3 a few years so that we can have a ton of games to choose from. Complaining about a lack of a million launch titles is rather stupid imo. Id rather have a new system now, with maybe just a few games I care for, than have to wait longer. If its not official then its not official.

~Warhawk now or later? Whats better?

[Adam Blue]

Maybe there will be more maybe there will be less. Lets just tell Sony to hold off releasing the PS3 a few years so that we can have a ton of games to choose from. Complaining about a lack of a million launch titles is rather stupid imo. Id rather have a new system now, with maybe just a few games I care for, than have to wait longer. If its not official then its not official.

....1 million, 40, 3....the point is they suck. I never had a problem with the Quanity. The numbers don't matter. Same with the BC. There are only a few gems. So, who cares if there are a ton of games available.

Now, I haven't played them, so Warhawk or Resistance could be badass.....but from everything available on those games, they don't look like system sellers.

Same reason I didn't buy a 360 on launch. But even that console had a better launch line-up.

[Kelegacy]

Guys guys guys! The 360 didn't have jack for launch titles and it still sold. The PS3 will be as equal as the 360 in terms of launch games. Resistance and Heavenly Sword both look great, and Warhawk, if it captures the original's magic, has the potential to be a classic, too.

Besides Kameo, the 360 really didn't have anything fun until March, when Oblivion shipped, at least in my opinion.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

Kelegacy youre on EA, are you confused? Dont talk bad about MS or youll get hurt!

[Jack B]

Guys guys guys! The 360 didn't have jack for launch titles and it still sold. The PS3 will be as equal as the 360 in terms of launch games. Resistance and Heavenly Sword both look great, and Warhawk, if it captures the original's magic, has the potential to be a classic, too.

Besides Kameo, the 360 really didn't have anything fun until March, when Oblivion shipped, at least in my opinion.

I'd agree. In fact, Sony's lineup should be a little better due to having a bit more time to prepare. The 3 you mentioned could all be excellent. The PS3 will sell out no matter what.

The 360's launch lineup was pretty good, but other than COD 2, it didn't have anything spectacular... and COD 2 was also available on the PC. The March games, GRAW, Oblivion, Fight Night, raised the bar again, now Gears of War will likely raise it a 3rd time as developers learn to work with the next gen boxes. Although, Gears of War will likely be more the exception than the rule this holiday season. There may be some sleepers in the bunch or something like Splinter Cell could make that next leap.

It's hard to say until we see the games. I'm confident Forza 2 will be a big leap over last gen, but we've seen nothing but FMV. Others look very good, but not incredible. Games like Mass Effect, Bioshock, Assasin's Creed likely make the leap but aren't due this fall.

Either way the PS3 will likely sell out for at least through Dec if not much longer and the 360 should do also do well based upon their 2nd holiday season worth of titles.

I think holiday season 2007 may be someone's Waterloo... or maybe it'll be a dead heat this gen. Too early to tell, just guessing now.

[EvilBob46]

Fuck BC, as in don't bother, and work on getting some good IP's.

Fuck BC when a release list looks like shit.

The claim that working on BC for the PS3 distracts significantly from game development is ridiculous. The reason MS had to invest so much time and money into its BC was because the 360 uses software emulation. Sony has said they'll use hardware emulation with the PS3 (at least for the first year) which requires a lot less effort. The hardest part will be figuring out how to include the PS2's CPU/GPU combination chip in the PS3's hardware at the lowest possible cost and making it economically feasible. 90% of the people who'll be figuring that out sure as hell aren't game developers.

[Achilles]

So, to sum up the Dr. Seuss story, there is a list, but Sony hasn't confirmed it. But by now, we should have one. So technically, that's it. And I don't like it. Sony, prove me wrong.I must say I've never seen a list of confirmed launch titles be longer than the list of possible launch titles. If anything the list will get smaller, not larger. Resistance could slip till next year, so could Warhawk or Genji, and I don't know how strong those games are in the first place, which seems to be your issue; not when they're coming out.

[Kelegacy]

Kelegacy youre on EA, are you confused? Dont talk bad about MS or youll get hurt!
Hey, I hope the 360 does awesome and has tons of great games. I already own one, so that makes sense. However, I don't wish ill will on the PS3. After two awesome systems, I can't fathom the PS3 being bad. The only place I ever hear bad stuff about the PS3 is EvAv, and we're a bad sampling of the general public. More people own Gamecubes here than PS2s!

[Phanto]

Why they don't just include a slot for PS2 memory stick in the $599 model, or even both.

[Achilles]

Why they don't just include a slot for PS2 memory stick in the $599 model, or even both.It is strange that they don't have one actually. They have a bunch of other card ports in it, namely Memory Stick, SD and Compact Flash (http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/specs.html). Maybe they did it for security reasons, or maybe they did it just to make an extra buck, or maybe it really does have a slot for the old memory cards in the $600 version but they don't want to mention it because it'll become bad press.

[Royal Fool]

The PS3 is 499. Why do you need all that other stuff?

You don't. It still supports 1080p, so who gives a flip?
For starters, the 20GB version of the PS3 won't be around at launch in Europe, so people are effectively forced to buy "all that other stuff".

Secondly, it's my understanding that in the future, movie studios might opt to tighten the security on their discs, which means that the HDCP would require HDMI to be in place, otherwise you'd be stuck with playing the movies at somewhat lower resolutions. It's not 100% certain as of yet, and the PS3 might even affect their decisions. But it's a possibility. You can certainly output games at 1080p with the 20GB model, but it won't look as good since you'll be stuck with component as opposed to HDMI.

[Chris_D]

For starters, the 20GB version of the PS3 won't be around at launch in Europe, so people are effectively forced to buy "all that other stuff".

I'd also say that the 20g in the 360 is starting to look a bit light on with all the demos coming out, and potentially big-ass live arcade titles in the pipeline (like sotn). I'd feel more comfortable with a 60g model. I recall sony said you could throw any HDD into the ps3 but that might change closer to launch.

[LilAbner]

[i]Excellent news for future PS3 owners.

All 10 of them. :)

[TRiLoGY]

This is excellent news!!! :)

[ChiHawk]

I'd also say that the 20g in the 360 is starting to look a bit light on with all the demos coming out, and potentially big-ass live arcade titles in the pipeline (like sotn). I'd feel more comfortable with a 60g model. I recall sony said you could throw any HDD into the ps3 but that might change closer to launch.

What, do you horde demos? I haven't missed a demo yet and I've got plenty of space on the old HDD. Demos aren't meant to be something you collect. You download it, play it a while, and delete it.

Now I do agree that, if the size restriction on XBLA games is indeed raised or removed, then a 20G HDD won't be big enough. But we're at least a year away from that point. Assuming 5G for demos (do you really need more than 5 demos sitting around?), the 7G reserved for cache, another 3-5G for various stuff (music, trailers, themes, pictures, whatever), that leaves 3-5G for Arcade titles. Assuming all titles use a much space as allowed today, that's 60-100 titles. Say MS quadruples the size limit to 200M. Then you have room for 15-25 titles. The first rumored large title isn't due until Q1 2007. There won't be 25 large XBLA titles available, I would assume, until Q3-Q4 2007, a year or more from now. My point being, and that was a really long way of getting to the point, 20G is plenty of room for quite a while yet. Now if MS comes out with a big HDD for the holidays, I'll happily snatch it up just because I like to waste my money on extra crap for my 360. But it's not needed yet.

[Kamalot]

The PS3 is 499. Why do you need all that other stuff?

You don't. It still supports 1080p, so who gives a flip?
That 'other stuff' is the ability to play your future bluray movies in HD. It is a goddamn bait-and-switch. Get people to buy bluray movies today and turn on the broadcast flag tomorrow, rendering your $500 PS3 useless as a bluray player.

The PS3 is $600

[Kamalot]

I'd also say that the 20g in the 360 is starting to look a bit light on with all the demos coming out, and potentially big-ass live arcade titles in the pipeline (like sotn). I'd feel more comfortable with a 60g model. I recall sony said you could throw any HDD into the ps3 but that might change closer to launch.
I don't know about you, but I play a demo, maybe keep it for a few days if I like it, and then torch it. The demos are always available for you to download again and again, so it isn't like you are throwing it away for good.

With Live, you have, in essence, unlimited space online from which you can select to play.

[Kamalot]

Hey, I hope the 360 does awesome and has tons of great games. I already own one, so that makes sense. However, I don't wish ill will on the PS3. After two awesome systems, I can't fathom the PS3 being bad. The only place I ever hear bad stuff about the PS3 is EvAv, and we're a bad sampling of the general public.
You should try reading other web sites sometime.

[Kamalot]

I dont know what you mean. Youre complaing about the launch titles that arent even known yet. How does that make sense. My goal wasnt to make you contradict yourself, though that is in my favor.
Where are the launch titles? Where are ANY of the games that make the machine worth the asking $600 price tag? I think his point is, if there is nothing worth buying the PS3 for in the first place, then backwards compatibility is pointless since you can simply keep your PS2.

I hear the PS2 does a fantastic job at playing PS2 games. No need to spend $600 on a new PS2-game-player.

[bean19]

This is very cool.

I don't really use the feature much in my PS2. Replayed FF VII once, I think. . . but it's still a neat feature. I'm exactly like that industry study on this feature. I totally WANT this, but I also just won't ever use it. :)

[Megalith]

Thank god I can play 10 year old games on my new $600 console.

[Kelegacy]

That 'other stuff' is the ability to play your future bluray movies in HD. It is a goddamn bait-and-switch. Get people to buy bluray movies today and turn on the broadcast flag tomorrow, rendering your $500 PS3 useless as a bluray player.

The PS3 is $600
I'm not going to buy a blu-ray disc library. What do I, and many other gamers, care? We're going to play games, so for us the PS3 is 499.

Get over it guys. You keep trying to shit on the system, but really, do it some other way. Make fun of Blu-Ray, the upcoming game library, or something. But the price attack is getting old. And partially incorrect.

[Kelegacy]

Where are the launch titles? Where are ANY of the games that make the machine worth the asking $600 price tag? I think his point is, if there is nothing worth buying the PS3 for in the first place, then backwards compatibility is pointless since you can simply keep your PS2.

I hear the PS2 does a fantastic job at playing PS2 games. No need to spend $600 on a new PS2-game-player.
Jesus Kamalot, do you get paid to be a viral marketer? What were the launch titles that made the 360 worth the 400 price tag? Both launches are going to suck, but the machines are going to sell. And Warhawk, Heavenly Sword and Resistance all have potential. Stop forgetting that.

[Zeal]

Even people with millions of dollars ain't buying the PS3. It's called being ripped off.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

I can't believe I read all three pages of this. Some good news and the trolls (Kamalot and friends) come out to shit all over it. For fucks sake, is NOTHING good enough?

As for having to rebuy old games on the Wii, what do you expect? Do you want the console to have SNES, NES, and N64 cartridge slots built in? That wouldn't be stupid at all. :rolleyes:

All of this fanboy BS is really getting old.

[theguido]

Jesus Kamalot, do you get paid to be a viral marketer? What were the launch titles that made the 360 worth the 400 price tag? Both launches are going to suck, but the machines are going to sell. And Warhawk, Heavenly Sword and Resistance all have potential. Stop forgetting that.

He's already made up his mind. Seriously, don't bother. His responses are in no way a search for genuine information but mere trolling.

And IMO, I've had my PS2 for 5 years, so once I do decide to get a PS3 it will be a nice bonus to get a new, (mostly) fully functional PS2 along with it.

[MoJoBehaumat]

And IMO, I've had my PS2 for 5 years, so once I do decide to get a PS3 it will be a nice bonus to get a new, (mostly) fully functional PS2 along with it.

Has anyone here had to buy more than one ps2? So far I have. They better have built ps3 a little more durable. Please :)

[Jack B]

What, do you horde demos? I haven't missed a demo yet and I've got plenty of space on the old HDD. Demos aren't meant to be something you collect. You download it, play it a while, and delete it.

I have about 9 demos currently loaded saved, plus about 12 or so Arcade titles I don't own and another 5 or so that I do. Throw in quite a 4 albums worth of music or so, a few videos and I'm out of space.

I'd like to keep more than 9 demos of full products, because I have friends and guests that come over and I'd like to show them or have them try out different games (or even myself occasionally), but I have to choose. I've picked 9 out of about 40+ full demos that are available, subtract the 12 or so games I own and I've deleted about 30 demos.

Some of those 30 demos I deleted, I would like to still have sitting on my hard drive, but they've been deleted. Yeah, I could download them again, but I probably wouldn't bother if a friend came over. He/she won't want to wait 1/2 hour or more to download a 500mb or larger demo.

Is a huge problem for me? No, but similar to backwards compatibility it's certainly not a bonus. I don't want to delete some of the videos or demos. I want to save them. I save tons of stuff on my PC. I like doing that...

With the price of hard drives today so low, I want more storage as a simple to add option to the 360. 60gb as in the $599 version of the PS3 would work, although I'd even like to see more. I can buy a 120gb drive or larger for a PC for $120 or so. I'd like see something bigger. Come on Microsoft.

I'm interested to find out the specifics on Sony's claim to add standard hard drives in the PS3. If that's as easy as it could be, that's a win for Sony on HD space. Microsoft needs to counter that. I'm waiting.

[Achilles]

Has anyone here had to buy more than one ps2? So far I have. They better have built ps3 a little more durable. Please :)I’ve only ever had to buy the one PS2. It was returned to our store defective (back when I worked retail) so I picked it up and it’s been working ever since. It loads at about half the speed of the second run PS2s, and probably quite a bit slower than the current ones, but it still works.

However I do expect the defective rates for the PS3s to be very high. DVD technology had been in mass production for years before the PS2 came on the market, and it still failed frequently in both the PS2 and the Xbox. Blu-ray hasn't even had that much time to sort itself out, and I expect it to be filled with problems when it has to make the move from a small group of videophiles to the homes of millions of gamers.

[Zeal]

Who buys a next-generation game system to play games from the 90s. Get an emulator or play them on the systems they were intended for, retards.

[MoJoBehaumat]

Who buys a next-generation game system to play games from the 90s. Get an emulator or play them on the systems they were intended for, retards.

You mean you wouldnt wanna play some Final Fantasy 3 on the Wii. Simply put emulation on the PC doest really do it for me with the RPG Genre.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

I'm with Jack B as far as HDD space goes. I'm holding off on getting a 360 until a sensible storage solution comes along. 20 gigabytes for $100 is just a ripoff, plain and simple. Make it 80 or more and then I'll bite.

I have a feeling though that they are going to keep the prices of storage artificially inflated. That's what Sony has done with memory cards for the last two generations and it worked just fine for them. :(

[MoJoBehaumat]

I have a feeling though that they are going to keep the prices of storage artificially inflated. That's what Sony has done with memory cards for the last two generations and it worked just fine for them. :(
Yea but is PS3 is backwards compatible with PS1/PS2, does that mean if it is able to read it, will it be able to write to them as well? :confused:

[bean19]

Kamalot - Just ignore his thread hijacking.

[Banacek]

http://home.comcast.net/~fespejo/8da794133814ab03bcec33ab1dda1316.gif

[MoJoBehaumat]

http://home.comcast.net/~fespejo/8da794133814ab03bcec33ab1dda1316.gif
ohhh shit...havnt laughed that hard since I watched the Colbert Report.. :)

[donkeydrop]

I have about 9 demos currently loaded saved, plus about 12 or so Arcade titles I don't own and another 5 or so that I do. Throw in quite a 4 albums worth of music or so, a few videos and I'm out of space.

I'd like to keep more than 9 demos of full products, because I have friends and guests that come over and I'd like to show them or have them try out different games (or even myself occasionally), but I have to choose. I've picked 9 out of about 40+ full demos that are available, subtract the 12 or so games I own and I've deleted about 30 demos.

Some of those 30 demos I deleted, I would like to still have sitting on my hard drive, but they've been deleted. Yeah, I could download them again, but I probably wouldn't bother if a friend came over. He/she won't want to wait 1/2 hour or more to download a 500mb or larger demo.

Is a huge problem for me? No, but similar to backwards compatibility it's certainly not a bonus. I don't want to delete some of the videos or demos. I want to save them. I save tons of stuff on my PC. I like doing that...

With the price of hard drives today so low, I want more storage as a simple to add option to the 360. 60gb as in the $599 version of the PS3 would work, although I'd even like to see more. I can buy a 120gb drive or larger for a PC for $120 or so. I'd like see something bigger. Come on Microsoft.

I'm interested to find out the specifics on Sony's claim to add standard hard drives in the PS3. If that's as easy as it could be, that's a win for Sony on HD space. Microsoft needs to counter that. I'm waiting.
__________________


Exactly; one DVD worth of demos takes up all of the available hard disk space. Imagine if you play a MMO like FFXI that has to use the HDD ; you could barely keep 2 demos at a time then.

[MoJoBehaumat]

If that becomes the case Demos are best suited for DVD's...

[divinechaos]

All BC goin back to the last generation is completely useless *last gen being PS2, GC and Xbox*. Sony should focus on PS1, Nintendo on its older systems and MS.. i dunno, arcades? Focus on games that are hard to find, damnit.

[Johan]

I think the HDD should be larger on the 360, but I don't agree with the 'keeping of demos' idea (JackB ;)). Publishers/developer/MS all are not served by consumers keeping demos on their drives forever, imo; the demo is meant to be a taste of a game to get you to go out and buy it. If HDD space was large enough to download and keep all of the demos you wanted, it could conceivably lead to some people not buying some games and getting their 'fix' from a few minutes with the demo. Dead Rising, for me, is a game that I could just play from the demo and probably never buy...there are others, as well.

I want extra HDD space not for demos, but for music and XBLA titles (for down the road, as I have 10 right now and plan to get many more).

And, on topic, way to go Sony if this BC stuff works out. MS has really sucked the bone on this one; whether you want it or not, when your competitor has it and you don't (or it's as limited as it seems it will remain with the 360), it's a negative.

[jwbxx]

Meh HDD is overrated, I'm sticking with beta.

[Kefkataran]

That 'other stuff' is the ability to play your future bluray movies in HD. It is a goddamn bait-and-switch. Get people to buy bluray movies today and turn on the broadcast flag tomorrow, rendering your $500 PS3 useless as a bluray player.


Bullshit. The PS3 is only $600 IF Blu-Ray movie technology and HD movies matter to you. If it doesn't, then you can go for the lesser version with no worries and still probably get it upgraded to do everything the 600 dollar one can eventually anyways.

Even people with millions of dollars ain't buying the PS3. It's called being ripped off.

Who buys a next-generation game system to play games from the 90s. Get an emulator or play them on the systems they were intended for, retards.

I like semi-intelligent Zeal a lot more than rabid, semi-retarded fanboy Zeal.


I'm interested to find out the specifics on Sony's claim to add standard hard drives in the PS3. If that's as easy as it could be, that's a win for Sony on HD space. Microsoft needs to counter that. I'm waiting.

Yeah, I'm seriously hoping Sony sticks to this, because it would be a HUGE plus for the PS3.

[Achilles]

Bullshit. The PS3 is only $600 IF Blu-Ray movie technology and HD movies matter to you. If it doesn't, then you can go for the lesser version with no worries and still probably get it upgraded to do everything the 600 dollar one can eventually anyways.If I get a PS3, which I may do, it'll be the $600 and it has nothing to do with Blu-Ray or HD movies. I want the HDMI port, and the 80GB HDD will be useful, because unlike MS where their biggest thing is demos, Sony has the full ability to offer their movies (they own half the color movies ever made) and TV series they've made over their online service (which is something they've hinted at numerous times). And those are going to take up a lot of space, and are not something I want to download twice.

The $500 version cannot be upgraded to have an HDMI port.

[ElectricMonk]

i just wish ms would release a slimline xbox

i just picked up the slimline ps2 today and it's great. i have an old ps2 but it was getting cranky and the new one is so small and lacks all the fan noise, they should just make an xbox one just like it and i would get it and never care about 360 bc again

[Banacek]

I like semi-intelligent Zeal a lot more than rabid, semi-retarded fanboy Zeal.

I always like Zeal. He's always semi-intelligent.

i just wish ms would release a slimline xbox

I know the agreements that MS has prohibits this from happening, but i really still want to see it happen. Call it an old man's dream.

[Kamalot]

The $500 version cannot be upgraded to have an HDMI port.Quoted for truth.

The PS3 is $600.

[Kamalot]

Jesus Kamalot, do you get paid to be a viral marketer? What were the launch titles that made the 360 worth the 400 price tag? Both launches are going to suck, but the machines are going to sell. And Warhawk, Heavenly Sword and Resistance all have potential. Stop forgetting that.
I don't buy on potential alone. I didn't buy a 360 at launch and didn't suggest anyone else should either. I didn't get my 360 until Oblivion launched. It made sense to get the 360 version since it would have cost around $600 to get a PC upgrade in order to play Oblivion as well as the 360 does.

Getting the 360 was my PC upgrade.

Now Wii's launch on the other hand looks unbelieveable. Metroid and Zelda available at launch? Ubisoft bringing 7 launch-window titles? Already I'm sold on that console at launch, and it is cheaper than my 360.

And I thought it was already established that Microsoft pays me in blow jobs.

[ChiHawk]

If I get a PS3, which I may do, it'll be the $600 and it has nothing to do with Blu-Ray or HD movies. I want the HDMI port, and the 80GB HDD will be useful, because unlike MS where their biggest thing is demos, Sony has the full ability to offer their movies (they own half the color movies ever made) and TV series they've made over their online service (which is something they've hinted at numerous times). And those are going to take up a lot of space, and are not something I want to download twice.

Not going to happen - in the US - this generation of consoles. Not a chance. To offer any movies for download at a resolution people would want, Sony would have to compress the hell out of them to make the file sizes fall within the realm of something reasonable. If Sony did this, they would be making a great argument for why Blu-Ray is pointless. Imagine offering a 9G download of Spider-Man in HD. Regardless of anything else, people would wonder the point of Blu-Ray for HD movies, just as informed gamers don't see the point of Blu-Ray for games.

God the inclusion of BR in the PS3 pisses me off. Without it, we'd have the PS3 for $100 cheaper, at least. Instead, we're being asked to pay a premium for a useless piece of hardware just to subsidize a format war. Bah.

[Kamalot]

Not going to happen - in the US - this generation of consoles. Not a chance. To offer any movies for download at a resolution people would want, Sony would have to compress the hell out of them to make the file sizes fall within the realm of something reasonable. If Sony did this, they would be making a great argument for why Blu-Ray is pointless. Imagine offering a 9G download of Spider-Man in HD. Regardless of anything else, people would wonder the point of Blu-Ray for HD movies, just as informed gamers don't see the point of Blu-Ray for games.

God the inclusion of BR in the PS3 pisses me off. Without it, we'd have the PS3 for $100 cheaper, at least. Instead, we're being asked to pay a premium for a useless piece of hardware just to subsidize a format war. Bah.
Agreed. What you will see though is a form of iTunes on the PS3 that will allow you to buy movies and shows for playback on the PSP. Too bad the PSP is a pile of overpriced steaming crap and if I really wanted to watch movies on the go I'd convert them myself and watch them on my Treo/MP3 player or laptop.

[Kamalot]

The only place I ever hear bad stuff about the PS3 is EvAv...
Here's the most recent PS3 story on Engadget, one of the most-read gadget blog sin the world.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/06/ps3-needs-adapter-for-ps2-memory-cards/
Is this a positive or negative take on the PS3 and Sony?

Here is the whole PSP thread available from Gizmodo, another high-profile gadget blog with many more readers than Evil Avatar.
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/ps3/
How many negative articles are there?

[Magnanimous Gnome]

I like semi-intelligent Zeal a lot more than rabid, semi-retarded fanboy Zeal.


Unfortunately for Kefka and other intelligent forum-goers everywhere, semi-intelligent Zeal is on the brink of extinction. The main factor in this tragic loss seems to be global warming. One more reason to trade that SUV in for a bicycle.




Yeah, I'm seriously hoping Sony sticks to this, because it would be a HUGE plus for the PS3.


It would be nice if they stuck with that. I'm really glad that the Wii is going to allow the use of any USB external HDD for storage - that's definitely the best solution out there. I can go buy my own HDD for much cheaper than a proprietary one (looks at 360) and get a lot more bang for my buck. It also keeps the costs of the console itself down.

[Kefkataran]

If I get a PS3, which I may do, it'll be the $600 and it has nothing to do with Blu-Ray or HD movies. I want the HDMI port, and the 80GB HDD will be useful, because unlike MS where their biggest thing is demos, Sony has the full ability to offer their movies (they own half the color movies ever made) and TV series they've made over their online service (which is something they've hinted at numerous times). And those are going to take up a lot of space, and are not something I want to download twice.

The $500 version cannot be upgraded to have an HDMI port.

And that's fine for you, man, and I understand it. BUT Kamalot's repeated bullshit that "THE PS3 IS $600" is completely a lie. It's 600 IF that stuff is important to you. If it's not, then the $500 PS3 is a completely viable option.

[Achilles]

And that's fine for you, man, and I understand it. BUT Kamalot's repeated bullshit that "THE PS3 IS $600" is completely a lie. It's 600 IF that stuff is important to you. If it's not, then the $500 PS3 is a completely viable option.I agree that the $500 system certainly isn't as handicapped as the Core system in comparison to the PS3 $600 version. Even the 360 Premium doesn't have an HDMI port, and cannot be upgraded to have one (damnit) or an 80 gig HDD (which it can be upgraded to have). So the $500 system seems to be the equivalent to a 360 premium, minus the headset, which we all know is a perfectly fine system.

I must say though that I've defended the idea behind the Core (so I was in your camp when the 360 was coming out), and I'd never say that the $500 PS3 isn't a viable option. However I will say that it doesn't have the advantage of the Core, which will be that you'll eventually be able to assemble whatever kind of 360 you want from the base components. The $500 PS3 isn't a component, it's a complete system.

[Kefkataran]

I must say though that I've defended the idea behind the Core (so I was in your camp when the 360 was coming out), and I'd never say that the $500 PS3 isn't a viable option. However I will say that it doesn't have the advantage of the Core, which will be that you'll eventually be able to assemble whatever kind of 360 you want from the base components. The $500 PS3 isn't a component, it's a complete system.

That's not true. You can upgrade everything EXCEPT the HDMI as far as we know. So gain, if HDMI isn't important to you, you're fine. This could change, of course, but we'll have to wait until the system is actually out to see if it does.

[Achilles]

That's not true. You can upgrade everything EXCEPT the HDMI as far as we know. So gain, if HDMI isn't important to you, you're fine. This could change, of course, but we'll have to wait until the system is actually out to see if it does.You can upgrade it, but that doesn't make the $500 system a component. For example, the Core, by itself, does nothing. You have to decide what storage medium you want (memory card, HDD), and will eventually decide what size HDD you want. You decide if you want an HD-DVD drive or not, if you want wireless, and if you want component cables or a wireless controller. By itself it wouldn’t even allow you to save your games, download arcade titles or even create a Live account.

However that works to its advantage if they start making a lot of different accessories, whereas the $500 PS3 is $200 more, and it forces you to buy the Blu-Ray player, the wireless controller, and a hard drive. When they eventually release a 360 with an HDMI port, I’m going to buy the Core version of it, and just swap all my other accessories onto it. You can’t do that with the PS3 without buying a bunch of additional stuff that comes with both models.

[Kamalot]

Even the 360 Premium doesn't have an HDMI port, and cannot be upgraded to have oneThe 360 CAN be upgraded to HDMI through the use of an HDMI cable. There isn't one available yet, but there isn't a technical reason why there won't be one. The Xbox HDMI cable would even work on the core system.

With the PS3, when you buy the gimped $500 package, you can never move to HDMI.

[saran_js]

Achilles, that is a big assumption you are making. What's to say that MS will not change the form factor aka. slim line xbox360. Try fitting your current HDD on to that form factor then.
My guess is that they'll probably come out with a new range of accessories for the new system and milk more money from the xbox customers.

As for your concept of companies forcing customer to buy items that come with the box you are purchasing, try this analogy of a car company. They come out with a car with standard built-in components, and suddenly you say that you don't want the engine because you already have one and you'll just swap it in to the body of the new car. Does this make sense ?
Sony is not saying that the Blu-ray drive is an accessory that they are forcing you to buy. It's part of the PS3 and it comes with the PS3. Just like a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution comes with built-in 4 wheel drive, the PS3 comes with Blu-ray, you can't change that because that is how the manufacturer is releasing the product. You on the other hand are thinking of it as a component that you do not need. If you don't need it, then don't buy it (the whole PS3 that is)

[Kamalot]

It's 600 IF that stuff is important to you. If it's not, then the $500 PS3 is a completely viable option.
IF you are buying a machine to play games, then a $400 360 is also a completely viable option. If you are going to spend $100 more on a bluray player, then why buy one that is gimped and won't play HD movies once the broadcast flag is put in place? It is a goddamn bait-and-switch. They want people to buy into the movies, then make your PS3 worthless as a movie player.

$500 is too expensive for a standalone game machine and short-lived as a movie player. It is useless if your TV has HDMI and not component. It isn't fully upgradable.

The only real PS3 is $600.

[Kamalot]

If you don't need it, then don't buy it (the whole PS3 that is)
That's the best suggestion in the whole damn thread.

[Kelegacy]

IF you are buying a machine to play games, then a $400 360 is also a completely viable option. If you are going to spend $100 more on a bluray player, then why buy one that is gimped and won't play HD movies once the broadcast flag is put in place? It is a goddamn bait-and-switch. They want people to buy into the movies, then make your PS3 worthless as a movie player.

$500 is too expensive for a standalone game machine and short-lived as a movie player. It is useless if your TV has HDMI and not component. It isn't fully upgradable.

The only real PS3 is $600.
500 is too expensive, but at 100 bucks more than the 360, it isn't terribly bad if you do not enjoy the library of the Xbox. I like games on the 360 right now, but I'm certain the PS3 will have more games that I will want to play that will never make it to the PC or 360. See, that's always the problem. If you have a PC you can play many 360 games, and the PC versions of the games can cost as much as 20 bucks less. Right now, if you own a good PC there aren't many exclusive reasons to even own a 360. The same could be said about the first Xbox, too.

And is HDMI THAT important? Sure, you'll take a hit on BR watching, but if you are buying a PS3 with BR predominantly in mind, you are dumb. With the 499 version you are getting a 399 console (when compared to the 360) and a 100 dollar BR player. It will still play the movies, still play them in 1080p via component, but you won't have the extra oomph of HDMI. For 99% of the public, that does not matter one iota.

[Kamalot]

I like games on the 360 right now, but I'm certain the PS3 will have more games that I will want to play that will never make it to the PC or 360.
I'm not so sure about that. Most games this generation are going cross platform. Yeah, there will be some gems on the PS3, but I can pass for now. For example, Sega Saturn was over priced, difficult to program for (with dual-processors) and the game library suffered. Most games came out on the Saturn were trashy or cross platform. There are a few gems though like Panzer Dragoon, Radiant Silvergun and Nights into Dreams. Was it worth the asking price of $400?

I got my Saturn 3 years ago at a garage sale for $15. I found games for cheap or free online. Yeah, Saturn was worth every penny of my $15, but had I paid $400 for it, I would been ripped off.

One very fast central processor would be preferable. I don't think that all programmers have the ability to program two CPUs - most can only get about one-and-a-half times the speed you can get from one SH-2. I think only one out of 100 programmers is good enough to get that kind of speed out of the Saturn.
—Yu Suzuki Regarding the Sega Saturn's complicated architecture.




Sure, you'll take a hit on BR watching, but if you are buying a PS3 with BR predominantly in mind, you are dumb.Sony is telling everyone to think of the PS3 as an inexpensive Bluray player (still more expensive than HD-DVD players, which produce better picture quality). Are you trying to tell us that buying PS3 as a Bluray player is dumb?

[Banacek]

All I know is that I can't afford to buy a PS3. This is coming from someone who waited in line overnight for a PS2. I've bought almost every system since the NES. I just can't justify buying the ones that cost too much (NEO-GEO, 3DO). I don't give a damn about HDMI, Blu-Ray or anything else, I just want a system that plays games. If the base model was $400, then maybe I'd buy it. Then again, I feel like I paid too much for the 360, but that might change once Christmas releases come around.

[Kelegacy]

Sony is telling everyone to think of the PS3 as an inexpensive Bluray player (still more expensive than HD-DVD players, which produce better picture quality). Are you trying to tell us that buying PS3 as a Bluray player is dumb?
Yes, it is dumb. You buy game consoles to play games. No machine is worth a launch price with minimal games, but after a year a system starts looking better. I always agree with you that the price of the PS3 is high, and that I won't purchase one myself right away(I didn't own a PS2 until it had been out for 2 or 3 years) but Sony still has awesome 2nd party support and of course the Japanese devs in their palms. That will be enough to entice me down the road.

The PS3 is 100 dollars overpriced. That we can agree on. And it has a shitty controller. But it WILL be a great gaming machine, just like the last two Playstations. I am not one of you Negative Nancies that want Sony to fail and drop out of the industry. Why would I? I've loved their last two machines an immense amount. I have no corporate love for Sony, just their Playstation brand and games. And I've loved the Playstation since I dropped my Saturn like a big black turd and picked up the better machine in 1996.

[Kamalot]

And I've loved the Playstation since I dropped my Saturn like a big black turd and picked up the better machine in 1996.But the Playstation wasn't superior to the Saturn. Developers who took the time to harness the Saturn's power were able to do things that Playstation could never do. Saturn was more powerful, but it was more difficult to harness that power where Playstation shipped with a bunch of easy-to-use and well-documented C++ libraries to get developers started right away.

Just because Playstation was king of the hill for 2 generations does not mean that it will remain that way. Ask Sega, Nintendo and Atari what it means to be king of the hill. They were all, at one point, undisputed champions of gaming.

PS3 is the Saturn of this generation; overpriced, fewer games and a royal bitch to develop for.

[51|RandoM]

I have to call you out on your tag under your name that reads, "The PS3 is $499!" If you are paying an extra $100 for for Bluray playback, why are you buying a version that won't play your movies in HD past 2010 when the broadcast flag gets turned on? If you aren't buying the system for bluray, then why are you buying the PS3?

The PS3 is really $599.

Because, 4 years from now(lol), when(if) they do turn on the ICT(on new media, not his current library of blu-ray-stored media), and he does decide to buy something with an ICT flag, he can probably pickup a blu-ray player for $100, which will be a better player than the PS3 was in the first place.

He is buying a PS3 for everything it can do, not just that it has a blu-ray media drive.

[51|RandoM]

So.. this beats the Wii's full GC backwards compatibility, with supposed full compatibility with GC memory cards right off the bat how? Oh, it doesn't. But that doesn't matter because how could Nintendo possibly compete against the likes of Sony and Microsoft right... right?

Has anybody really asked themselves why the Wii is fully GC BC? Is it because A) the Wii is effectively a gamecube on steroids, and B) Nintendo wants to maintain its proprietary interfaces? The big differences in the Wii from the previous generation aren't even in the console itself. It is in the software and the controllers.

hey, I am a big Nintendo fan, but obviously they're not just throwing in full backwards compatibility out of the kindness of their hearts.

Wonder how USB device support will compare between the two?

[Kefkataran]

With the PS3, when you buy the gimped $500 package, you can never move to HDMI.

Keeping in mind that I'm technologically inept, why is this true? Why can the 360 be upgraded but not the PS3?

IF you are buying a machine to play games, then a $400 360 is also a completely viable option. If you are going to spend $100 more on a bluray player, then why buy one that is gimped and won't play HD movies once the broadcast flag is put in place? It is a goddamn bait-and-switch. They want people to buy into the movies, then make your PS3 worthless as a movie player.

Unless you already have a 360 and are buying it to play the PS3's games and NOT watch their movies. Quit being such a douchebag. Just becuase you have a hate-on for the system does not mean people OMFG CANNOT purchase the $500 one.

Sony is telling everyone to think of the PS3 as an inexpensive Bluray player (still more expensive than HD-DVD players, which produce better picture quality). Are you trying to tell us that buying PS3 as a Bluray player is dumb?

Yes. Various Sony execs have been saying stupid shit for months, years now. Are you trying to tell us that's surprising?

He is buying a PS3 for everything it can do, not just that it has a blu-ray media drive.

Thank you for the good explanation, 51.

[Kelegacy]

But the Playstation wasn't superior to the Saturn.


Um, you should know superior doesn't mean tech performance, Kam. Would you say the PSP is superior to the DS? Technically, yes. But game-wise? No. So yes, the Playstation was vastly superior to the Saturn. I received a Saturn around the time the PS1 first came out. I then saw ads for Twisted Metal and realized I had made a serious mistake asking for the Sega system rather than the unknown Playstation brand. When Resident Evil came out, I was hooked evermore and purchased right away. (Well, Grandpa did, I was 15.)

PS3 is the Saturn of this generation; overpriced, fewer games and a royal bitch to develop for.

Man, you don't know when to quit. Let me ask you this: What the fuck does it matter to you if people buy a PS3 or not? If you are not going to get one anyway, what's with all the hate? You sound like Evil Avatar himself when he was dissing the DS (and still does). What did he sound like? Stupid.

And we've had quite a few devs say the PS3 is easier to dev. for than the PS2. I think that says quite a bit.

Why are you such a crusader for everything anti-Sony? It gets a bit silly after a while. The machine isn't even OUT yet, man.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

The 360 CAN be upgraded to HDMI through the use of an HDMI cable. There isn't one available yet, but there isn't a technical reason why there won't be one. The Xbox HDMI cable would even work on the core system.

With the PS3, when you buy the gimped $500 package, you can never move to HDMI.


So are you going to try to explain why the 360 can be upgraded with HDMI and the PS3 core cannot? Smells like bullshit to me.


That's the best suggestion in the whole damn thread.


If people only bought the things that they needed, we would all live very spartan lives. ;)


blah blah about PSX and Saturn



So now a system is superior when it is more powerful? Hmm, coming from such an ardent Wii support that seems like a silly thing to say.

You just never quit Kamalot. You're a broken record and it's getting really old.


Has anybody really asked themselves why the Wii is fully GC BC?


I think that part of the reason is so that they can support their current customers and give them a nice incentive to upgrade. It also makes sense, since the system will play NES, SNES, and N64 games. It's cool that every generation of Nintendo systems will be represented. I just hope that they add GB, GBC, and GBA games as well.

[ChiHawk]

So are you going to try to explain why the 360 can be upgraded with HDMI and the PS3 core cannot? Smells like bullshit to me.
I believe that the (high-end) PS3 has an AV Multi-out port and an HDMI port, two seperate ports. The low end has just the AV Multi-out port. The fact that the two ports are seperate on the high-end ps3 tells me that the multi-out port can't support hdmi, for whatever reason.

The 360 has a video out port that does have the bandwidth and basic facilities to pass through an HDMI stream to the proper cable. So in the case of the 360, it seems that HDMI should be possible with the release of a converter cable, one similar to the component cables, with one major difference, of course ;). And it seems that the PS3 multi-out port doesn't have the same ability, otherwise why would Sony put a dedicated HDMI port on the high-end model?

One note - I've read that the 360 video out chip can not output a digital signal - in other words, the chip always does the digital-to-analog conversion. If this is true, then any HDMI output from the 360 would rely on a cable with an integrated analog-to-digital converter. This would introduce additional cost to the cable and a slightly degraded image.

[Achilles]

The 360 CAN be upgraded to HDMI through the use of an HDMI cable. There isn't one available yet, but there isn't a technical reason why there won't be one. The Xbox HDMI cable would even work on the core system.

With the PS3, when you buy the gimped $500 package, you can never move to HDMI.From what I hear the multi-out on the 360 sends an analog video signal, not a digital one. You could get a converter, but you wouldn't be getting true HDMI, and who knows if it would support surround sound audio through the HDMI cable. And as Kefka said (and Mr. Gnome also pointed out), the PS3 is using a similar kind of multi-out. If you could just buy an HDMI cable for the 360, why couldn’t you buy one for the PS3?

The $500 PS3 isn’t gimped if you don’t have a TV that supports HDMI, and don't plan on getting one.Achilles, that is a big assumption you are making. What's to say that MS will not change the form factor aka. slim line xbox360. Try fitting your current HDD on to that form factor then.
My guess is that they'll probably come out with a new range of accessories for the new system and milk more money from the xbox customers.You may be right, but even if they changed the form factor I have to think that they’d allow it to fit all the old accessories. People would be furious if they couldn’t carry their save games from the old form to the new one. And it would hurt sales of the new form because people would have to re-buy their old stuff. I believe that the (high-end) PS3 has an AV Multi-out port and an HDMI port, two seperate ports. The low end has just the AV Multi-out port. The fact that the two ports are seperate on the high-end ps3 tells me that the multi-out port can't support hdmi, for whatever reason.This is the case ChiHawk. I believe I posted the official PS3 specs earlier in the thread, but if the curious cannot find them, go to www.playstation.com, select PS3, then select Specs. The $600 PS3 has a multi-out, an HDMI port, and a digital optical out. The video signal from the multi-out is most likely analog. The only thing that would give me pause on the 360 is that the digital audio comes out of the same plug as the video, meaning there has to be some digital component to it. But I’m assured as I said in my response to Kamalot, that the video signal is strictly analog and cannot support HDMI in any real sense (you could convert the analog video to HDMI, but you can do that now; it wouldn’t be digital, and it wouldn’t have sound).

[Kamalot]

You sound like Evil Avatar himself when he was dissing the DS (and still does).Quite different. Didn't I just admit that the PS3 will have gems of good games? Didn't I equate it to the likes of Panzer Dragoon, Radiant Silvergun and Nights into Dreams? That sounds like a compliment to me, especially if you played any of those Saturn masterpieces. If you've got the money, go ahead. But do so knowing that the PS3 will get the fewest games overall this generation. Most games it does get will be cross-platform. There will be some winner exclusives but; like the Saturn, the reign of being top dog is over, at least, for this generation.

There are a lot of people that are very happy with their Saturn purchase. There are a lot more that felt ripped off.

When I've seen Evil Avatar talk about the DS, it was about how the DS had nothing that anyone would want. I don't take it that far with the PS3. I say, The PS3 is something that MOST people will not buy. It will not have the majority in worldwide sales this generation. It won't have the largest game library. It may be the most powerful system, but it won't be the most popular system. We've all seen it happen before, but just like how fans wouldn't admit how the N64, Sega Saturn, etc. sucked, the rest of the world went somewhere else.

[Kamalot]

From what I hear the multi-out on the 360 sends an analog video signal, not a digital one. You could get a converter, but you wouldn't be getting true HDMI, and who knows if it would support surround sound audio through the HDMI cable.
I was not aware of this. Thanks for the info. Do you have any links that support the 360's output being analog?

[zangster]

Garrr!

Why doesn't everyone just slap their dicks down on the table and see who is bigger, that's obviously the only way to declare a winner in this entire argument.

[saran_js]

Garrr!

Why doesn't everyone just slap their dicks down on the table and see who is bigger, that's obviously the only way to declare a winner in this entire argument.

Egads !!!!, that is impossible. Mine would smash the whole table in to splinters. You wouldn't like splinters on a sensitive organ.
:D