Evilhead

Well the issue is moot because most of the time you are going to be loading that game onto your HD for fast loading times. And if you are the type who buys a ton of games, you probably have enough cash to buy a 120 gig HD for your PS3 for a $100 or so.

Once again, taking what I said WAY out of context and missing the point by a longshot. Usually you do crap like this just to make people mad, then after they respond you do your little "LOLZ i got a reaction," but for some reason you're still pressing it. So once again: IF you want to buy a PS3, you will also have to buy a BluRay, as it is part of the PS3. You buy a PS3, and money was spent on BluRay. Nobody is forcing you buy the PS3 in the first place, but I did NOT say that. Stop trying to make me look like an idiot. And yeah, it's always better to have more space. The question is how much that space is worth. After reading the responses to my last post, I'll agree that it was too early for me to assume that, because so far we have only seen launch PS3 games, as someone said. But you can't deny that someone without an HDTV who buys a PS3 is missing out on a huge advantage that people who have HDTVs would have. I know that from my perspective, I'm thinking I might buy either a PS3 or 360 sometime and I don't have an HDTV, so right now the 360 seems to be a much better deal, because until PS3 games prove that they can actually become unique using that much space, it's a waste of $200. And even if the games do, then you still have to decide if bigger games are worth paying $200 extra. If they PS3 only used the blu-ray player for watching movies, you'd have a point. But since it is integeral in playing games, you have NONE. It's like complaining that the PS1 had a CD drive. "Who needs 700 megs of space for a game? Any game I'd want to play could easily fit on this 32 meg cart. Those people without a fancy Hi-Fi Stereo Systems with $500 speakers are getting ripped off. My TV just has a crappy speaker, who needs CD sound?" Now it IS a little difference since blu-ray is not an established format yet, but no one is forcing you to buy the system. And just because you think games won't need more than 9 gigs of space (which is a joke because some games are already pushing the limits of DVDs), doesn't mean you know crap about making games. Are you a game developer? Programmer? Do you have any ideas for utilizing the blu-ray drives for games? No? Shut up? When we got a 20 meg hard drive for our Mac Plus for $1,000, we never thought we could fill it up. Next, it was 120 megs. OMG, HUGE! Face it, technology is evolving. Just because you don't happen to own the next generation of display technology doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to wait for your ass. Sure, Sony could have cranked out a cheap non-HD, non-blu-ray PS3, but how would that fare in 4 or 5 years? When HD is standard? $600 is a pretty big chunk of money now, but I'd say it's a decent investment. The 360 sounds like it would be more suited for you at the moment though, so why not buy that instead of making the same point that has already been brought up 25 times in this thread alone?

The point I was making was that new TVs that don't have HD are still very common, which is true. Correct, nobody is forcing anyone to buy a PS3. But did I say that? No. You're taking this way out of context, completely missing the point and you know it. If you want to buy a PS3, you are also going to have to pay for the BlueRay whether you want it or not. Yeah, they provide a lot of space for that useful padding. Games don't need that much space; see the Xbox 360. If Xbox 360 and PS3 games are practically the same in graphics/size, then to someone who doesn't have an HDTV, buying a PS3 compared to a 360 would seem like spending $200 on nothing. Maybe in the future games will be made for the PS3 that actually use up enough space to make use of the BlueRay by adding craploads of music or something. Or who knows, maybe PS3 games will start to become completely unique from Xbox 360 games in size, actually requiring all that extra space for necessary things in the games, not just space to throw a bunch of extras. If that happens, then I'll admit I'm wrong. But as of now Xbox 360 and PS3 games are similar and roughly the same size.And still, one of the main reasons people can justify spending $600 on the PS3 is because it has the BlueRay, but the main advantage they see is that it allows them to watch HD movies. It costs a lot more to buy just a regular BlueRay player to watch HD movies on. Now, of course it's better to have a console that uses discs with more disc space than less, but having seen that the games so far don't even need that space, and that some games even fake it by using padding just to push the actual used data to the outer parts of the disc, I'm not sure it would seem so beneficial for someone without an HDTV to spend $200 more than they would need to buy an otherwise similar system, the Xbox 360. Of course there are other factors that decide which they will choose, mainly what games are for each system, but looking at just the systems, the Xbox 360 seems to be a much better deal than the PS3 for someone without HD, because it is basically the same thing (to them, of course). At least it's not enough different to make the PS3 worth $200 more. Again, to avoid confusion, I'm talking about people WITHOUT HDTV. If you do have an HDTV, it's a different story. Remember when 32k of RAM was more than enough for anybody? Probably not, but being shortsighted is a big blunder. Look at the N64. Sticking with the old media lost them a lot of their treasured third parties like Square. Games are getting more and more expansive, so extra space is a good thing. And no, no one is forcing you to buy a blu-ray player. If you don't need one, get an Xbox 360 instead. I'm sure there will be plenty of good games for it.

Of course, it's definetely good for people who have HD, especially those who want to watch HD moves; You get a BlueRay player for really cheap. I'm just saying that at the same time it's actually bad for people who don't have HDTVs, because you're obligated to pay for something you essentially aren't going to use. Also I really disagree that it's near impossible to buy a new quality TV that isn't HD. My parents bought a brand new LCD TV less than 2 months ago that isn't HD, and they don't even know what HD is; they just went and picked up a nice-looking new TV at RadioShack. Same thing with my friend a little while before. Look around; there are plenty of new TVs that don't have HD. Who the hell buys TVs at Radio Shack? Yes, old clueless people. Anyway, this argument has been made a thousand times, really. Yes, you are being forced to buy something. Wait, except you're not being forced to buy anything! Oh, and those shiny new PS3 games happen to use that Blu-Ray drive too. Looks like it's useful after all!

Yes, no one can tell how it will turn out. Which is why it's kind of silly to say stuff like

Exactly. Especially since it's basically impossible to get your hands on a PS3 for retail price, who cares about the launch titles? By the time I get one there will be plenty of titles to choose from.

Nice great game library when 3rd parties can't even make games yet. Yes, there will be no 3rd party games for the PS3. You heard it here first, folks! Can you read? I said "yet". And if I'm not mistaken, that article says 1 year. Where does it say that? I read the article like three times and didn't notice anything about a year. The guy is basically just whining "OMG THE PS3 IS HARD TO DEVELOP FOR!" Exactly the same as the PS2 launch. He even mentions the PS2 launch.

Nice great game library when 3rd parties can't even make games yet. Yes, there will be no 3rd party games for the PS3. You heard it here first, folks!

So it's going to be a solid peice of hardware with many capabilities and a great game library? Sounds awful! Anyway, it's too early to call anything of the sort really.

You seem to be missing the point. Never I have I once said ports are bad. I've bought several versions of many games myself, despite owning the originals. This is more or less an admittedly dumb argument about pricing that arashi seems to love drawing out.

You can play NES games well enough on a GBA, so if you bought a PSP to play NES games you are just dumb. Now if you bought a PSP to play Genesis, SNES, NeoGeo, MAME, PS1, and N64 games then it would be worth it for a lot of emulation freaks. I know N64 emulation is more difficult for amateur programmers but Nintendo has access to all these extra aspects. Making a N64 emu is not going to be that hard for them. Whatever people want to spend their money on is fine. It doesn't bother me at all. ALL I AM SAYING, for the 50th time, is that $5-$10 for a PSP port of a PS1 game is a pretty good deal. If you think those extra characters or levels are worth $35 to you, then fine, enjoy it. But I don't see how you can shell out $40 for a port with a few extras and say $5-$10 for a port from the same era is not a good deal. If they were selling an exact port of Super Mario 64 for the DS with no extras for $7.99 would you be complaining about it's high price? I highly doubt it. This is the oldest, stupidest, most worn out argument in the history of gaming arguments. What's the difference between FF1 and FFXII. You just fight enemies and level up. What's the difference between Mario 1 and Mario Sunshine. You just hop around on platforms and crush enemies. What's the difference between Wolfenstein 3D and Halo 3? You just run around shooting bad guys. What's the difference between Kung Fu and Tekken 5. You just kick and punch other players. If you argument held any water gaming would have died with the Atari. Explaining the differences between the Gran Turismo games is a waste of time, as is talking with you in general.

If you are buying a PS3 in order to play PS1 games you are an idiot. This is a moot point. Which is why there are dozens of freeware N64 emulators written completely by amateurs. Come on, Nintendo has all the programming and design specs on record and have programmers that know the system inside and out. Whipping up an emu is nothing for them. The same for Sony making a PS1 emu run on the PSP. Pretty much every port ever made has some kind of extras included. Yes, it might have a few extra levels or more characters, but it's the same damn game. They even called it Super Mario Bros 64. Wouldn't they have renamed it if it was a new game? It's a port. What would you call it? No one is saying ports are bad. I'm just saying that compared to a port that cost $40, $5-$10 for a port of a game from the same generation is hardly a bad deal. Stop getting your panties in a knot about what you are assuming is an attack on your beloved company. All I was saying is that the prices are very reasonable. I didn't even bring up the fact that they resold NES games for $20 a pop for the GBA when you can easily emulate them on the system yourself. Honestly I don't know. I haven't played either version. So you're saying that there's the same difference between GT1 and GT4 as there is between Super Mario 64 on the N64 and Super Mario 64 on the DS? Wow man, whatever you've been smoking please pass that shit.

Apparently Sony is working on a way to let you get ps1 games to psp without a PS3. I'm up for that...because I won't be getting a ps3 for a long while. Looking forward to it. Yeah, I'm guessing that it would be best with the PS3 because you could download several PS1 games on to your PS3 HD, play them there, and when you want to, upload them to your memory stick and play them on your PSP. Sony is probably assuming not everyone has a 4 gig memory stick, and being able to download the games to your PC would be just too easy for software pirates (although I don't see the PS3 to PSP method being very secure either). Still, it would be nice to make it possible for people without PS3s to download the games directly to their PSPs. 3 Steps of Evilhead: 1: "Sony charges less for its downloadable content to the PS3." 2: "Sony only charges more for games that are downloadable to the PSP through the PS3" 3: "Sony should make these same games playable on both the PSP and PS3." So which is it Evilhead? Cheaper limited content or expensive content available in many pawn shops? 1. Even with the higher prices the games are still cheaper than N64 ROMs. 2. The added feature of being able to play the games on the PSP adds incentive to buy the games, hence making them more valuable to me. I already have most of the PS1 games I want, so I probably wouldn't buy many new ones just to play on my PS3. BUT I WOULD pay a few bucks to be able to play these on my PSP without having to mess with glitchy homebrew software. 3. I was just speculating. But my guess is that if you are downloading them to your PS3 to upload to your PSP, you will be able to play them on your PS3 AND your PSP. It just makes sense. Why would they lock you out of playing the game you payed for if you already have it on your harddrive? Try harder.

Apparently Sony is working on a way to let you get ps1 games to psp without a PS3. I'm up for that...because I won't be getting a ps3 for a long while. Looking forward to it. Yeah, I'm guessing that it would be best with the PS3 because you could download several PS1 games on to your PS3 HD, play them there, and when you want to, upload them to your memory stick and play them on your PSP. Sony is probably assuming not everyone has a 4 gig memory stick, and being able to download the games to your PC would be just too easy for software pirates (although I don't see the PS3 to PSP method being very secure either). Still, it would be nice to make it possible for people without PS3s to download the games directly to their PSPs.

Read the post above yours! Like the Wii problems, most if not all the issues are software based. And really, there weren't really that many problems with the PSP. I have a PSP with a squishy square button and it's a complete non-issue. People are just looking for things to hate on Sony. When you have some facts (i.e., actual links, reports, etc), please contribute them to the thread!

Yeah, I was corrected and changed my stance. This is what reasonable people do. Honestly I hadn't heard of the video issues until now so it was news to me. Please stop trying so hard Koelsch. I'm not really that attached to the PS3. I want one, but I'll have a Xbox 360 much sooner as to me it's the most appealing system right now. Edit: And as Injin said, most of the 'rough launch' was with the lack of units for sale, not the units themselves.

Good thing that by the time I actually can find a system for sale at retail price these issues should be worked out.

Post some relevant links? Anyway, basically all three consoles had rough launches. The Wii seems to be doing well enough but it does have issues. Now please go back to your dank caves people.

This was pretty big news so I thought you guys had already heard about it. http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/20/wii-being-hit-by-fatal-error-110213-could-be-funky-firmware/ Apparently quite a few people are having this problem and Nintendo is sending out a lot of replacement Wii's. If you want to maintain your save data you have to send it in for repairs which will take a few weeks. This should be in the Wii thread but I wouldn't dare... Well, maybe if you used the correct term. That isn't fried. Fried things don't turn on anymore. Yeah, well, then the Wii is suffering from an unfixable firmware issue. http://wheelsee.net/blog1/2006/11/20/my-wii-is-done/ Not the end of the world, but the PS3 is fairing a lot better so far, aside from backwards compatibility issues.

This was pretty big news so I thought you guys had already heard about it. http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/20/wii-being-hit-by-fatal-error-110213-could-be-funky-firmware/ http://wheelsee.net/blog1/2006/11/20/my-wii-is-done/ Apparently quite a few people are having this problem (read the comments) and Nintendo is sending out a lot of replacement Wii's. If you want to maintain your save data you have to send it in for repairs which will take a few weeks. This should be in the Wii thread but I wouldn't dare...

Wait, have there been any major hardware problems yet? Compared with the broken Xbox 360's and all the fried Wii's the PS3 is actually a much more solid machine this time around. The only thing that is a clusterfuck is supply and demand aspect of the launch.

Yeah, Super Mario 64 is still about $40 here. And yes, it is a port. They might have added a few things but it's just a port. I'm not saying OMG DON'T BUY it but saying that charging $5-$10 for perfect PS1 ports on the PSP isn't exactly expensive. And yes, you do need a fat memory stick, but 1 or 2 gig memory sticks aren't that expensive and a lot of PSP owners already have them. No need for a 4 gig card if you just want to throw a PS1 game on there with some other junk. If you happen to have a PS3 and a card it's a nice feature.

Yes it is a great deal. And you seem to be confused. The $5 downloads that were annouced before were for play on the PS3, correct? These are for the PSP. Totally different story. Homebrew PS1 emulation on the PSP is just creeping along at this point, so I'd gladly pay $5-$10 to play perfect ports of PS1 games like Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy Tactics, Crash Bandicoot 2, Bushido Blade, etc, to play on my PSP on the go. Considering Nintendo is charging $39.99 for their N64 to DS ports I'd say Sony is definitely the winner here. I'm sure if they released a bunch of ports of PS1 games on UMD they could easily milk the fans a la Nintendo and charge $40 a pop, but they aren't. Good move on their part, especially with the rise of emulation.

Sucks you couldn't get one Atomicfog... It's bullshit you got bumped back because of someone who wasn't even there. I say if you leave the line, you are out. You should have bitched some more.

What a douchebag. Seriously. What bullshit. I wish more stores would just raffle the damn things off. That way they at least have the CHANCE of getting into some gamers hands at retail price. Plus it would eliminate the need to camp out for days. Just show up for the raffle and see if you get one.