[MechanizedDeath]

Be prepared to kiss your save files goodbye. FWIW, the PS3 might not be able to read files in the same format as the PS2 memory card. I don't know if converting to other file formats will make it any better either, since I'm not convinced the games themselves will be able to read different formats. Afterall, isn't the RW of memory cards handled through software protocals sent to the IOP? If the IOP changes (I assume the southbridge replaces IOP), then I'm thinking it would require a change to the actual code in order to read PS1/2 save files from external devices.

There is a lot of assuming on my part, and we know what happens when we assume. But not having done game development before, I'm just going on what I currently know. One thing is for certain, the PS3 will have to be able to store save files somewhere on the HDD in the same file format used for the PS1/2. So there must be some way for old software to tell the PS3 southbridge to read and write save files. Blah, I'm rambling. PEACE.

[onanie]

Originally Posted by scooby_dooby

And you have to understand that just because Sony has decided to bundle a HDD, it doesn't mean that every person in the world instantly wants one.

There are still hundreds of millions of PS1 and PS2 owners who've never even owned a HDD, yet now you claim that no-one in their right mind could live without one. Give me a break.

MS drops the HDD cost by $40, problem solved. MS bundles a 64mb MC? Problem solved. MS drops the Core price by $50? Problem solved. The core can easily be set up as a very desireable package with a couple small tweaks.

MS has *obviously* strategically priced the Core package to be undesireable, this is intentional, it's apparent they want to move more premiums at this point in time. But don't expect it to be this way forever, MS created the core package for a reason, and they'll take advantage of that. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

So "obviously", the core package is just a token entry cost for MS that is undesirable (which Sony felt no need to compete with).

Does your "very minor things that can easily change, namely lack of wireless controller, tiny 64mb memory card, and an overpriced 20gb hdd", by any chance, remind you of some other pack? I sure hope so

Never said previous gen PS owners needed a HDD to live - they were perfectly happy, I'm sure. Of course, it is currently mandated, but with the benefits of HDD easily demonstrable on the previous xbox (and even the current 360, perhaps), it is certainly a welcome feature.

[one]

Originally Posted by MechanizedDeath

Be prepared to kiss your save files goodbye. FWIW, the PS3 might not be able to read files in the same format as the PS2 memory card. I don't know if converting to other file formats will make it any better either, since I'm not convinced the games themselves will be able to read different formats. Afterall, isn't the RW of memory cards handled through software protocals sent to the IOP? If the IOP changes (I assume the southbridge replaces IOP), then I'm thinking it would require a change to the actual code in order to read PS1/2 save files from external devices.

There is a lot of assuming on my part, and we know what happens when we assume. But not having done game development before, I'm just going on what I currently know. One thing is for certain, the PS3 will have to be able to store save files somewhere on the HDD in the same file format used for the PS1/2. So there must be some way for old software to tell the PS3 southbridge to read and write save files. Blah, I'm rambling. PEACE.

There are PS/PS2 emulators for PC, why do you think PS/PS2 emulation on PS3 is complicated as you describe here unlike what PC emulators do?

As for save data, if PS3 can read them through USB connection to PS2 it's nice. Currently there are third party tools to move PS2 savedata to PC via USB.

[Guden Oden]

Originally Posted by MechanizedDeath

Afterall, isn't the RW of memory cards handled through software protocals sent to the IOP? If the IOP changes (I assume the southbridge replaces IOP), then I'm thinking it would require a change to the actual code in order to read PS1/2 save files from external devices.

No worries. Emulators have handled saving and loading to cartridge SRAM memories for pretty much a decade by now.

[Acert93]

http://eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=64797

I was a little taken with the tone of this Eurogamers article. Maybe the most interesting point I found in the article is below:

Finally, the price - greeted by polite applause. From an industry perspective, the price is fine. Sony will sell out the launch allocation at a high price. It worked for PS2 and PSP. But just as GTAIV appearing on PS3 and 360 simultaneously will weigh on the minds of casual gamers - most of whom probably fancy a go on Halo 3 as well - Sony's latest shameless tax on enthusiasm is likely to weigh on the minds of us lot. We buy every single console when it comes out. You're probably the same. But EUR 600 - even EUR 500 - is more than we're used to paying. The arguments need to be made in games, not with Blu-ray, Cell and RSX. Surely you can only cry "Emotion Engine" once?

Last gen you kind of had to choose: GTA or Halo. This time around, come fall 2007 if you have not bought a console and want both you can on one console. Add in a cheaper price and larger back library and that could make a compelling case to those who are on the fence.

The more this begins to pan out, the more competition, at least in the next year or two, there seems there will be. This is good for consumers, but also in some cases for developers where they can leverage Sony and MS against eachother for better royalties and exposure.

[one]

As for GTA, you have to consider there were people who waited for the superior Xbox and PC versions of GTA:VC.

[RancidLunchmeat]

Originally Posted by onanie

So "obviously", the core package is just a token entry cost for MS that is undesirable (which Sony felt no need to compete with).

What on Earth are you talking about?

All those 'impulse buyers' who are gamers, who bring home a net paycheck of $400-$500 a week are going to be able to purchase the Core, plus mem card, plus a game.

They simply won't be able to buy a PS3, period.

Do they know that they are 'getting screwed' by having to pay more later for a HDD (if they want to use Live!) and a wireless controller? Sure. But they had to buy an extra controller anyway because I'd say the vast majority of console gamers play with somebody else so they needed to purchase an extra controller anyway, and this way "their friend" gets stuck with the crappy wired controller and has to sit closer to the TV while they can lounge back on the couch with their wireless one... it is their system after all.

Sony would have loved to compete with MS at the $299 price level. But they simply can't because their main focus isn't to make money off the PS3, it's to make money off of Blu-Ray, which is why they included it in every console and forced every single consumer to pay the premium for.

This is absolutely no different at all than MS selling the Xbox Remote last generation for those people who wanted to play DVD Movies on the Xbox. Once again, MS has sold to the lowest common denominator.. those who want the ability to do more can pay for it. And once again, Sony has decided that everybody will pay that premium regardless of whether or not they actually want to use the functionality.

[one]

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

Sony would have loved to compete with MS at the $299 price level. But they simply can't because their main focus isn't to make money off the PS3, it's to make money off of Blu-Ray, which is why they included it in every console and forced every single consumer to pay the premium for.

Adding HDD while not losing billions of dollars like MS did with Xbox 1 is important too.

[Acert93]

Originally Posted by one

As for GTA, you have to consider there were people who waited for the superior Xbox and PC versions of GTA:VC.

Without knowing which one will be best, it does seem in the past that a large majority of people bought it right off. Did even 1M people wait a year to buy the game later? We don't know how many Xbox/PC owners who bought GTA also have a PS2, but it would be hard to believe that any significant number waited a year to play one of the best games of its time.

Anyhow, this is not really about which is better, but the market impact of 1 console having the 2 best selling games last generation. They may not be very big in the East, but Halo and GTA are very important franchises in the US.

Come October 17th, 2007 you can either buy a 360 with Halo3 and GTA4, or you can buy PS3 with GTA4. Of course each platform has other VERY important games and there are back library and console price issues and name brand recognition that play into it, but I don't think we can minimize the effect of the two best sellers in the US now being on one platform at launch day.

Its not the end of the world in of itself, but it will play into some consumers buying decisions.

[RancidLunchmeat]

Originally Posted by one

Adding HDD while not losing billions of dollars like MS did with Xbox 1 is important too.

No doubt.

You won't get an argument from me on that one.

But I will say.. we don't know how much money Sony is losing on each PS3 sold at their current prices. If we go by the 'merril lynch crowd', I believe MS is currently losing something like $150 on each 360 while Sony will lose $300 on each PS3.

[one]

Originally Posted by Acert93

Come October 17th, 2007 you can either buy a 360 with Halo3 and GTA4, or you can buy PS3 with GTA4. Of course each platform has other VERY important games and there are back library and console price issues and name brand recognition that play into it, but I don't think we can minimize the effect of the two best sellers in the US now being on one platform at launch day.

Agreed, right now it's a big win for Xbox 360, what I'm not sure is how much the simultaneous launch decreases potential PS3 buyers. There are some uncertainties here, they'll be cleared in the next 1 and a half year.

• The difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, including multiplayer options
• The relation to GTA:VCS for PSP and GTA:LCS for PS2 in this year
• The prices of Xbox 360 and PS3 as of Oct. 2007 - why not buy both if you want to play Halo 3?
• Other games to be available around the end of 2007

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

No doubt.

You won't get an argument from me on that one.

But I will say.. we don't know how much money Sony is losing on each PS3 sold at their current prices. If we go by the 'merril lynch crowd', I believe MS is currently losing something like $150 on each 360 while Sony will lose $300 on each PS3.

Cell, RSX, the wireless motion sensing controller, and Blu-ray are all expected to get cheap very fast in the 5-6 years console cycle. But HDD is not. Hence if you argue on the expensive PS3 price you should bring up HDD first, Blu-ray is secondary IMHO.

[zed]

All those 'impulse buyers' who are gamers, who bring home a net paycheck of $400-$500 a week are going to be able to purchase the Core, plus mem card, plus a game.

heres me thinking they'll be getting a wii

[Carl B]

The hard drive this go around is a bold move, but in a way it serves the same purpose as Blu-ray in that it's definitely something they're going to look to monetize via downloads and such, while at the same time trying to expand their reach and brand in the digital distribution space. If the customer spends on downloads as much or more over the life of the console as it costs Sony to include the HDD in the first place, then in a way it pays for itself. Obviously Sony will be hedging a little as well, and so I expect as long as the hard drive consists of a traditional 2.5" magnetic, there will always be a certain price premium built into the console to help pad that hit.

[ihamoitc2005]

Originally Posted by xbdestroya

The hard drive this go around is a bold move, but in a way it serves the same purpose as Blu-ray in that it's definitely something they're going to look to monetize via downloads and such, while at the same time trying to expand their reach and brand in the digital distribution space. If the customer spends on downloads as much or more over the life of the console as it costs Sony to include the HDD in the first place, then in a way it pays for itself. Obviously Sony will be hedging a little as well, and so I expect as long as the hard drive consists of a traditional 2.5" magnetic, there will always be a certain price premium built into the console to help pad that hit.

I think maybe Sony can have also had no HD and instead faster Blu-Ray with RW.

[mckmas8808]

Originally Posted by ihamoitc2005

I think maybe Sony can have also had no HD and instead faster Blu-Ray with RW.

Why RW over a HDD?

[RobertR1]

Originally Posted by one

Agreed, right now it's a big win for Xbox 360, what I'm not sure is how much the simultaneous launch decreases potential PS3 buyers. There are some uncertainties here, they'll be cleared in the next 1 and a half year.

• The difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, including multiplayer options
• The relation to GTA:VCS for PSP and GTA:LCS for PS2 in this year
• The prices of Xbox 360 and PS3 as of Oct. 2007 - why not buy both if you want to play Halo 3?
• Other games to be available around the end of 2007

Cell, RSX, the wireless motion sensing controller, and Blu-ray are all expected to get cheap very fast in the 5-6 years console cycle. But HDD is not. Hence if you argue on the expensive PS3 price you should bring up HDD first, Blu-ray is secondary IMHO.

In 5-6, the "Evil Empire" will have a new console out which will draw away a lot of people.

[patsu]

Originally Posted by ihamoitc2005

I think maybe Sony can have also had no HD and instead faster Blu-Ray with RW.

There is a subtle but important difference. If you only have BD, then you may not be able to run a large application if that BD is removed and/or replaced by another disk. A "permanently-there" HD allows PS3 to load and run default applications (even using some form of VM if the app is not demanding e.g., word processor).

Then of course the digital download stuff also works perpectually (i.e., you can remove the BD but the downloaded content is still accessible).

Remember: PS3 is no longer a game console.

[patsu]

Originally Posted by RobertR1

In 5-6, the "Evil Empire" will have a new console out which will draw away a lot of people.

May be and may be not. We already know there will be different variations/configurations of PS3 beyond launch to keep it up-to-date. But they will all have HD, network-enabled and Linux platform. Sony seems to be "platformizing" PS3 (in the networked hardware world), the same way Microsoft is platformizing Windows (in the networked software world).

[RobertR1]

Originally Posted by patsu

May be and may be not. We already know there will be different variations/configurations of PS3 beyond launch to keep it up-to-date. But they will all have HD, network-enabled and Linux platform. Sony seems to be "platformizing" PS3 (in the networked hardware world), the same way Microsoft is platformizing Windows (in the networked software world).

Upgraded versions of the same console over it's life cycle is a bad idea. The whole point of a console is homogenous hardware that you never have to worry about upgrading or maintaining (software updates) and be able to play all the games designed for it during it's life cycle.

The PlayStation name is associated to gaming and nothing else. Trying to change it all around in one fell swoop might shock a lot of people in a negative manner. Of the 100million people who bought a PS2, I'm sure a very small percentage of them (enthusiasts mainly) want all this. The rest of us just want to pop in a game and play without any hassle.

I'd be damn pissed if the PS3.4 played games better because it had a faster blu ray drive which could stream content faster or a higher spec'd GPU which could take the choppiness out of some of the titles. Also, Linux isn't for everybody. If they open it up, esp. net access then you run into all the security issues associated with that.

[Acert93]

30 year history of console retail pricing, both inflation and non-inflation.

[patsu]

Originally Posted by RobertR1

Upgraded versions of the same console over it's life cycle is a bad idea. The whole point of a console is homogenous hardware that you never have to worry about upgrading or maintaining (software updates) and be able to play all the games designed for it during it's life cycle.

Bad idea or not, it's apparently in Sony's plan now (Many people think "high" introductory price is a bad idea too, look where we are now ? ). Sony probably has to evolve its strategies to deal with the situation too. Even as a computer, the Playstation is still relatively closed and well-supported because like Apple Computers, the technology and component suppliers remain tightly in control. This is not the same as totally open PC platforms. BTW, why is it ok to have a new console that is totally incompatible with my old games every 5 years again ? I may buy PS3 on its 3rd year, that means it's life is only 2 years ?

Originally Posted by RobertR1

The PlayStation name is associated to gaming and nothing else. Trying to change it all around in one fell swoop might shock a lot of people in a negative manner. Of the 100million people who bought a PS2, I'm sure a very small percentage of them (enthusiasts mainly) want all this. The rest of us just want to pop in a game and play without any hassle.

Marketing may change the perception over time. Why can't you just pop in a PS3 game and play without hassle ? The developers will just write to the base PS3 specs (largest installed base) until Sony phases it out. Apple Computer phases out old models too but there is no hoo-hahs. In fact, old PS3 games may run on PS4 without much effort.

With Sony's latest talks, I'm just questioning the discrete and abrupt change every 5-6 years (dictated by MS based on your comment). The Cell architecture is well-defined. RSX is based on OpenGL. If the hardware end is managed well by Sony, game developers will still have relatively tight assumptions about their target platform. No ? Xbox developers already need to handle HDD/no HDD today.

Originally Posted by RobertR1

I'd be damn pissed if the PS3.4 played games better because it had a faster blu ray drive which could stream content faster or a higher spec'd GPU which could take the choppiness out of some of the titles.

Sorry can't help you there. And you wouldn't be p*ssed when your launch game is choppy in the first place ? And you wouldn't be p*ssed when MS forced a totally new system every 5-6 years ? Why ?

Originally Posted by RobertR1

Also, Linux isn't for everybody. If they open it up, esp. net access then you run into all the security issues associated with that.

Some of your friends' cellphone already run on Linux today; same for your wireless router at home, TiVo, etc. ... In fact, some cellphones run on Windows too. So ? *scratch head*

I might be playing with the topic, but there is some truth to it

[zed]

Originally Posted by Acert93

30 year history of console retail pricing, both inflation and non-inflation.

interesting my first console atari2600 costs more than $600 nowadays (which i can easily believe, cause i remember it was a lot of cash way back then)
also for the benifit of some of the younger readers on this forum, the 2600 was huge at the time.
also i saw another relative piece of news todays
ESA Stats: Average U.S. Gamer 33 Years Old
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/new...php?story=9342
$600 to much, no i dont think so

[Platon]

Originally Posted by zed

interesting my first console atari2600 costs more than $600 nowadays (which i can easily believe, cause i remember it was a lot of cash way back then)
also for the benifit of some of the younger readers on this forum, the 2600 was huge at the time.
also i saw another relative piece of news todays
ESA Stats: Average U.S. Gamer 33 Years Old
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/new...php?story=9342
$600 to much, no i dont think so

During the 70s those things were sure expensive, for two reasons, electronics at that time were all expesive, and compared to today it was not as common. Today electronics are generaly much cheaper and we are used to that. You shouldn't be comparing how much the PS3 costs compared to what those electonics costed in the 70s, but rather what the PS2 cost, as that is what most people will be comparing it to...

[pipo]

Originally Posted by onanie

So "obviously", the core package is just a token entry cost for MS that is undesirable (which Sony felt no need to compete with).

Nope. I can go to a store and buy a GameCube and PS2 without a memory pack. And you know what, people actually do that too. I wouldn't, but that doesn't change the fact that people with a *smaller budget* do. Sony needed the HD. Simple as that.

Also, we can inflate all we want, but people are going to compare prices. The PS3 will sell out and do fine, but the price is not going to be of any help to that. Plain and simple it will make some people think twice.

[RobertR1]

Originally Posted by patsu

Bad idea or not, it's apparently in Sony's plan now (Many people think "high" introductory price is a bad idea too, look where we are now ? ). Sony probably has to evolve its strategies to deal with the situation too. Even as a computer, the Playstation is still relatively closed and well-supported because like Apple Computers, the technology and component suppliers remain tightly in control. This is not the same as totally open PC platforms. BTW, why is it ok to have a new console that is totally incompatible with my old games every 5 years again ? I may buy PS3 on its 3rd year, that means it's life is only 2 years ?

Sony says they will be backwards compatiable with all PS1 and PS2 games so it's safe to assume this trend will continue and much credit to them on that end. Playstation is well supported because they have the market share and sold 100million units. Simple as that. If 5years from now, Company C has Sony's market share and Sony has only 20% you'd see this "support" shift.

Marketing may change the perception over time. Why can't you just pop in a PS3 game and play without hassle ? The developers will just write to the base PS3 specs (largest installed base) until Sony phases it out. Apple Computer phases out old models too but there is no hoo-hahs. In fact, old PS3 games may run on PS4 without much effort.

Yes marketing does but I believe this is too much of a jump they're trying to make. If they achieve half of what they planned out (full entertainment devices that can do everything) I'd be surprised. If your PS3 is cluttered with all sorts of apps and programs running, then your gaming experience could suffer and as a company I certainly would not want the nightmare of have to act as customer support for all such issues. The KISS mentality is better in this case.

With Sony's latest talks, I'm just questioning the discrete and abrupt change every 5-6 years (dictated by MS based on your comment). The Cell architecture is well-defined. RSX is based on OpenGL. If the hardware end is managed well by Sony, game developers will still have relatively tight assumptions about their target platform. No ? Xbox developers already need to handle HDD/no HDD today.

If the industry stays on pace, 5-6 years is a lifetime and I dont' believe either console has that sort of longevity in it. That's my belief atleast. The next one to release the "major" console will get the most attention. Latest and greatest has a lot of appeal to and pull, since you wanted to discuss marketing. It practically forces the competitions hand. Think of Ati/Nvidia. If nvidia release a new card or tech, Ati is pretty much put on the spot to counter quickly and vice versa. With such fierce competition in the console world, this applies also. It's been proven over time that company's that lag behind once the get the lead can get left behind for good.

Sorry can't help you there. And you wouldn't be p*ssed when your launch game is choppy in the first place ? And you wouldn't be p*ssed when MS forced a totally new system every 5-6 years ? Why ?

Why would I be pissed? A piece of $399 hardware lasting me for 5-6years is plenty. I don't expect miracles for that price. I would be pissed if they kept upping the specs for the same core hardware and the game which runs choppy on my machine runs well on the "refresh" model to due the spec changes. It's not a PC that I can remove components as I see fit so don't make it upgradable. With a core and premium packages you know what you're getting right away but with upgraded components you have no idea whether you should buy now or wait for a higher spec model down the road that might run your favorite game just that much better. As a company the last thing i want is to put purchase doubt in my customers mind.

Some of your friends' cellphone already run on Linux today; same for your wireless router at home, TiVo, etc. ... In fact, some cellphone runs on Windows too. So ? *scratch head*

Sony is trying to push for some miracle all in one device. The more modules you add the more you complicate it. If this whole thing stays closed then they'll need to support it. I'd had to run that helpdesk with Timmy and Jimmy calling me left and right. Just like the 2005PS3 lost features when the 2006 PS3 came about, I'm sure some of these dreams will fade in time. If the PS3 becomes anything more than a gaming console to the masses, I'd be very surprised. Let's wait and see.