Sony PS3

[Evilhead]

What N64 port to the DS is $39.99?

"they'll weigh in at anything between 140MB and 550MB"- Ouch, better go buy that 4GB-8GB mem stick for a couple hundred.

And in order to get these PS1 games to your PSP, you need a PS3? Sounds fair enough.

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.

[The Author]

What N64 port to the DS is $39.99?

"they'll weigh in at anything between 140MB and 550MB"- Ouch, better go buy that 4GB-8GB mem stick for a couple hundred.

And in order to get these PS1 games to your PSP, you need a PS3? Sounds fair enough.

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?

[Evilhead]

What N64 port to the DS is $39.99?

"they'll weigh in at anything between 140MB and 550MB"- Ouch, better go buy that 4GB-8GB mem stick for a couple hundred.

And in order to get these PS1 games to your PSP, you need a PS3? Sounds fair enough.

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.

[The Author]

And how is it cheaper if you have to buy a 600$ piece of hardware?

As for the N64 roms, well, I'll just put a N64 cardridge in my Wii seeing as it's the same medium.

The PS3 is supposedly 100% backwards compatible. Therefore, any game available from previous consoles can be played on it without needing any form of adaptation. It's a basic download an image and use it to emulate a CD player. It does not need any additional programing and is an extremely simple process. It cannot afford to be more expansive than pawn shop games simply because Sony does not make money from these.

The 8-bit and 16-bit hardwares are rather easy to emulate, but they will need a decent amount of work.

The N64, with its games that used on-board processing and some pretty unique and amazing little technological feats will recquire that much more work.

The price of a product also includes the work needed to do it. Cutting and pasting an image and emulating a CD is a simple job. Writing an emulator for hardware as complex as the N64 is not.

And finally, to come back on that Super Mario 64 "port," seeing as you dismissed the subject like you often do when you may be wrong. I just want to ask again, how is it a port if it includes 3 additional characters, modified levels, added bonus levels, and over 20 minigames?

You do know that you also start playing using Yoshi and you have to unlock other characters? It was not like that on the N64, you know it. However you call it a port because it serves your purpose. By you definition, every sports game would be ports.

Oh, Grand Turismo 4?

Its a port of Grand Turismo 1. I mean, it's the same game with added cars and different tracks.

[Evilhead]

And how is it cheaper if you have to buy a 600$ piece of hardware?

If you are buying a PS3 in order to play PS1 games you are an idiot. This is a moot point.

The 8-bit and 16-bit hardwares are rather easy to emulate, but they will need a decent amount of work.

The N64, with its games that used on-board processing and some pretty unique and amazing little technological feats will recquire that much more work.

The price of a product also includes the work needed to do it. Cutting and pasting an image and emulating a CD is a simple job. Writing an emulator for hardware as complex as the N64 is not.

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.

And finally, to come back on that Super Mario 64 "port," seeing as you dismissed the subject like you often do when you may be wrong. I just want to ask again, how is it a port if it includes 3 additional characters, modified levels, added bonus levels, and over 20 minigames?

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.

You do know that you also start playing using Yoshi and you have to unlock other characters? It was not like that on the N64, you know it.

Honestly I don't know. I haven't played either version.

Oh, Grand Turismo 4?

Its a port of Grand Turismo 1. I mean, it's the same game with added cars and different tracks.

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.

[The Author]

Hmmm...

People bought PSPs to play NES games... Heck, using a Linux emulator, they are play NES games on the PS3.

And none of these dozen emulators get a 100% emulation simply because of the architechture of the N64. Research it a bit, you will find out that some games supplied their own chips to make it work. Kinda like the SNES starfox.

Also, if the 5$ port included new content, then you would have a point. The 40$ port feels like a game on its own. But you would not know that since you are talking out of your ass. Yes, Nintendo sold ports of NES games. However, you seem to repeat every 5 minutes that companies are in this for the money, and that if people buy it, then it's okay. I think you said that about the PS3's price. But I guess you would not know how hypocritical that makes you...

And please, do tell me what changed in between Grand Turismo 1 and 4, you still drive a car, do some races, and buy some other cars.

[Bahamut]

Jeez, calm down you guys, this is petty bickering.

[sgx]

Hmmm...

People bought PSPs to play NES games... Heck, using a Linux emulator, they are play NES games on the PS3.

And none of these dozen emulators get a 100% emulation simply because of the architechture of the N64. Research it a bit, you will find out that some games supplied their own chips to make it work. Kinda like the SNES starfox.

Also, if the 5$ port included new content, then you would have a point. The 40$ port feels like a game on its own. But you would not know that since you are talking out of your ass. Yes, Nintendo sold ports of NES games. However, you seem to repeat every 5 minutes that companies are in this for the money, and that if people buy it, then it's okay. I think you said that about the PS3's price. But I guess you would not know how hypocritical that makes you...

And please, do tell me what changed in between Grand Turismo 1 and 4, you still drive a car, do some races, and buy some other cars.

Your arguments are pretty dumb.

[Evilhead]

Hmmm...

People bought PSPs to play NES games... Heck, using a Linux emulator, they are play NES games on the PS3.

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.

And none of these dozen emulators get a 100% emulation simply because of the architechture of the N64. Research it a bit, you will find out that some games supplied their own chips to make it work. Kinda like the SNES starfox.

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.

Also, if the 5$ port included new content, then you would have a point. The 40$ port feels like a game on its own. But you would not know that since you are talking out of your ass. Yes, Nintendo sold ports of NES games. However, you seem to repeat every 5 minutes that companies are in this for the money, and that if people buy it, then it's okay. I think you said that about the PS3's price. But I guess you would not know how hypocritical that makes you...

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.

And please, do tell me what changed in between Grand Turismo 1 and 4, you still drive a car, do some races, and buy some other cars.

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.

[The Author]

Hmmm...

People bought PSPs to play NES games... Heck, using a Linux emulator, they are play NES games on the PS3.

And none of these dozen emulators get a 100% emulation simply because of the architechture of the N64. Research it a bit, you will find out that some games supplied their own chips to make it work. Kinda like the SNES starfox.

Also, if the 5$ port included new content, then you would have a point. The 40$ port feels like a game on its own. But you would not know that since you are talking out of your ass. Yes, Nintendo sold ports of NES games. However, you seem to repeat every 5 minutes that companies are in this for the money, and that if people buy it, then it's okay. I think you said that about the PS3's price. But I guess you would not know how hypocritical that makes you...

And please, do tell me what changed in between Grand Turismo 1 and 4, you still drive a car, do some races, and buy some other cars.

Your arguments are pretty dumb.

I'm arguing like Evilhead.

This is where he would reply "Oh, since I am attacking your beloved company, you resort to personal insults. You are really grasping at straws here.

You Sony fanboys are all the same. Say something other than positive remarks abouta Sony idea and you all get defensive and use insults to get your point across.

I'm having so much fun with all of you it's incredible."

[Smoke]

I've actually paid for both the originals and ported versions of a few games, including Mario 64.

I used to own an N64, but sold it in 2001. I got Mario 64 DS with my DS in 2004, partially because I no longer had the original available and buying a 64 with Mario 64(And possibly a new controller since the analog stick on the N64 pad has too much a habit of dying) would have actually cost more. The added minigames, sharper graphics, multiple characters and quite a few other changes(30 new stars to collect, some classic stars changed around) made it worth it. The wireless multiplayer was a nice bonus, but I never played that much.

I also picked up the NES Classics Zelda, and I also have the NES original and the GC compilation pack. I got the GC version after getting the NES Classics one though. My main reason for this was that it's Zelda, and it's portable. Yes, there's virtually no changes, but a good game stays good, especially if it doesn't require me to hook up the NES again and hope the cart's battery didn't die on me.

Similar to that I picked up LttP on GBA and played and beat that. Also gave the Four Swords multiplayer options a try, but the only person I could play with was a coworker who left the company a few months later.

Next up: Super Mario Advance. I have three versions of SMB2 and SMB3 as a result(NES originals, SNES All-Stars and GBA releases), but in both cases the additions and changes have been worth it. At the time I bought SMA1 I didn't have the NES or SNES versions though.

I've also bought ports where I never owned the original game, such as the NES Classics Castlevania and Sonic Adventure DX.

And then there's the collection releases, which also have added features or bonus games I didn't own before, giving me a reason to buy them.

I don't mind companies releasing ports at all. Even if the games are still pretty much original, there's still reasons to buy them. If anything, it increases the potential audience of a great game and offers people who already know it, used to own the original or still do, a chance to get it again or experience it in a new way.

Nobody's forcing you to buy a port, are they?

[Koelsch1]

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.

But Mario was ONE game. I think the better thing to do would be to compare the $5-$10 PSP ports to the $5-$10 Wii VC ports.

[Evilhead]

I've actually paid for both the originals and ported versions of a few games, including Mario 64.

I used to own an N64, but sold it in 2001. I got Mario 64 DS with my DS in 2004, partially because I no longer had the original available and buying a 64 with Mario 64(And possibly a new controller since the analog stick on the N64 pad has too much a habit of dying) would have actually cost more. The added minigames, sharper graphics, multiple characters and quite a few other changes(30 new stars to collect, some classic stars changed around) made it worth it. The wireless multiplayer was a nice bonus, but I never played that much.

I also picked up the NES Classics Zelda, and I also have the NES original and the GC compilation pack. I got the GC version after getting the NES Classics one though. My main reason for this was that it's Zelda, and it's portable. Yes, there's virtually no changes, but a good game stays good, especially if it doesn't require me to hook up the NES again and hope the cart's battery didn't die on me.

Similar to that I picked up LttP on GBA and played and beat that. Also gave the Four Swords multiplayer options a try, but the only person I could play with was a coworker who left the company a few months later.

Next up: Super Mario Advance. I have three versions of SMB2 and SMB3 as a result(NES originals, SNES All-Stars and GBA releases), but in both cases the additions and changes have been worth it. At the time I bought SMA1 I didn't have the NES or SNES versions though.

I've also bought ports where I never owned the original game, such as the NES Classics Castlevania and Sonic Adventure DX.

And then there's the collection releases, which also have added features or bonus games I didn't own before, giving me a reason to buy them.

I don't mind companies releasing ports at all. Even if the games are still pretty much original, there's still reasons to buy them. If anything, it increases the potential audience of a great game and offers people who already know it, used to own the original or still do, a chance to get it again or experience it in a new way.

Nobody's forcing you to buy a port, are they?

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.

[The Author]

I am drawing out the argument because it's fun to me, to act like a jerk.

Plus you react exactly like I knew you would. You are acting in defense of Sony exactly how some people act to defend Nintendo.

For someone claiming that it's fun being a jerk, evilhead, you don't seem to enjoy it when someone else does it.

Now, did you get the lesson or do I have to start again using wildly idiotic arguments and to wait and see you respond with attempted logic?

I mean, we all know only nintendo fanboys are that stupid...

[Sir_NutS]

I'm with evilhead on this one, most of youkai's arguments are pretty dumb. I really can't see why some ninty fanboys can attack sony's decision of giving ps1 games for cheap and allowing the players to play them on psp and ps3, even more if they're way cheaper than what nintendo is offering on the virtual console which is btw, pretty expensive for just the damn software. What's sony's crime here this time?

EDIT: and if the point of all this is giving evilhead a lesson, it makes it even more dumb and pointless. But on the other side, it makes it more funny.

[The Author]

I'm just saying that if Evilhead can feel better about himself by trolling the Wii thread, maybe I should try to have some fun trolling the PS3 thread with similar results.

Especially after I mentionned yesterday that I was gonna have fun "emulating" his type of posts.

Kinda like the Okami thing all over again. Not only do I point out that I am gonna troll, I tell it to the people I am gonna troll. And they still fall for it.

[Bigfoot]

This will just relate to people in Japan like Evilhead, but here are some PS1 games available in Japan for download.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/22/from-psone-to-psp-via-ps3-a-sony-love-triangle/

¥525 (US$4.50) per title

* Arc the Lad (320MB)

* Biohazard Director's Cut (380MB)

* Bishi Bashi Special (160MB)

* Jumping Flash (280MB)

* Konami Antiques MSX Collection Vol. 1 (40MB)

* Konami Antiques MSX Collection Vol. 2 (40MB)

* Minna no Golf 2 (210MB)

* Silent Bomber (200MB)

* Tekken 2 (550MB)

[Koelsch1]

So EvlilHead, how is the PSP going over there in Japan? I heard the general consensus is that it has pretty much failed over there, and the future isnt too bright over here in the states.

[Bigfoot]

OK, we get it. Evilhead likes Sony systems, but it's not like he's a representative for Sony. He's not going to know how the PSP is doing lol.

This is the PS3 thread, so come on now. Let's all just calm down.

[Smoke]

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.

If we're going that way, I don't see why companies shouldn't be free to charge whatever they want for software. Hell, it might be better for them economically to charge more. The potential reduction of sales can be countered with higher profits per item. That part's fairly basic economical knowledge.

[The Damned]

I recall, either in this thread or the Wii thread (i can't remember which it was, exactly) when Evilhead said something about how it's completely reasonable for a company to make money any way they can. It was over some argument about how Sony was ripping off the Wiimote by making their own motion contoller... anyway, the point was that Evilhead was adamant that Sony was doing th right right thing because it was good business sense.

So why is it that it's not good business sense for Nintendo to release games and charge money for them? According to him, if Sony does it, it's good. But if Nintendo does it, it's bad.

So which is it?

[Koelsch1]

God forbid Nintendo make a profit. Its really putting them in the minority here.

[Zaid]

I'm just saying that if Evilhead can feel better about himself by trolling the Wii thread, maybe I should try to have some fun trolling the PS3 thread with similar results.

Especially after I mentionned yesterday that I was gonna have fun "emulating" his type of posts.

Kinda like the Okami thing all over again. Not only do I point out that I am gonna troll, I tell it to the people I am gonna troll. And they still fall for it.

You're pointless. Being a troll just cause someone else is, is...well...ridiculous. Imagine if everyone had your line of thinking.

[Sir_NutS]

God forbid Nintendo make a profit. Its really putting them in the minority here.

Still doesn't takes away the fact that they're trying to fuck you up with overpriced stuff.

[Koelsch1]

God forbid Nintendo make a profit. Its really putting them in the minority here.

Still doesn't takes away the fact that they're trying to fuck you up with overpriced stuff.

Overpriced? Are we still talking about Mario64 DS? Its ONE game. Now look at Sony. $50 PSP games compared to $35 DS games, $700 PS3 compared to $250 Wii, $60 PS3 games compared to $50 Wii games. Who is fucking people up with overpriced stuff, yet still FAILING to make a profit?