I'll kick you right in the Pii (the PS3 haters thread).

[Master of Ossus]

It makes plenty of sense. Econ 101. The higher the price is, the less of them will be demanded. It is most optimal to find an equilibrium point where price equals demand.

On this graph, it shows the 300 dollar XBox as cheap, and demand above it. The 400 dollar one matches nearly the demand, which results in maximum revenue.

The PS3 meanwhile, is expensive and there's less demand. It gets less revenue.

No, it doesn't make any sense.

You cannot construct a single supply or demand curve for different products unless both producers and consumers view them as perfect substitutes. Neither is true, in this case. Furthermore, if you price too low then you get a shortage, but people who were willing to pay more will still be bidding for the products that are released (and, similarly, with a surplus producers will still be trying to sell their inventory). Sony and Microsoft's pricing strategies are both based around a primitive form of price discrimination that is ludicrously inefficient, but Sony's is dramatically worse because their base system appears to have no upgradability.

[Beowulf]

That graph doesn't even make sense...

It makes plenty of sense. Econ 101. The higher the price is, the less of them will be demanded. It is most optimal to find an equilibrium point where price equals demand.

On this graph, it shows the 300 dollar XBox as cheap, and demand above it. The 400 dollar one matches nearly the demand, which results in maximum revenue.

The PS3 meanwhile, is expensive and there's less demand. It gets less revenue.

In makes plenty of sense in Bizarro world, maybe. Take a closer look at the graph to see people demanding more PS3's at higher prices. By that graph, the price should be a million dollars each. Then everyone would buy one!

You're reading the graph wrong. The demand curve is blue.

[Lost Soal]

Two opinions:

One, the base system is a load of shit. Lack of HDMI means no 1080P, a key selling point. Lack of memory readers means no backwards compatability, even worse. There's zero reason to get a base PS3.

Two, that stock drive..is..WOW. NASTY.

Where are you getting no backwards compatability(BC) from?

When talking about BC no-one in Sony has even hinted at the possibility that the base unit won't be BC. Katarugi states that the PS3 is fully BC, in the inteview with Kaz after the announcement, he even bring up the fact it's BC in order to justify the price.

So please, where do you get this from? Is it because thats just how you think its going to achieve BC, and again, based on what?

[Vendetta]

It depends how it handles storage for backwards compatibility.

If it has virtual memory cards on the hard drive (as I suspect it will, as the unit seems to have no external memory card slots), it will work OK. If it expects a memory stick, it won't.

Like the 360, expect to have to start all your savegames again.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

In makes plenty of sense in Bizarro world, maybe. Take a closer look at the graph to see people demanding more PS3's at higher prices. By that graph, the price should be a million dollars each. Then everyone would buy one!

You're reading the graph wrong. The demand curve is blue.

Oh, I see. I saw the arrows and got the wrong idea.

[GuppyShark]

THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS THE RED CURVE SUPPOSED TO BE?!?!?!

[Ace Pace]

Where are you getting no backwards compatability(BC) from?

When talking about BC no-one in Sony has even hinted at the possibility that the base unit won't be BC. Katarugi states that the PS3 is fully BC, in the inteview with Kaz after the announcement, he even bring up the fact it's BC in order to justify the price.

So please, where do you get this from? Is it because thats just how you think its going to achieve BC, and again, based on what?

My understanding is that PS1 and PS2 games require memory sticks to save information, and since the cheap PS3 has no slots for these sticks, I don't see how it would be able to save games.

[Arrow]

My understanding is that PS1 and PS2 games require memory sticks to save information, and since the cheap PS3 has no slots for these sticks, I don't see how it would be able to save games.

You'd basically write a virtual drive for them that makes the HD (or, more specifically, a file on the HD) look like a memory stick. Now, how do you get your old saves on to the PS3 is the question - and right now it looks like you can't.

[Ace Pace]

My understanding is that PS1 and PS2 games require memory sticks to save information, and since the cheap PS3 has no slots for these sticks, I don't see how it would be able to save games.

You'd basically write a virtual drive for them that makes the HD (or, more specifically, a file on the HD) look like a memory stick. Now, how do you get your old saves on to the PS3 is the question - and right now it looks like you can't.

So basicly Sony has to write some emulator for PS1 and PS2 that makes them aim all memory saves to the hard disk, easy? I'm wondering if Sony will have any more luck then Microsoft in doing emulation.

[Arrow]

So basicly Sony has to write some emulator for PS1 and PS2 that makes them aim all memory saves to the hard disk, easy? I'm wondering if Sony will have any more luck then Microsoft in doing emulation.

That's just for the memory card emulation, and that should be relatively easy. Now, emulating the rest of the PS2 hardware will be much more involved, especially given the architectural differences between the two systems.

[Ace Pace]

That's just for the memory card emulation, and that should be relatively easy. Now, emulating the rest of the PS2 hardware will be much more involved, especially given the architectural differences between the two systems.

*pities sony*

So not only do they have to get a working and very good compiler for CELL, but they have to write emulation for the PS2 and PS1 games on it as well?

I'm not sure wether to laugh or to cry.

[UCBooties]

I understand that with each passing generation the systems involved get exponentially more complex, but what the fuck is going on with backwards combpatability? Before systems just had it. Now suddenly it's this huge problem and companies can't deliver on what they promised. The main reason I haven't dropped for a 360 yet is because there are still more original xbox games I want to play than there are 360 games, and most of those original games aren't on the compatability list.

[Arrow]

*pities sony*

So not only do they have to get a working and very good compiler for CELL, but they have to write emulation for the PS2 and PS1 games on it as well?

I'm not sure wether to laugh or to cry.

Remember, PS3 also has the RSX, so they have map PS1/2 calls into both CELL and RSX. I would expect that the RSX is the easier chip to handle (after all, it is basically just a 7800/7900). But mapping the specialized instructions for the PS2 into the specialized instructions for the CELL will probably be a difficult task. Hopefully the shear speed different between the two chips will help Sony, but I don't envy the programmers working on it (especially since they're promising BC for all games - you know at least a few titles in that massive library are going to make calls in such a way that break the emulator).

[Arrow]

I understand that with each passing generation the systems involved get exponentially more complex, but what the fuck is going on with backwards combpatability? Before systems just had it. Now suddenly it's this huge problem and companies can't deliver on what they promised. The main reason I haven't dropped for a 360 yet is because there are still more original xbox games I want to play than there are 360 games, and most of those original games aren't on the compatability list.

This is what happens when you change architectures. An x86 program written 10 years ago will still run on the latest x86 chips on the market (assuming any dynamically linked libraries it calls also still exist). MS is shifting from P3 to PPC, and Sony from PS2 (what's it called, Emotion Engine?) to CELL, which are major architecture changes and require emulation. Nintendo, mean while, is staying with the PPC, so as long as instructions weren't stripped out of their new PPC chips, and underlying support software present on the GameCube wasn't removed on the Wii, they'll have instant BC with very little or no effort.

[Ace Pace]

Remember, PS3 also has the RSX, so they have map PS1/2 calls into both CELL and RSX. I would expect that the RSX is the easier chip to handle (after all, it is basically just a 7800/7900). But mapping the specialized instructions for the PS2 into the specialized instructions for the CELL will probably be a difficult task. Hopefully the shear speed different between the two chips will help Sony, but I don't envy the programmers working on it (especially since they're promising BC for all games - you know at least a few titles in that massive library are going to make calls in such a way that break the emulator).

The RSX apprently is a G71 varient(7900), probably based on the G71M(mobile) since it cuts somewhere between 25W to 50W off the consumption(IIRC).

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS THE RED CURVE SUPPOSED TO BE?!?!?!

Supply. It's a basic perfect competition supply and demand chart. The cheaper the product is, the more people will be willing and able to buy it at that price, but the fewer manufacturers will be willing to sell it at that price. The point at which the two lines meet is your equilibrium point, where you will sell through every unit without any left over and without anyone who was willing and able to pay left without one. The graph shows that the X360's price was too low, meaning that they could have sold just as many of them at a higher price, and that's why there was a shortage, while the PS3's price is too high, which will lead to a surplus of unsold PS3's.

Of course, the reason there was a 360 shortage is because of disruptions in manufacturing and not reduced willingness to supply, and pricing a console in such a way that people feel they are being gouged can lead to consumer badwill (like we are seeing against Sony) that can make it a bad decision even if it makes sense according to the perfection competition model. But it still gets the point across.

[Sharp-kun]

I understand that with each passing generation the systems involved get exponentially more complex, but what the fuck is going on with backwards combpatability? Before systems just had it. Now suddenly it's this huge problem and companies can't deliver on what they promised.

What consoles had it? Other than PS1 > PS2, Cube > Wii and the GB series I can't think of any that managed it without special hardware (Master System to Genesis)

[UCBooties]

To clarify, I was thinking of the Gameboy line and Playstation examples. My point was that when backwards compatability was introduced it became pretty much assumed for a while that if you were creating a system that was direct sucessor to a previous consolde it would be able to play that console's games. I did not understand why that stopped being the case for this generation and the fundamental hardware shift has since been explained to me. I apologize for the generalization.

[Bounty]

To clarify, I was thinking of the Gameboy line and Playstation examples. My point was that when backwards compatability was introduced it became pretty much assumed for a while that if you were creating a system that was direct sucessor to a previous consolde it would be able to play that console's games.

BC only worked in the GBA because they soldered in an otherwise useless vintage Z80 to run the older carts. The GBA hardware itself wasn't backwards compatible, it has a completely different CPU.

[Sharp-kun]

In the case of the PS2 it used a PS1 cpu as the IOP chip, so for PS1 games the IOP just switched roles.

[UCBooties]

Thanks for the clarification

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

To clarify, I was thinking of the Gameboy line and Playstation examples. My point was that when backwards compatability was introduced it became pretty much assumed for a while that if you were creating a system that was direct sucessor to a previous consolde it would be able to play that console's games. I did not understand why that stopped being the case for this generation and the fundamental hardware shift has since been explained to me. I apologize for the generalization.

That's still a very recent thing, though, limited mostly to the last generation of consoles, and really only to the PS2 and Gameboy. The Gamecube wasn't BC with the N64, which wasn't BC with the SNES, which wasn't BC with the NES. The Dreamcast wasn't BC with the Saturn, which wasn't BC with the Genesis, which wasn't BC with the Master System. You get the point.

[ArmorPierce]

According to the arrows, blue isn't supply, it's x-box, which wouldn't make sense.

[Instant Sunrise]

According to the arrows, blue isn't supply, it's x-box, which wouldn't make sense.

What the shit?

The black horizontal lines are the price points at launch for the different systems.

The bottom two are for the Xbox 360. The top two are for the PS3.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

According to the arrows, blue isn't supply, it's x-box, which wouldn't make sense.

That's what I thought at first, which is why I made the earlier "Bizarro world" comment, but if you look closely you'll see that those aren't labels for the axes.