iceberg187
Regular
According to what i've just read on the back of the box, the 40GB model still has backwards compatibility with PSOne games.
But the warning about the lack of support for PS2 games is there, alright.
According to what i've just read on the back of the box, the 40GB model still has backwards compatibility with PSOne games.
But the warning about the lack of support for PS2 games is there, alright.
"The 40GB model, to be launched in Europe on October 10, is a new model and is not equipped with any of the semiconductors from the PS2, and backwards compatibility would therefore have to be achieved by software emulation alone.
"The sheer numbers of PS2 titles available, together with the increased complexity of using a software only solution for each and every title means that to ensure accurate software emulation for the majority would be technically challenging, time consuming and costly. As we have mentioned on several occasions, our engineering resources are now focused on developing new and innovative features and services for the PS3 and, as a result the 40GB model does not have backwards compatibility with PS2 titles."
Sure, I get that, but they're differentiating in the wrong direction! Is 40GB is no cheaper than 80GB, you'd want a minimum 80GB model, and the higher-end model to have more capacity. From what's been said before, 60/80 GB is actually the cheapest HDD you can source and 40GB will be more expensive. I dunno if that's true, but these companies can't keep introducing a smaller HDD model every time they want a price-cut, or they'll end up with negative storage amounts!It's not about cost, its about differentiation.
Backwards compatibility, as you know from PlayStation One and PlayStation 2, is a core value of what we believe we should offer. And access to the library of content people have created, bought for themselves, and accumulated over the years is necessary to create a format. PlayStation is a format meaning that it transcends many devices -- PSOne, PS2, and now PS3.
The dropping of the GS always baffled me because of the monetization it would offer. Over PSN, Sony could happily have sold PS2 titles at $10 a pop (they do this with PS1 titles already). It would only take each person to buy one of those, and the money for the chip would have been made back.
I guess, however, they could just port these titles to the PS3 like Namco did with Tekken 5.
What? Why would they want to increase costs in their higher end model? You're not going to find 120GB or 160GB drives at the same price as an 80GB yet.Sure, I get that, but they're differentiating in the wrong direction! Is 40GB is no cheaper than 80GB, you'd want a minimum 80GB model, and the higher-end model to have more capacity.
That makes no sense. A simple firmware change could expose only 40GB on an 80GB drive.From what's been said before, 60/80 GB is actually the cheapest HDD you can source and 40GB will be more expensive.
Edit: And what about the coming digital tuner/recorder, that would surely have benefitted from a bigger harddrive, and an extra USB port is nice too so you can keep it plugged.
Really, this 40GB SKU makes little sense, except for price reduction.
The dropping of the GS always baffled me because of the monetization it would offer. Over PSN, Sony could happily have sold PS2 titles at $10 a pop (they do this with PS1 titles already). It would only take each person to buy one of those, and the money for the chip would have been made back.
I guess, however, they could just port these titles to the PS3 like Namco did with Tekken 5.
That makes no sense. A simple firmware change could expose only 40GB on an 80GB drive.
I agree. I have searched years for a english copy of Final Fantasy VII and VIII. Offering these on PSN would have been an instant buy for me.