StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This is everywhere you care to look, so I'm not bothering with a link. Oh ok:-

Link

"It has the same features and functionality [as the old PS3], but now it is 32% smaller, 36% lighter and consumes 34% less power," he said.

I'm almost jealous. I don't give a shit about the size or weight, but I do like 34% less power consumption - except that it doesn't have a rear power switch, just the standby button!

But then, isn't the slim PS2 a lot less reliable than the original model? Wonder if it's the same with the original PS3 and this new Jenny Craig version ...

I have heard that as standard it has a 120GB HD.

BUT it's less shiny.

Y'know, I think I prefer the old shiny monolith, even if it is hueg (larger footprint than the original Xbox if it's horizontal).

This can only improve to odds of me buying a PS3 If I ever have money.

Ford Prefect wrote:I have heard that as standard it has a 120GB HD.

BUT it's less shiny.

For what it's worth there have been smatterings of rumors of a 250gb model.

General Zod wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:I have heard that as standard it has a 120GB HD.

BUT it's less shiny.

For what it's worth there have been smatterings of rumors of a 250gb model.

By the great Cthulhu why? They are already paying MORE than a 500 gig model would cost them for the 120 GB HD's, why the heck would the spend still more for a new custom 250 gb model? Seriously at this point it's very cheap to make 160 gig & 500 gig platters. There is tons of excess manufacturing capacity in those areas for the 320 gig in notebooks and 500 gig and 1 Terabyte in HD's. They have to keep the lines open for the 120 gig's as it is because HD capacity has so out-stripped everything else as has flash capacity. Why if they made the consoles today the Wii would likely have a few gigs of flash memory and the PS3 would likely have a terabyte drive. Because the extra space not only does not cost that much more, in some cases due to volume, it's CHEAPER than the old 120 gig area.

Mr Bean wrote: By the great Cthulhu why? They are already paying MORE than a 500 gig model would cost them for the 120 GB HD's, why the heck would the spend still more for a new custom 250 gb model? Seriously at this point it's very cheap to make 160 gig & 500 gig platters. There is tons of excess manufacturing capacity in those areas for the 320 gig in notebooks and 500 gig and 1 Terabyte in HD's. They have to keep the lines open for the 120 gig's as it is because HD capacity has so out-stripped everything else as has flash capacity. Why if they made the consoles today the Wii would likely have a few gigs of flash memory and the PS3 would likely have a terabyte drive. Because the extra space not only does not cost that much more, in some cases due to volume, it's CHEAPER than the old 120 gig area.

Because Sony has all the marketing sense of a retarded gerbil? Seriously though, I haven't the foggiest. I just know that there's been talk of a 250gb model floated based on patents being sniffed out.

I wonder how the whole Backwards Compatibility issue has worked out since back then.

Ah well, I guess it's good to buy one now.

Now if only I had some money...

SAMAS wrote:I wonder how the whole Backwards Compatibility issue has worked out since back then.

PS1 games are good to go, still no BC on PS2 titles because Sony are cunts.

General Zod wrote:

SAMAS wrote:I wonder how the whole Backwards Compatibility issue has worked out since back then.

PS1 games are good to go, still no BC on PS2 titles because Sony are cunts.

SCEA's reasoning is here, which is just a new way of saying "it's too much of an expensive hassle for us to care".

I'm pretty neutral on the redesign but the price drop definitely makes it more inviting, as a Blu-ray player first and console second.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote: SCEA's reasoning is here, which is just a new way of saying "it's too much of an expensive hassle for us to care".

Hence "Sony are cunts".

Honestly though I doubt it could be that much of a hassle. They should still have the code for the PS2 emulation from the 60gb PS3, I can't imagine including it in a firmware update would be especially difficult.

Hopefully this will lead to more 360 price cuts too. The Elite hasn't been dollar-comparable for a while. A 60gb pro is only slightly more expensive than a Wii, lol.

General Zod wrote:Hence "Sony are cunts".

Honestly though I doubt it could be that much of a hassle. They should still have the code for the PS2 emulation from the 60gb PS3, I can't imagine including it in a firmware update would be especially difficult.

My understanding was that the 60GB PS3 did PS2 through dedicated hardware.

Stark wrote:Hopefully this will lead to more 360 price cuts too. The Elite hasn't been dollar-comparable for a while. A 60gb pro is only slightly more expensive than a Wii, lol.

I sold a 300 dollar pro the other day; though admittedly it was some sort of whacky markdown (there were two arcades for 88 cents cheaper).

Jason L. Miles wrote:

General Zod wrote:Hence "Sony are cunts".

Honestly though I doubt it could be that much of a hassle. They should still have the code for the PS2 emulation from the 60gb PS3, I can't imagine including it in a firmware update would be especially difficult.

My understanding was that the 60GB PS3 did PS2 through dedicated hardware.

It did. It had a PS2 in. The EU/AU version had the PS2 graphics chip in, and did the CPU via emulation, which is why it's backwards compatibility wasn't 100%.

Of course, all Sony's excuses that the PS3 is strong enough to stand alone look a little wobbly when you consider that PS2 sales are still destroying it in most markets.

Vendetta wrote:Of course, all Sony's excuses that the PS3 is strong enough to stand alone look a little wobbly when you consider that PS2 sales are still destroying it in most markets.

The version I've heard and mentioned at the store where I work for why we don't have backward compatible PS3s... people would buy $400 (before the BC cut-off) backwards-compatible PS3s to buy $20 PS2 games. Yes, there's tons of garbage for the PS2 -- the used sub-$10 bin tends to overflow for a reason -- but it's had far longer for that to happen, and it's not like the PS3 is immune to shitty or similarly "obvious cash grab" games. Could be that my taste in titles is "too" specific to represent your "average" customer, but the excuse seems less like not wanting to have to spend extra on hardware (i.e. PS2 components) and more like trying to 'help' out publishers of subpar PS3 games by limiting the options.

General Zod wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote: SCEA's reasoning is here, which is just a new way of saying "it's too much of an expensive hassle for us to care".

Hence "Sony are cunts".

Honestly though I doubt it could be that much of a hassle. They should still have the code for the PS2 emulation from the 60gb PS3, I can't imagine including it in a firmware update would be especially difficult.

The 40GB PS3 is backwards compatible because it has a PS2 physically built inside. The same hardware more or less.
The 60GB PS3 is only somewhat backwards compatible. The architecture for the PS2 is a completely awkward mess that has always been difficult to emulate. Only some games worked on it, so I figured that's why Sony decided to scrap it and say it wasn't worth their money to pursue.

Nephtys wrote:The 40GB PS3 is backwards compatible because it has a PS2 physically built inside. The same hardware more or less.
The 60GB PS3 is only somewhat backwards compatible. The architecture for the PS2 is a completely awkward mess that has always been difficult to emulate. Only some games worked on it, so I figured that's why Sony decided to scrap it and say it wasn't worth their money to pursue.

Are you sure about this? Because the I have the 1st Gen 60GB, and I've always been told that that was the one with the full hardware.

Also, I've been able to play some of the games that are supposed to be issues.

Vympel wrote: But then, isn't the slim PS2 a lot less reliable than the original model? Wonder if it's the same with the original PS3 and this new Jenny Craig version ...

I don't think there are any widespread reliability issues with the PS2 Slim, at least I've never read such a thing.

The initial PS2s on the other hand had major disc drive problems as I'm sure everyone who had a first gen PS2 knows.

Mr Bean wrote: By the great Cthulhu why? They are already paying MORE than a 500 gig model would cost them for the 120 GB HD's, why the heck would the spend still more for a new custom 250 gb model? Seriously at this point it's very cheap to make 160 gig & 500 gig platters. There is tons of excess manufacturing capacity in those areas for the 320 gig in notebooks and 500 gig and 1 Terabyte in HD's. They have to keep the lines open for the 120 gig's as it is because HD capacity has so out-stripped everything else as has flash capacity. Why if they made the consoles today the Wii would likely have a few gigs of flash memory and the PS3 would likely have a terabyte drive. Because the extra space not only does not cost that much more, in some cases due to volume, it's CHEAPER than the old 120 gig area.

Is this true for 2.5" inch laptop hard drives as well? Because that's what the PS3 uses.

Vendetta wrote: Of course, all Sony's excuses that the PS3 is strong enough to stand alone look a little wobbly when you consider that PS2 sales are still destroying it in most markets.

Third world country markets?

Jason L. Miles wrote: Are you sure about this? Because the I have the 1st Gen 60GB, and I've always been told that that was the one with the full hardware.

Also, I've been able to play some of the games that are supposed to be issues.

The 40gb doesn't have any PS2 BC.

The Japanese/North American 60/20gb PS3s are the only ones with full compatibility.

The European 60gb and European/American 80gb are partially compatible.

Stargate Nerd wrote:
Is this true for 2.5" inch laptop hard drives as well? Because that's what the PS3 uses.

160 gig 2.5 platters and 500 gig 3.5 platters are the current sweet spot for mass production purposes. It's why most cheap note-book hard drives are 320 gigs as it's easy to slap two 160 platters together to make a 320. However I've heard second hand that full up 320 gig platters are going to be the standard by the end of the year meaning next back to school season the cheap-o hard drives will all be 640's.

Newegg prices suggest that 500GB (which, based on two platters, suggests 250GB platters) is currently the most bang for buck for notebook drives.

Uraniun235 wrote:Newegg prices suggest that 500GB (which, based on two platters, suggests 250GB platters) is currently the most bang for buck for notebook drives.

That's consumer prices not OEM by the 1000 prices