Sony Ps3 to loose backwards compatability completely

[DaveMMR]

Xbox 360 is simply the least expensive of the three consoles right now.  Period.  No qualifications or asterisks required.

 

"A little off" doe not mean "wrong".  I still agreed with you in the end based solely on the numbers.  If your goal is to buy ANY game console and play ANY game without additional cost, then the 360 AE wins hands down (better bundled software too, IMO).

But the reason for the "little off"?   Because anyone can highlight or discount features that justify the price tags.  Just as an example:  Wii has BC out of the box (assuming you have the controllers already) with old GC software while you need to buy a Hard Drive for the 360 Arcade Edition in order to play old Xbox titles.  So, if supporting old software is an important feature, suddenly the 360 is no longer the cheaper option.  Plus, someone who wants to play Nintendo games won't look to save $50 and lose that ability. 

When it comes to purchasing a large ticket item, there's always an "asterisk".  Otherwise, we'd all just buy the cheapest stuff and be satisfied with it. 

[HaRuMaN]

Not to mention that the Wii has wireless networking built in, while the Xbox 360 requires a $99 adapter.   

[ChadTower]

Not to mention that the Wii has wireless networking built in, while the Xbox 360 requires a $99 adapter.   

Which annoyed the piss out of me because I wanted an on board ethernet port and had to buy a USB->ethernet adapter for the Wii. 

[shmokes]

Sure . . . I don't disagree with you.  What I mean to say about no asterisk required is that there are always feature differences between competing consoles.  The Nintendo 64 had no load times, the PSX had way more storage space.  But you still wouldn't turn any heads by saying, "N64 is cheaper than PSX."  The Xbox 360 hard drive is a feature, and prior to the release of the 360 Arcade SKU you wouldn't turn any heads by saying, "Wii is cheaper than the Xbox 360."  Nobody would say, "No it isn't, you have to factor in what you're paying for the hard drive and the superior processors.  In that sense the 360 is cheaper."  It's not that there isn't any validity to that, but it's just not the way typical people talk.

But it's even stranger for my comparison to turn heads, cos the missing feature on the 360 is also missing on the Wii.  Stripping out the hard drive actually makes the comparison closer to apples and apples, not further away.

So if you didn't need an asterisk before to say that the Wii was the least expensive, I simply can't see why you would need one now to say the 360 is the least expensive.  

[DaveMMR]

But it's even stranger for my comparison to turn heads, cos the missing feature on the 360 is also missing on the Wii.  

The Wii was never designed with a hard drive in mind, just storage via an SD card.  It was an design oversight, sure, since now they're realizing the need for one with large WiiWare titles and the profit potential in DLC for games like Rock Band.   But no game or feature on Wii technically requires a hard drive, which is not true of the 360.

Also, Nintendo never said they were releasing a hard drive, just a "better storage solution".  It may be a hard drive, it may not.

So if you didn't need an asterisk before to say that the Wii was the least expensive

I personally never thought that.  Again, there's always an asterisk.  If we were to go back to the beginning, we'd say "The Wii is least expensive but it's also the most underpowered and lacks adequate online play".   Yeah, both are still true, but some people are satisfied with it nontheless.

[ChadTower]

Kotaku is now reporting that the company does indeed have a storage solution on the way, but it won't come in the form a physical hard drive. Nintendo executive Reggie Fils-Aime tells Club Nintendo magazine that we'll see something even better than a hard drive for the Wii.

We pretty much have two viable options:  hard drives and solid state memory.  If it ain't a hard drive...


EDIT: 

Wii finally has a storage solution: Load from the SD slot

[shmokes]

Again, there's always an asterisk. 

But that's exactly why there isn't one.  Because the asterisk is already implied and understood by everyone.  When you say that the Xbox 360 is cheaper than the PS3 you don't have to say, "The PS3 has a more powerful processor.  But the 360 has more RAM.  But the PS3 has a BluRay drive.  But the 360 has an awesome online component.  But the PS3's online component is free.  But the 360's controller has a sensibly placed analog stick.  But the PS3 has built-in Bluetooth.  But the 360 has rumbling controllers (I know PS3 has them too finally).  But the PS3 isn't ---smurfing--- ugly.  But the 360 has changeable faceplates so can be potentially less ugly."

That's all true, but people already know that these differences exist and the differences are too small to reasonably take issue with the general statement, "Xbox 360 is cheaper than the PS3."  Of course you can get into a feature comparison and talk about which is the better value, but making a point of qualifying the objective price statement is totally unnecessary.

The same goes here.  The 360 Arcade is missing the hard drive feature that its siblings ship with.  But it's neither a feature that is required for 99% of what the 360 can do, nor is it a feature that someone considering a Wii could really complain about it not having.  I'm not saying that the hard drive isn't important.  And I'm not saying that its exclusion from the Arcade SKU doesn't potentially make it a poor value compared to a 360 that comes with a hard drive.  But its relative importance isn't nearly so great that you need an explicit asterisk in order to say that it's cheaper than a Wii, where you didn't need one in order to say that the Wii was cheaper than the 360 before.  It's just a feature difference like any other.  The asterisk is ALWAYS there, which is exactly why it doesn't need to be there. 

[Ginsu Victim]

When the X360 Arcade came out, I asked what was different about it at Wal-mart, and the guy said, "Oh, it only comes with a 20 GB instead of the larger ones." So I'd had the wrong idea about the Arcade until this thread.

Thanks for hiring incompetent employees, Wal-mart! (He's actually a friend of mine, though I'm going to rip him a new one next time I talk to him)

[DaveMMR]

I think we're way over complicating this.   My bad.  

My point was that price is not always the only consideration in informed purchases, and we've both pretty much proven that.   The starting price of any console can escalate depending on what add-ons are wanted/needed.

[ChadTower]

...and no one ever bothers to count in controllers.  Who buys a system without buying extra controllers?  How much are those for each system and how many do you need for practical use on each?  How about memory cards?  That can add as little as 10% or as much as 100%.

[shmokes]

I thought of mentioning that, but my posts are always so long as it is.  Since a Wii controller is $20 more than a 360 controller, even at launch a Wii with four controllers cost slightly more than a 360 with four controllers.  It's nit picky, though.  I think it was still fair to say that the Wii was less expensive.

[ChadTower]

An $80 difference is far from nitpicky.  We're talking a substantial cost difference there.

I don't consider 4 controllers necessary, though.  Nice to have, yes, but really only two are necessary.

[SavannahLion]

An $80 difference is far from nitpicky.  We're talking a substantial cost difference there.

I don't consider 4 controllers necessary, though.  Nice to have, yes, but really only two are necessary.

Very few people ever seem to look at controller costs though. I've seen people throw back a really good $50 game, but not even blink twice when grabbing two extra controllers.

Shmokes, are you counting the Wiimote w/ Nunchuk or has the prices changed? A Wii controller (by itself) is about $10 cheaper than the 360's controller. In any case, the whole Wii controller marketing scheme is pretty damn successful. A Wiimote is $40... except most of the really good games need a Nunchuk controller too. Damn, throw on another $20 on top of that. Whoops, that's $60 now. Hell, since we're spending money, might as well toss on the Classic controller for another $20. How much is that new dongle to fix the Wiimote positional drawbacks going to cost? Another $20? For a "complete" set, a person is looking at shelling out $100 for each person.

That's not even counting the nutty accessories. Official stuff like the Zelda "crossbow", $20. The steering wheel for another $20-$25. Then there's the third party stuff like pistol grips, sports "adapters", swords, etc. Obtaining a complete set for two people alone could easily exceed the cost of the console itself! 

genius from a marketing standpoint.

[ChadTower]

Very few people ever seem to look at controller costs though. I've seen people throw back a really good $50 game, but not even blink twice when grabbing two extra controllers.

Those people are bad at math.  I know what you mean, though.  When I was trying to justify buying the Wii I was calculating cost around $400 and I had to explain it every time I mentioned that to someone.  Not so hard to do... Wii + Wiimote + nunchuk + SD card + 1 game.

[shmokes]

An $80 difference is far from nitpicky.  We're talking a substantial cost difference there.

I don't consider 4 controllers necessary, though.  Nice to have, yes, but really only two are necessary.

$60.  The system comes with one complete set so you've only gotta buy 3.  When the Wii launched a 360 was $299 for the one with the smaller hard drive.  A Wii was $250.  So a person who bought a Wii and three more controllers is in for $10 more than a person who bought a person who bought a 360 and 3 more controllers.

But I don't think that's enough to say the Wii was more expensive.  First, plenty of people don't buy all the controllers cos they don't have that many friends.  Or they figure they'll buy more controllers later or get them as gifts.  Or they can do like me . . . I've got three remotes, but only two nunchucks.  I never got a fourth remote cos my next door neighbor (who's door was about four feet from mine) had a Wii so we'd just borrow each other's controllers if we needed four.  As for the nunchucks, the only four-player game I have is Wii Sports and the only sport that uses a nunchuck is boxing which is only two-player.  So for a lot of people, if they're not Madden fans, they only need two nunchucks.

So it's kinda sloppy, but I think it's fair to say that at launch the Wii was cheaper than the 360 even though there was a way to look at it and say it wasn't the case.

Shmokes, are you counting the Wiimote w/ Nunchuk or has the prices changed?

I'm talking remote + nunchuck.  $60 for the lot.  An Xbox 360 controller is $40.

[ahofle]

Wii finally has a storage solution: Load from the SD slot

WTF, 2GB max?  Useless!

[SavannahLion]

Wii finally has a storage solution: Load from the SD slot

WTF, 2GB max?  Useless!

For capabilities we should have had on launch.

I doubt it matters. I noticed one of my game manuals stated you cannot move the saved game to the SD card. On a whim, I checked a few random games on the Wii and I located three or four that could not be copied to an SD card.

A 2GB limit is going to mean jack ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- if you can't even move a majority of the saved games to the SD card anyways.

[ChadTower]

For capabilities we should have had on launch.

Yeah, I never got not being able to run software off the SD card.

[shmokes]

Why not?  Making the SD slot useful doesn't cost any money.  They had to program there system not to run software directly from SD cards, which was probably exactly the same as much work as it would have been to allow software to run directly from SD cards.  It's always been incredibly absurd that Virtual Console games couldn't be run from the SD slot.  I mean absolutely, positively absurd.  Seriously . . . they put it there for archival purposes only?   

Still they ought to just allow external hard drives.  There are two USB slots.  If you ask me Nintendo has one thing in mind, "Okay . . . we need to get DLC working for games like Rock Band.  But if we create a hard drive peripheral someone's going to figure out how to rip games to it and run them from there.  Let's just open up the SD card slot.  At least then only virtual console games will get pirated.  Who cares if 2 GB it's nowhere near enough and Rock Band players have to constantly swap SD cards?  We're making money faster than we can count it!"

[DaveMMR]

A 2GB limit is going to mean jack ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- if you can't even move a majority of the saved games to the SD card anyways.

The game saves are really not the problem.  It's WiiWare/VC games and DLC for the upcoming Rock Band 2 and new Guitar Hero that eat up a ton of space.

And yeah, 2 GB is pretty paltry, but it's better than nothing I suppose.  And why exactly do we have to wait until April 2009?  

As for the extra Wii controllers:   Consider also that many people pick up a copy of WiiPlay (despite it's mediocrity) for the bonus Wiimote.  And honestly, a lot of the popular multiplayer games outside Madden, et. al. do not require a nunchuk.   And two of my favorites (SSB: Brawl and Mario Kart Wii), you can use GC controllers.   I only have two nunchucks and I've never had to use more than one at a time thus far.  

What you DO need to factor into the cost is one (or two) of those nifty recharging stations.  Well worth the cost.  

[shmokes]

Funny too that one of the two games you mentioned as needing a nunchuck doesn't even need one -- it's optional (Mario Kart).  I have two nunchucks.  I've played lots of games that require two nunchucks, but none that require four.  I know they're out there, but I'm not a madden fan, so . . .

[Edgedamage]

Don't take my knocks against the 360 as me being a 360 hater. I loved the 360 but sold it because I don't trust the hardware. I got the PS3 because I got tired of hearing all my co-workers talk about it and I got the 40gig and am happy with it. As for playing PS2 games I really don't care much for any game to warrant BC. Now if I could only trade my wii for a CRT HDTV I would be happy.

[shmokes]

BTW, I think there may be some confusion about what Nintendo announced.  Some sites are reporting that software will be able to be run directly from the SD card.  Others are reporting that you will merely be able to download directly to your SD card from the WiiWare and VC stores if your internal memory is full.  And supposedly transferring from the SD card to main memory will be made easier and more straight forward.  If that is Nintendo's solution it's no solution at all. 

God . . . people talk about Sony not giving a crap about their customers.  Look at Nintendo!  They deliberately gimp the SD card slot.  They give you the wonderful world of friend codes even after they are universally panned and hated on the DS.  They are the only company that doesn't subsidize its hardware with software royalties (hell . . . they didn't even release at a break even point; it was profit on hardware since day one).  They have the audacity to maintain an artificial hardware shortage for two years and running.  It's been two years and we still haven't seen the price drop by a single cent, despite the VASTLY superior and more expensive to build Xbox 360 costing less than the Wii now.  The controllers are so broken that Nintendo is releasing a peripheral next year that does nothing but fix it. 

It's easy to point out Sony's failures because they've translated into financial difficulties, while Nintendo couldn't print its own money as fast as it's coming in.  But when it comes to listening to customers, responding to customers . . . Nintendo's doing a horrible horrible job.  They're going to end up doing the same thing to their success that they did with it the last time.

[Kangum]

this is off topic but based on the past few posts. it irritates the crap out of me that my complaint about the short storage of the wii has been ignored for so long. i purchased my wii over a year ago and i filled my vc titles quick. it doesnt take long at all especially if you get the n64 games. all people did was was give me crap back then and say things like you can delete and redownload titles you paid for so more space is not needed. just shuffle them. add another 200 posts how its "not needed" now its really starting to affect people and people are all upset about it. i dont know wether to sit back and laugh or just shake my head.

[shmokes]

Did you type that post on your phone?

[DaveMMR]

God . . . people talk about Sony not giving a crap about their customers.  Look at Nintendo!...

I'm inclined to agree. 

I think gamers are giving Sony more crap because:

a) We are used to Nintendo being out of touch with the direction of gaming.
b) We're not used to Sony being so out of touch with their customers.

Nintendo's list of questionable design and marketing decisions is a mile long and goes back to the late 80's:  Nintendo's censorship policy, Nintendo's slow processor in the SNES, Nintendo sticking to cartridges, The GBA only has two face buttons, Friend Codes, etc. 

Sony, meanwhile, struck while the iron was hot, twice, and seemed unstoppable.  But they made that big misstep by overpricing their anticipated hardware and then saying, in not so many words, that everyone can just shut up and like it.   

The problem with Nintendo is that they only learn when they get bitten in their wallet's ass by their ways (Genesis version of MK outsold SNES, for example, which led to that relaxation in censorship).   But they might not learn much from this go-around since everyone's eating what they're serving. 

Also, and I'm guessing here, I would say more than half of the Wii owners (e.g. the extremely casual) don't even care about the hardware deficiencies we talk about.  If they don't, why should Nintendo, right?   

[SavannahLion]

God . . . people talk about Sony not giving a crap about their customers.  Look at Nintendo!...

I'm inclined to agree. 

I think gamers are giving Sony more crap because:

a) We are used to Nintendo being out of touch with the direction of gaming.
b) We're not used to Sony being so out of touch with their customers.

Nintendo's list of questionable design and marketing decisions is a mile long and goes back to the late 80's:  Nintendo's censorship policy, Nintendo's slow processor in the SNES, Nintendo sticking to cartridges, The GBA only has two face buttons, Friend Codes, etc. 

Ahh... But there's a difference between what Nintendo is doing/has done and what Sony is doing. In the past, Nintendo didn't have a tendency to offer a carrot, snatch the carrot away then say, "too bad, so sad." The examples you give are blunders from the get go that Nintendo either corrected (relaxation of censorship) or dealt with (every other example) until the next generation. From the top of my head, it's fairly rare for Nintendo to out and out remove features (not accessories) from any of their consoles.

Sony, on the other hand, flat out removes major features from their consoles. The loss of the HDD in the slim PS2 is one example. BCC in the PS3 is another.

Sony made fewer changes between the 15 or so revisions of the PS2 than they did in seven revisions of the PS3. Nintendo may be out of touch with their market, but Sony is so far out in left field they're during surveys with penguins.

[DaveMMR]

God . . . people talk about Sony not giving a crap about their customers.  Look at Nintendo!...

I'm inclined to agree. 

I think gamers are giving Sony more crap because:

a) We are used to Nintendo being out of touch with the direction of gaming.
b) We're not used to Sony being so out of touch with their customers.

Nintendo's list of questionable design and marketing decisions is a mile long and goes back to the late 80's:  Nintendo's censorship policy, Nintendo's slow processor in the SNES, Nintendo sticking to cartridges, The GBA only has two face buttons, Friend Codes, etc. 

Ahh... But there's a difference between what Nintendo is doing/has done and what Sony is doing. In the past, Nintendo didn't have a tendency to offer a carrot, snatch the carrot away then say, "too bad, so sad." The examples you give are blunders from the get go that Nintendo either corrected (relaxation of censorship) or dealt with (every other example) until the next generation. From the top of my head, it's fairly rare for Nintendo to out and out remove features (not accessories) from any of their consoles.

Sony, on the other hand, flat out removes major features from their consoles. The loss of the HDD in the slim PS2 is one example. BCC in the PS3 is another.

Sony made fewer changes between the 15 or so revisions of the PS2 than they did in seven revisions of the PS3. Nintendo may be out of touch with their market, but Sony is so far out in left field they're during surveys with penguins.

Sony was taking away features seldom used (much like Nintendo removed the headphone jack and required an adapter with the GBA SP).  They were probably thinking the same thing removing the BC (ahh, no one needs it), but now they're making their system a worse deal.

[shmokes]

Nintendo removed the broadband adapter port on the Gamecube, if I'm not mistaken.  That's not a huge deal since I think maybe only one game ever supported it.  But they also removed the ability to use component out (and hence 480p) which is pretty huge, IMO.  Most importantly, however, is Nintendo's indifference (disdain?) to its aging fanbase.  More gamers are adults than minors.  The fact that console after console, generation after generation, Nintendo refuses to take more than cursory steps to address this fact is far more egregious than pulling a feature from a console.  Or, maybe it's not.  I don't know.  I don't mean to get in a pissing match.  But this is the first time I have ever wished that I had another console instead of the Nintendo console.  I eventually supplemented my N64 with a PS One.  I eventually supplemented my Gamecube with an Xbox.  I have ALWAYS gone with Nintendo first.  For the first time I wish I hadn't. 

[SavannahLion]

Nintendo removed the broadband adapter port on the Gamecube, if I'm not mistaken.  That's not a huge deal since I think maybe only one game ever supported it.  But they also removed the ability to use component out (and hence 480p) which is pretty huge, IMO.  Most importantly, however, is Nintendo's indifference (disdain?) to its aging fanbase.

It's the Serial 2 port, not the Serial 1 port. Serial 1 is what is used for the network adapter. After searching for some time, the only major discussion (or confirmation or otherwise) I can find about its removal is on an old thread at afterdawn. As an aside, I recall a grand total of four games with network support. Kirby's Air Ride and Phantasy Star being at least two. Losing the S2 port was not a loss as I can't recall a single peripheral that ever used it.

Losing the DAV is a loss that pissed me off. At one point, Nintendo even offered to replace my old console with the, "improived," version during a phone call about it. However, I really have to admit that in the long run, this loss affected me in no great way. At the time, I did have intentions to purchasing an entertainment system that required the use of GCN's DAV. That was seven years ago and I still have the same ---smurfing--- TV I had back then.

[ChadTower]

At the time there weren't all that many TVs that supported 480p.  Looking back with today's eyes makes that a bigger deal than it was.  It wasn't even 480p yet - it was just "component out".  There was no outcry over it when it happened.

[shmokes]

It was 480p.  I played lots of games in 480p when it happened.  It never affected me personally since I already had a Gamecube since shortly after launch, but I'd have been pissed if I was buying a Gamecube after it happened -- not just for 480p but for the vastly superior color separation when using component vs. composite or S-video too.  And, seriously, I bet a lot more people use component connections than backward compatibility.  Most people stop playing their old system once a new system comes out.  Backward compatibility is nice to have on the few occasions that you might use it, but most people never or hardly ever use it.

Regardless, this is a giant digression.  I don't mean to say that removing the digital video out port is more or less bad than removing backward compatibility.  In the balance I'd probably lean toward the loss of backward compatibility being a bigger deal since it kills the ability to play certain games altogether while Nintendo's move just made it so games didn't look quite as nice.  I was just responding to the contention that Nintendo doesn't start out with certain features and then pull them away in future revisions. 

[ChadTower]

Losing backwards compatibility is a much bigger deal than component out.  Losing component out didn't change the functionality at all.  It just changed the display a little bit and even then for only a minority of users (not many component capable displays back then).

We have to separate features from functions in this discussion.  They aren't the same thing.

[shmokes]

Chad, who are you arguing with?  My last paragraph says that I think losing backward compatibility is a bigger deal than component out because one kills your ability to play games while the other just makes them not look as nice.  Isn't that EXACTLY what you mean by features vs. functions?  Are you seriously going to parse all my posts to make sure that in every instance I make the absolute best possible word choice?

Let me fix that last line for you:

"I was just responding to the contention that Nintendo doesn't start out with certain features carrots and then pull them away in future revisions."

The word used in the post I was replying to was neither features nor function.  It was carrot.  I'm pretty sure that "carrot" can cover both features and functions.

[ChadTower]

Chad, who are you arguing with?  My last paragraph says that I think losing backward compatibility is a bigger deal than component out because one kills your ability to play games while the other just makes them not look as nice.  Isn't that EXACTLY what you mean by features vs. functions?  Are you seriously going to parse all my posts to make sure that in every instance I make the absolute best possible word choice?

You don't have to consider every post as a countering viewpoint, you know.  Sometimes people agree on the internet.     Stop making arguments out of things that aren't.  Or at least take out the caffeine IV this morning.  That wasn't a response aimed at you in particular.  It was a general contribution to the discussion. 

[shmokes]

The features bit, and the timing of the post, made it look like it was aimed at me (in particular to my comment about pulling features).  And it's worth noting that we are simultaneously in a semantics argument in another thread in which my words are being parsed in exactly the manner that it seemed you were doing here.  Regardless, you can't exactly play the injured bird when someone assumes you are arguing with them.  You are ChadTower.  I think you know what that means.   

[Dartful Dodger]

I've mentioned this before, I haven't bought a console since PS1, and then I only bought it because a guy I knew who had a friend at Best Buy found it by the dumpster.

I bought the PS3 because of the threat that backward compatibility was going to be removed. I bought it and bought a handful of ps2 games.  I played those games a few times, but once I started buying a few PS3 games I stopped playing/buying PS2 games.

Compared to the PS3, PS2 games suck.  Having backward compatibility is useless and I felt the same way the current BC whiners are feeling.

The people complaining about Sony dropping BC, have no intention of buying a PS3.  If they are/were they won't until the price drops.  Removing BC will allow Sony to drop the price enough so they can afford it.

Unlike these complainers I'm using my dollars to tell Sony what to do.  If the other ps3 owners are not buying PS2 games, the choice for Sony is obvious.  Move forward and forget about the backward compatibility.

[RetroGreg]

I think it's a big deal Nintendo dropped the component out on the GameCube. Not to mention that I had to order my component cables THROUGH Nintendo to use that functionality to begin with.

As for the main topic, I would only want a PS3 with the backwards compatibility because all my other Sony hardware has been shoddy and I fully expect it all to break at some point. Backwards compatibility would protect my investment in my games.

[Dartful Dodger]

For the amount of time you're going to play those PS2 games you'd be better off trading them in for credit towards Guitar Hero World Tour.

If you really are still playing those games even after you've bought a few PS3 games and your PS2 dies on you, a new PS2 is pretty cheap.

The more people that buy a PS3 without backward compatibility, the more the demand for new PS3 games will be.

[Ginsu Victim]

Compared to the PS3, PS2 games suck.

You're gonna have to elaborate, because there are FAR more games I'd rather play on PS2 than the PS3.