My PS3 experience...

ReRuss · Post by **ReRuss** » Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:23 pm

So I found this 20gb like 30 miles away at gamestop , got it , tried Dirt 2 demo and it failed...

Went back , traded for an 80gb (model cechA) that I knew usually was on 60gb models but I also knew a rare few 80's had hardware PS2 support...

Turns out it was a 60gb they mislabeled or sumthin... and it's the same price as the 20gb I had but has wifi and flash card readers...

So far , Dirt 2 demo works just fine , MR4 on PS2 works fine, I used it's internet browser and watched crap on youtube just fine...

Anywayz , is any of you on PSN , and can suggest games to try that are not on 360...

My list of things to try so far is little big planet , resistance, killzone, uncharted , and MGS4

Post by **lordmissus** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 1:18 am

Did you consider the PS3 Slim? I plan on replacing my 40GB PS3 with a PS3 Slim some time in the future.

Smaller, runs on less power, generates less heat... so assuming everything else is fine they'll last much longer than the fat PS3's before breaking down.

The only negative is a lack of Linux support. Though, Linux is utter shite on the PS3 anyway, so..
(at least, it is in my opinion, after trying to get several distros to run with acceptable performance. No video acceleration last time I checked, also, so decent 3D performance is out of the question).

Other than this, I hear that it lacks none of the features the fat PS3 had. Upgrading the HDD to any of your choosing is still an option, too.

Apparently Sony removed the Linux support because of all the private research organizations buying PS3's in mass and setting up clustered super-computing environments for cheap. As you probably are aware, consoles are so much cheaper so as to attract more buyers, and thus make more profit on the games, which is where the real money is. So these private organizations buy cheap Cell supercomputers and don't buy any games... Sony loses money.
Perhaps they might remove blu-ray movie support too, for the same reason, in a later revision. @Sony:

(lots of people bought PS3's to be used purely as blu-ray movie players, because others were more expensive, all while the PS3 is/was arguably the best blu-ray player on the market)

Now, I wonder if MS can follow suit and come up with a Slim60 sometime soon.. I'd love to replace my 360 with one of those if Microsoft chooses to produce one for the masses.

Too bad though. I'm saving up to build a new gaming PC, so PS3 Slim is out of the question for a while..

Anyway, I'm sure you found none of that rant interesting. So to counter, here are some games I recommend:
- Grand Theft Auto 4
- Resident Evil 5
- Metal Gear solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
- Bioshock
- Ninja Gaiden Sigma
- Bioshock
- Virtua Fighter 5
- Need for Speed: Undercover
- Mirror's Edge
- Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6 Vegas 2
- Call of Duty: Modern Warfare
- Call of Duty: World at War
- Little Big Planet

sweener2001 · Post by **sweener2001** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 1:39 am

i'd keep the fat with the emotion engine.

and just skip through lordmister's post. pointless discourse, and a lot of mult-plat games + exclusives you've already mentioned.

and outside of what you've mentioned: folklore, valkyria chronicles, and the motor storm games. lots of other exlusives, but i'm not sure how many of them are worth the time.

the hdd replacement is a cinch, as well. i recommend throwing a slightly larger hdd in there. i threw a 320 into my 80 GB (software BC in mine), and can see it coming in handy once i get a few more ps3 games going.

i'm actually just doing FFXII right now, and eventually the shin megami tensei games. those are a ways off, though, since MUA2 and WET just came out. not to mention dragon age and CoD:MW2, and the 360 is my main console.

Post by **odditude** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 5:03 am

infamous, ratchet & clank

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:38 am

lordmister wrote: Other than this, I hear that it lacks none of the features the fat PS3 had.

No PS2 compatibility. No SACD playback.

Post by **grinvader** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 9:04 am

Gil_Hamilton wrote:
lordmister wrote: Other than this, I hear that it lacks none of the features the fat PS3 had.
No PS2 compatibility. No SACD playback.

Any recent fat ps3 doesn't have PS2 emu either (dunno about SACD).

lordmister wrote: - Mirror's Edge

odditude wrote:ratchet & clank

Yes

you also want to check if
- disgaea 3
- cross edge
are relevant to your interests

diminish · Post by **diminish** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:37 am

lordmister wrote:Apparently Sony removed the Linux support because of all the private research organizations buying PS3's in mass and setting up clustered super-computing environments for cheap. As you probably are aware, consoles are so much cheaper so as to attract more buyers, and thus make more profit on the games, which is where the real money is. So these private organizations buy cheap Cell supercomputers and don't buy any games... Sony loses money.

[url=http://www.osnews.com/story/22073]Get your facts straight[/url] wrote:I’m sorry that you are frustrated by the lack of comment specifically regarding the withdrawal of support for OtherOS on the new PS3 slim. The reasons are simple: The PS3 Slim is a major cost reduction involving many changes to hardware components in the PS3 design. In order to offer the OtherOS install, SCE would need to continue to maintain the OtherOS hypervisor drivers for any significant hardware changes – this costs SCE. One of our key objectives with the new model is to pass on cost savings to the consumer with a lower retail price. Unfortunately in this case the cost of OtherOS install did not fit with the wider objective to offer a lower cost PS3.

That perfectly makes sense as they castrate everything they can and replace with cheaper/worse quality components as the system gets newer revisions (vide internal flash memory for storing firmware, 256MB at first, now 16MB and HDD can store part of the firmware; not to mention various kinds of ports).

Gonzo · Post by **Gonzo** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:33 pm

lordmister wrote: So these private organizations buy cheap Cell supercomputers and don't buy any games... Sony loses money.

How does Sony lose money?

Unless these private organizations are buying ps3's rather than more expensive Sony computers, then I fail to see how this affects Sony’s profits negatively at all.

And as for the whole, "if someone buys a console but no games, it hurts Sony" argument, that just sounds retarded.

If I was Sony, I'd rather have a group of people who buy my consoles and none of its games, then have a group of people who buy none of my consoles. It sounds like Sony just sold a bunch of consoles to a market they weren't even aiming at. And maybe I suck horribly at economics, but doesn’t that mean that Sony just made an unexpected profit?

franpa · Post by **franpa** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:49 pm

There wasn't much profit with the fat ps3's...

spacy51 · Post by **spacy51** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:54 pm

Gonzo wrote: How does Sony lose money?

They sell their PS3 consoles with loss, in order to establish a broader PS3 install base. How do they earn money then, you ask? By increasing the prices of the PS3 games. That's why PS3 games cost more than Xbox 360 games which cost more than PC games.

I.S.T. · Post by **I.S.T.** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:06 pm

They don't cost more than X360 games in the US. o_O New games for both consoles, except for odd releases such as special editions, cost $60 US.

Post by **lordmissus** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:50 pm

If I was Sony, I'd rather have a group of people who buy my consoles and none of its games, then have a group of people who buy none of my consoles. It sounds like Sony just sold a bunch of consoles to a market they weren't even aiming at. And maybe I suck horribly at economics, but doesn’t that mean that Sony just made an unexpected profit?

You don't need to know economics to understand it.
Simply,
Sony sells PS3's for a fraction of the price it costs to make them. So, when you buy a PS3, Sony gains money, but it is less than what they spent to manufactuer that PS3. In this, Sony literally loses money.

So how do they make money then? It's this reduced cost (and marketing, of course) that gets more and more people to buy the console than if it were more expensive. In this, people buy the games, which are expensive. Sony makes profits on the games. So even though negative profit is gained by selling the hardware, the amount of games sold make up for it.

So they lose money when private research firms buy PS3's and no games, to setup clustered super-computing environments cheaply. Not only that, it costs a lot of money to maintain the hypervisor on the various revisions of the PS3 (and future versions of the PS3's firmware).

Post by **grinvader** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:51 pm

Ever since consoles went optical, games were always monstrously overpriced, making them able to refund any sort of negative cost the base console could bring.

You're going from a ~10 bucks profit margin (for the most expensive cartridges that were produced) to a whoppy 50+ margin (assuming a BRD is a huge 10 bucks to produce each).

So yeah, 60 bucks were pretty fit for cart games and made video games less profitable (more risky, less room for fuckups, yadda yadda), and everyone was pushing the lower price of CDs as a major advantage for optical consoles, except they quickly covered that in smoke and kept the price at 60 for everyone.
Now they can cover atrocious dev costs and console losses with a single game selling more than 200K units. And flood the market with low-cost crap that's profitable after 500 games are sold.

Gonzo · Post by **Gonzo** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:22 pm

lordmister wrote: Simply,
Sony sells PS3's for a fraction of the price it costs to make them. So, when you buy a PS3, Sony gains money, but it is less than what they spent to manufactuer that PS3. In this, Sony literally loses money.

Now I was just about to say "bullshit, that can't be true", until I looked at the numbers:

PS3

Release Date: Nov. 17, 2006
Retail price: $599 (60GB) $499 (20GB)
Cost of components: $840 (60GB) $805 (20GB)

That is just staggering.

What I find even more shocking is that none of the other consoles or handheld devices, created by companies other than Sony, have higher manufacture prices than the retail price:

Xbox 360

Release Date: Nov. 22, 2005
Retail price: $399
Cost of components: $330

Wii

Release Date: Nov. 19, 2006
Wholesale Price: $190
Cost of components: $158

Nintendo DS Lite

Retail Price: $130
Cost of components: roughly $90

So apparently you can sell consoles any still lose money, if you’re Sony <shakes head>.

Oh, in case you’re wondering, I got my figures from:

http://www.hardestlevel.com/706819695/c ... price-tag/

Neo Kaiser · Post by **Neo Kaiser** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 5:21 pm

ReRuss wrote:So I found this 20gb like 30 miles away at gamestop , got it , tried Dirt 2 demo and it failed...

Went back , traded for an 80gb (model cechA) that I knew usually was on 60gb models but I also knew a rare few 80's had hardware PS2 support...

Turns out it was a 60gb they mislabeled or sumthin... and it's the same price as the 20gb I had but has wifi and flash card readers...

So far , Dirt 2 demo works just fine , MR4 on PS2 works fine, I used it's internet browser and watched crap on youtube just fine...

Anywayz , is any of you on PSN , and can suggest games to try that are not on 360...

My list of things to try so far is little big planet , resistance, killzone, uncharted , and MGS4

You are 1 lucky bastard! I have to conform with my MGS4 80GB version. Games to try well Fat Princess, Killzone 2 if you like FPS. Almost all the games are delayed until next year...

funkyass · Post by **funkyass** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:57 pm

Sony did go brand new for tech tho.

the 360 and wii pretty much using existing tech.

Then again, consider how much the recall must have cost MS, and they are still having RROD on their units.

The real winner in this is IBM.

Neo Kaiser · Post by **Neo Kaiser** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:05 pm

Of course it's IBM! They have nothing to lose as the 3 consoles uses their CPUs. I wonder why they don't compete again with Intel and AMD.

ReRuss · Post by **ReRuss** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:30 pm

I bought a used PS3 simply for the PS2 option as I have a couple games that have no 360 or PC alternative atm w/o emulation...

I did buy MGS4 last night it's lookin pretty good , I love the fact BD is scratch-resistant, its makes me less weary on used games...

the bad thing about PS3 imo is I have to call sony to deactivate the 20gb I had activated for games and video tho... thats kinda lame

I'm gonna look into all these games, maybe grab infamous or little big planet next

Bomberman Ultra any good by chance?

Neo Kaiser · Post by **Neo Kaiser** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:28 pm

ReRuss wrote:I bought a used PS3 simply for the PS2 option as I have a couple games that have no 360 or PC alternative atm w/o emulation...

I did buy MGS4 last night it's lookin pretty good , I love the fact BD is scratch-resistant, its makes me less weary on used games...

the bad thing about PS3 imo is I have to call sony to deactivate the 20gb I had activated for games and video tho... thats kinda lame

I'm gonna look into all these games, maybe grab infamous or little big planet next

Bomberman Ultra any good by chance?

That's the problem if a console gets damaged after using it for a while after making a account. Did you bought something from the PSN Store?

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 9:14 pm

grinvader wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:
lordmister wrote: Other than this, I hear that it lacks none of the features the fat PS3 had.
No PS2 compatibility. No SACD playback.
Any recent fat ps3 doesn't have PS2 emu either (dunno about SACD).

[
I knew that. I didn't specify what degree of compatibility.
Originally, the PS3 had both the PS2's CPU and GPU in it. It was like 99.5% compatible.
Then they took out the CPU, and replaced it with an emulator. It was like 85% compatible.
Then they took out the GPU, and laughed maniacally. It was 0% compatible, and they didn't care.

SACD has survived until now.

I.S.T. · Post by **I.S.T.** » Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:24 pm

Gonzo wrote:
lordmister wrote: Simply,
Sony sells PS3's for a fraction of the price it costs to make them. So, when you buy a PS3, Sony gains money, but it is less than what they spent to manufactuer that PS3. In this, Sony literally loses money.

Now I was just about to say "bullshit, that can't be true", until I looked at the numbers:

PS3

Release Date: Nov. 17, 2006
Retail price: $599 (60GB) $499 (20GB)
Cost of components: $840 (60GB) $805 (20GB)

That is just staggering.

What I find even more shocking is that none of the other consoles or handheld devices, created by companies other than Sony, have higher manufacture prices than the retail price:

Xbox 360

Release Date: Nov. 22, 2005
Retail price: $399
Cost of components: $330

Wii

Release Date: Nov. 19, 2006
Wholesale Price: $190
Cost of components: $158

Nintendo DS Lite

Retail Price: $130
Cost of components: roughly $90

So apparently you can sell consoles any still lose money, if you’re Sony <shakes head>.

Oh, in case you’re wondering, I got my figures from:

http://www.hardestlevel.com/706819695/c ... price-tag/

The PS3 figures have been known to be bullshit for a while now. They're just based off of speculation. Dunno about the others.

That said, the thing must cost mroe than 300 to make still, given Sony said they're taking a loss even on the PS3 Slim.

That is, unless they're including R&D into their figures, and not making them public...

Gonzo · Post by **Gonzo** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:13 am

I.S.T. wrote: The PS3 figures have been known to be bullshit for a while now. They're just based off of speculation. Dunno about the others.

That said, the thing must cost mroe than 300 to make still, given Sony said they're taking a loss even on the PS3 Slim.

That is, unless they're including R&D into their figures, and not making them public...

The thing that surprises me is te fact that they are selling their consoles cheaper then the manufacturig cost. Apart from Sony, has any other games console done this before?

snkcube · Post by **snkcube** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 3:23 am

Microsoft has certainly done this for the Xbox and Xbox 360. I assume that Sega has done the same, probably for the Dreamcast.

ReRuss · Post by **ReRuss** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 4:34 am

Neo Kaiser wrote:That's the problem if a console gets damaged after using it for a while after making a account. Did you bought something from the PSN Store?

I was trying to download some video they had for free and hit the activation snag...

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:17 am

snkcube wrote:Microsoft has certainly done this for the Xbox and Xbox 360. I assume that Sega has done the same, probably for the Dreamcast.

Sega was bleeding red ink all over the place with the Saturn for a while.
They got into a price war with Sony that they couldn't afford.

ZSNES board

My PS3 experience...

My PS3 experience...

Re: My PS3 experience...