Devs might be able to do more with Cell if Sony were more open with them about it all. The PS3 has been taunted as being more powerful than the Xbox, but seems to feel like it does much less. Some of it may just be Sony not really knowing how to make an OS, or just the crazy amount of DRM.
I am mostly concerned about what it will mean for PS3 backwards compatibility. If it is like what they did with PS2 on PS3, I might seriously have to stop buying all things PlayStation. Not to be one of those people who says they will jump-ship over every little thing. But the whole hyping of being able to play PS2 games on the PS3 when it came out, but then taking it away really pissed me (and I am sure pretty much everyone on this site) off. But even that would have been somewhat okay if they didn't then proceed to take away other features (otherOS, the card readers, the extra USB ports, etc.).
Then they continue with the PS Vita and the whole "It plays all your old PSP games...but you have to re-buy them" bs. At least with the Xbox I don't feel like I am constantly being lied to. Really most of my reason for getting a PS3 was because the games were on BD discs, and that it could play Blu-ray movies (the game backups at the time was also nice). But ever since the PS2, Sony has really lost its way. /end rant
Well if the Cell is ditched, say goodbye to PS3 game backward compatibility.
Time to invest in a gaming PC.
So, in essence, you will be buying a AMD Fusion motherboard and APU, with a BD drive? And its supposed to be cheaper than current PS3's?
Gateway NV75S02u 17.3" Notebook w/ AMD A8-3500M CPU $499.99
the main cost is the half assed os developed by a company that is in so many different industries it doesn't even know it's own identity.
03-04-2012 #55Banned User
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
Want to use the Blu ray drive? That will be an extra $20 a month. DVD drive? $10 extra a month. Want to play more than 2 games a month? That will be an extra $10.99 per game played. Internet access, downloading games, and playing games online? $2.50 per GB (on top of the price for the games) and $0.02 cents per MB when playing online games. Want a package deal that includes a lot of different options and a pre-set MB limit (that you get charged 10x for if you go over) for online game usage? $100 a month for the bronze package. $150 a month for the Gold package. And $200 a month for the Platinum package. And to top it all off they will charge you $0.05 cents for every KWh you use the system, they will market this as a way "to help conserve energy".
An internet connection would be required to authenticate the console each time you turn it on in order to relay the usage stats to Sony for billing purposes. Any means to circumvent or tamper with this process will immediately terminate the console and require you to return it to an authorized PlayStation processing center. Failure to do so within 15 days and you would be charged a $450 service fee. You will have the option to reactivate your console after 5 days from the original termination date for a minimal fee of $50, each re-occurrence would add an additional 20% surcharge onto the previous fee.
The console will essentially turn into something like what the mobile phone companies are doing, except much much worse!
the day that consoles are not purchased and owned out right by consumers, or require an active internet connection to play any game is the day that i give up console gaming. except for the consoles and games that i currently own.
when the aforementioned day does come, hopefully there will be another industry crash like the one around 1981-1982. if the game companies (manufacturers and developers) don't take the long term effects on consumers into consideration along with their profit forecasts then they all deserve to crash and burn.
leukotic, I had nightmares after that post. If consoles ever do become like that I would probably loose all faith in humanity and live on mars.
Well, I don't think Sony will take as much of a loss per console as they did with the PS3, which should result in removing less stuff from it. As far as the graphics are concerned, both MS and Sony need to put something relevant in there, because I want native 1080p for consoles and better engines for the PC(!).
Backwards compatibility? Pf, I've pretty much written that off, and am interested in what MS will do (hell, at least they tried instead of sucker-punching their fans). I think they'll push PS One compatibility to the Vita, because to be honest it's getting a little old of a trick, and my laptop does better upscaling/rendering than their emulator.
And for the love of consoles, Sony, don't give us another new disc format. Bluray is fine for now, leave your trojan horses in storage. Oh, and before I forget, both major players PLEASE don't slap some evangelical tech in there and fail to cool it properly.
I think they are waiting for MS to see what the status quo will be.
Don't be sure they won't be taking more off of it! As for BC, I agree with you, as Sony will likely still want to sell PS3's too.
But in reference to them waiting on MS fully that seems unlikely as making a new console takes time, plus xbox360 came out a good deal before PS3, and that didn't help them, far from...
True, I understand where you're coming from with that. I can only hope that the initial release hardware is stable enough in terms of 'Sony modularity'.