No I'm not. I'm treating it as a software/hardware development problem and considering what you need to consider when developing a potential solution. I never said that Framemeister has some magic abilities Sony doesn't. Sony can indeed make their own upscaler as they have in the past. In fact Sony might already have the solution that framemeister has already built, but can't/won't put it into systems because of licesning issues. For all I know Framemeister is licening their upscaling technology from Sony! I have no idea, and I don't care to find out. I simply mentioned that there are plenty of potential issues, both technical and non-technical as to why Sony might not be able to or willing to pull off what Framemeister has apprently pulled off and you shouldn't dismiss them. It's simply not as cut and dry as you imagine it to be. You've blown that out of proportion to accuse me of acting like Framemeister are magicians or something.  Until this thread I have never heard of Framemeister and I don't even know what they make besides "the perfect upscaler" according to you.

But again, Sony isn't going to bother. Their upscaling solutions are good enough as they are and don't need to be improved for your sake.

Go ahead, list one assumption I'm making about Sony's upscaling technologies and capabilites. Just name one.

I won't convince why they technically can't make the device you suggested because I don't know of any reason why they technically can't. BUT that doesn't mean they technically can either, and I've listed many potential reasons why. It also doesn't mean they can for the price you suggested, and also it doesn't mean they would bother doing it in the first place. Sony is in the business of making money. it's obvious to anyone with their finger on the pulse that making the PS1 version of the NES classic without the ability to read discs, without PSN connectivity, without being region free will be far, far more profitable for them then making a device that does even if it was only $40-$60 more expensive. That's not rocket science. Because of that, Sony is never going to make the device you want them to make because they literally have no reason to.

Besides you. Just go buy your little upscaling box, wipe the tears of shatters dreams away, and get over it.

"Go ahead, list one assumption I'm making about Sony's upscaling technologies and capabilites"

"In fact Sony might already have the solution that framemeister has already built, but can't/won't put it into systems because of licesning issues"

One of many assumptions you make. Another one:

"the PS1 version of the NES classic without the ability to read discs, without PSN connectivity, without being region free will be far, far more profitable for them then making a device that does even if it was only $40-$60 more expensive"

Wrong. A modern HDMI enabled PS1, online connected, Sony with their means can make this thing cheap. PS1's library is so vast, a simple preloaded console is never gonna cut it. There have to be so many 3rd parties involved to make the console attractive, unlike Nintendo. With so many 3rd parties to license, even their Crash games, I doubt they'd make a decent profit, than just selling a modern version of their PS1. Making a cheap, toy like preloaded console is not the Sony way, Sony is all about choices, PS1 has over 2,000 games in its library.

I dont really care about all the assumptions you make and the potential difficulties they may have, you don't know anything. Of course there will be difficulties, are you seriously gonna tell me there will be hurdles along the way when developing a product. "Sony wants to make money", yeah they do that all the time by bringing out new products on the market. I'm so happy you lowered the discussion to business 101 trying to illustrate why Sony can't put a world class upscaler in a retro console.

Ohh yes. The Vita TV. How could I forget?

HDMI out? Check.
Upscaling? Check.
PSN Connectivity? Check
Ability to download and PS1 classics? Check.
Ability to play digital import games? Check
$100 price tag? Check.
BONUS: Ability to play PSP games? Check
BONUS: Ability to play most Vita games? Check.
BONUS: Ability to play apps like Netflix? Check.
BONUS: Ability to play PS Now? Check.
BONUS: Ability to steam music, movies, and tv shows bought on PSN? Check.

Terrible, terrible sales? Check. I got mine for $13 in a bargain bin at a grocery store. I think they sold less than 500k total.

So if such functionality is so important to people who want to play PS1 games in a more modern way, why didn't the Vita TV become a hit amongst people like you? It hits every note except the ability to play PS1 discs. You could get a memory card that would hold dozens of PS1 classics for less than $20. Surely that must have been appealing to someone like you, especially when Sony started lowering the price on these to $80, $60 or eventually to $20. But I bet OP doesn't own one.

It's probably because no one cares about these features.

I agree with you on all points, except I put an * on this one. Pre-orders don't necessarily mean anything. We don't know how many they had for pre-order, and how representative it is of total availability. This could easily be the first round in many rounds of pre-orders, and have the smallest quantity available. They haven't even had pre-orders here in North America. It's possible Nintendo actually listened and when they said they're making "signficantly more SNES classics" they really meant 5-10 times more. We really don't have enough information to make this claim yet.

Do you know what an assumption is? That isn't one! That's a suggestion of a possibility, not me assuming it is true! There is no assumption in the example you provided. At all.

Also let me quote myself (emphasis mine)

"Go ahead, list one assumption I'm making about Sony's upscaling technologies and capabilites"

What does my claim about Sony selling a cheaper PS1 classic that has bulit-in games and lacks the ability to read discs being more profitable than a more expensive model have to do with their upscaling capabilities? Ohh right nothing.

Aww that's so sweet with you making assumptions about how much it costs to license a game for something like this. How much does your average game cost to licence for such a device? What's that? You don't know? Another assumption. Got it. If only there was another device to maybe get an idea... like I don't know... the NES classic. 30 games. 13 of which are third party. Some how, with almost half the game library being third party, Nintendo managed to get that console out for $60. HOW DID THEY DO IT??!"

Could Sony do the same? Well let's see:

• Gran Turismo series
• Final Fantasy VII- IX (Published by Sony)
• Tekken series (Published by Sony)
• Spyro series
• Hot Shots Golf series
• Syphon Filter series
• Twisted Metal series
• Parappa the Rapper
• Umjammer Lammy
• Cool Boarders series
• Jet Moto series
• Legend of Dragoon
• Arc the Lad
• Jumping Flash
• Vib Ribbon
• Medievil
• Omega Boost
• Star Ocean series (published by Sony)
• Parasite Eve series (Published by Sony)

Seems to me Sony could come up with a pretty great games list pretty easily with just first party titles, and considering many of these PS1 classics have been up on the PSN selling for less than $1 or given away for free with PS+, I highly doubt the licensing fees to put other third party games on the console would be prohibitively expensive.

If you want to argue it would be more expensive to essentially repackage an NES mini in a PS1-style shell, put 30 PS1 games on its memory, and throw in a controller than it would be to make something that has an optical disc drive, play all PS1 discs perfectly from all regions (something no PS1 emulator has ever done), the ability to securely interface with the PSN, have gigabytes of internal storage to download games from PSN, have a storage management system, and have the ability to upscale PS1 games at a level never seen on a Sony device.... you are out of touch with reality.

I mean you're essentially arguing it would be more expensive to license 15-20 games than it would be to design, develop, QA and manufacture all of the addiitional shit in the device you listed. That is completely nonsesnical.

"Do you know what an assumption is? That isn't one! "

Uh yes? You're assuming they wont put it into systems because "licensing issues". What licensing issues?

All your long winded wall of text posts at me are assumptions. Thats why we're here man, you doubled down hard trying to tell me Sony can't do the device I asked for, even though you know nothing. And it's precisely you know nothing that you replied with yuuuge texts at me that basically boiled down to "why wud Sony make such a device" or "Framemeister has special patents that Sony might not have", instead of keeping it short and concise. I alone provided the facts here, and that is that Sony is an industry giant with established upscalers for their TVs and Bluray players, and they can easily come up with a cheaper solution for retro gaming than a small company if they wanted it. Thats it, the rest is just background noise. No need to "bu bbuu buuutts" and "what ifs".

"How much does your average game cost to licence for such a device"

Thats not hard to figure out my man, each of those games sell for 5 to 10$ on the PSN, they're not gonna give out those 3rd party games for free. Just because Sony published FF7 back then doesnt mean they can put it cost free in their retro console. They dont hold the rights to the games. The business model that worked for Nintendo might not work for Sony. Now that Crash sold yuge, 3rd parties might hold on to their PS1 era IPs better. You havent thought about all the possibilities and oversimplify absolutely everything about this.

A preloaded PS1 is never gonna work out the same way a Nes or Snes Classic did. For 1. PS1 is the 3rd party console, too many licensing needed, too costly. 2. Too many games involved. Look even at your own list, you say "series" instead of games. There's too much games to choose from.

Sony isnt gonna simply copy what Nintendo does, thats just your own hopes and dreams. Their business model will differ, they might not have it positioned as a toy but rather a real cheap console to be sold alongside the PS4.

Okay. So now it's confirmed that you either don't know what the word "assumption" means, or that you have poor reading comprehension skills, or both. I stated that there are potential licensing issues, as a possible reason why it it might not feasbile. I just bolded a whole bunch of words which demonstrate I didn't assume anything. I'll just keep bolding those words going forward so you don't get confused, okay?

Your "facts" as you so put them don't actually lead to the conclusion you come to. I have demonstrated that there are all kinds of potential non-technical issues that can prevent Sony from doing something even if they have the knowledge base to actually create it. Why do you think so many of these "industry giants" as you so put it spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year buying other company's patents? Do you think it's for funsies? Do you think its because they want to make their profit margins worse? No. It's to give themselves the legal ability to create the products they want to create. I even gave an example of mini-games in loading screens, and you still don't get these are very real issues that tech companies need to consider when developing any new product.

So they're not giving away third party game licensing for free?! I am just shocked. So you think because these games cost between $5 and $10 on PSN (regular price) that means that licening fees must be pretty high, right? What if I told you that these companies actually pay sony a percentage of the retail price of each to put the games on the PSN and Sony doesn't actually pay to licence those games from those companies to put them up on the store. So you're actually using the wrong information to try and "figure it out", aren't you? Also if you were actually correct (you're not), many of the most popular third party games have gone on sale on PSN for $1 or have been given away for free with PSN, then the licensing fees would have to be well less than $1, wouldn't it?

It's amazing how you think that having more games available to you means that choosing 30 of them becomes more difficult instead of much easier. Somehow Nintendo can choose 30 of the 600 games published on the SNES, but 30 out of 2000? Let's act like that's just absolutely ridiculous. You're intentionally being obtuse. You want to act like it would be expensive to license a game like Final Fantasy IX, yet here is the NES Classic with Final Fantasy 1, and the SNES Classic with Final Fantasy III. Or act like third parties are going to drive up the licensing cost of PS1 titles based on the success of Crash and the NES classic, but didn't drive up the licensing cost for the Super NES? How does that make any sense. So is it actually reasonable to assume the licensing for a PS1 classic would be substantially more expensive than the licensing for an NES? Absolutely not. It is a possibility, however. Besides, it's entirely plausible that of the 30 games Sony would have on such a system that less than half of them would be third party if they so choose, just like the NES classic. I even included a list of titles they could include, most of which were purely first party.

It's just so sweet that you think Sony's going to come out and position a create a product that essentially says "Instead of spending $250 on a new PS4, or $130 on a new PS3, here's a new PS1 only device at $150 that doesn't play PS3 games or PS2 games, but it's region free and has a nicer upscaler even though you probably don't care about those things".

You're right. That'll sell like fucking hot cakes. Sony should get on that pronto!

P.S. Super adorable that you think I'm the one oversimplifying and glossing over things. Sounds like you're just projecting to me.

I'll repeat again because you didn't get it: All your long winded wall of text posts at me are assumptions. Thats why we're here man, you doubled down hard trying to tell me Sony can't do the device I asked for, even though you know nothing. And it's precisely you know nothing that you replied with yuuuge texts at me that basically boiled down to "why wud Sony make such a device" or "Framemeister has special patents that Sony might not have", instead of keeping it short and concise. I alone provided the facts here, and that is that Sony is an industry giant with established upscalers for their TVs and Bluray players, and they can easily come up with a cheaper solution for retro gaming than a small company if they wanted it. Thats it, the rest is just background noise. No need to "bu bbuu buuutts" and "what ifs".

A preloaded PS1 is never gonna work out the same way a Nes or Snes Classic did. For 1. PS1 is the 3rd party console, too many licensing needed, too costly. 2. Too many games involved. Look even at your own list, you say "series" instead of games. There's too much games to choose from.

So it's time you start realizing you're wrong.

So now you think literally copy and pasting the same thing over again makes what you're saying more credible or something?

Look man, I can't help how that you continue to misinterpret what I'm typing. You're arguing against points I didn't actually make and claiming thing I didn't actually say, all the while making baseless assertions as if they're credible.

You're whole argument essentially boils down to "Sony is a yuge industry giant. They should be able to make anything I want them to make for a price I think it should cost based on that alone."  Unfortunately for you, that thought process is completely detached from the reality that we live in.

You're never going to see the console you're dreaming of for the price you're dreaming of, with the features you're dreaming of. That's as factual as Sony's status as an industry giant.

I'll copy paste until you actually get it. It's not that hard. What you've been saying were nothing but assumptions and your opinions.
"Sony won't make product X, because Nintendo made prodyct Y so Sony should do it too, even though I have no idea how much the things I dream about cost", nor the fact that Sony's PS1 is mostly known for its 3rd party output unlike the Snes and has like 4 times as many games, nor the fact Sony would have an entirely different business strategy to go about if they explored going into the retro market and won't simply make a cheap toy console with a bunch of 3rd party games.

"this upscaler thing should cost a ton of money, it's a niche", or "why wud Sony update their already existing upscaler".

Literally everything you've said was irrelevant to the thread. A thread about what I want Sony to do to sell me a PS1 Classic. All this time you've been wasting my time trying to tell me I should not even want Sony to sell me what I hope for, congrats? Just because Nintendo did something, that should be the only way something should be done regardless of everything else, what a ridiculous premise to keep this pointless debate going.