By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony's Solution: Sell A Cripple Version of the Playstation 3?

czecherychestnut on 31 December 2008
NJ5 said:

Reading this thread doesn't help my faith in humanity. Why are so many people assuming that Sony wouldn't put PS3 titles up for download if they did this, perhaps even the old ones?

Sure, there are some things to criticize regarding this idea, but let's keep this real. When you get to an incredible conclusion, it often helps to examine your assumptions.

 

Where your idea enters the realm of fail is the assumption that 1) people will tolerate downloading 5 - 20Gb games, and 2) if the idea is to sell many more PS3's, but yet limit the usefulness of said PS3's to areas of the world with lots of very fast, very cheap internet, then clearly that won't achieve the intended goal.

It'd be like Peugeot designing a super cheap car for the Indian market, that can only run on Johnny Walker Blue label. People bitch about 10 min installs on the PS3, yet suddenly downloading a game for 3 - 4 hours is a workable solution?



Around the Network
Xen on 31 December 2008

A PS3 without the BRD?

Hey, clerk, where do you keep your 360's?



Steroid on 31 December 2008

^^Exactly

 

I don't think just Sony but Microsoft as well have invested quite a bit into this console war and expect it to last longer than any previous generation. And I think they are right, so Sony doesn't need to do anything but wait for the price of the PS3's components to come down. They've got the games and 20 million is a sold user base for just over 2 years on the market so they won't be losing any third party support.



NJ5 on 31 December 2008
czecherychestnut said:
NJ5 said:

Reading this thread doesn't help my faith in humanity. Why are so many people assuming that Sony wouldn't put PS3 titles up for download if they did this, perhaps even the old ones?

Sure, there are some things to criticize regarding this idea, but let's keep this real. When you get to an incredible conclusion, it often helps to examine your assumptions.

 

Where your idea enters the realm of fail is the assumption that 1) people will tolerate downloading 5 - 20Gb games, and 2) if the idea is to sell many more PS3's, but yet limit the usefulness of said PS3's to areas of the world with lots of very fast, very cheap internet, then clearly that won't achieve the intended goal.

It'd be like Peugeot designing a super cheap car for the Indian market, that can only run on Johnny Walker Blue label. People bitch about 10 min installs on the PS3, yet suddenly downloading a game for 3 - 4 hours is a workable solution?

I didn't say many people would necessarily want to do that. In fact I said this idea is not very good (though for another reason, the price of a big HD).

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

nightsurge on 31 December 2008
Steroid said:

^^Exactly

 

I don't think just Sony but Microsoft as well have invested quite a bit into this console war and expect it to last longer than any previous generation. And I think they are right, so Sony doesn't need to do anything but wait for the price of the PS3's components to come down. They've got the games and 20 18.8 million is a sold user base for just over 2 years on the market so they won't be losing any third party support.

Fixed.

 



Around the Network
czecherychestnut on 31 December 2008

^^ Wow, you really showed him. That 1.2 million completely changes everything about the point he was trying to make.



Naraku_Diabolos on 31 December 2008
Phoenix_Wiight said:
no offense, but the lowest priced PS3 is already crippled. can't play ps2 games? thats a joke. sadly, i bought that system, and I still need to keep my PS2.

god damn.

This post and all I've said since I've been on this website sums up how I feel about the PS3, and yet no one ever listens to me



nightsurge on 31 December 2008
czecherychestnut said:
^^ Wow, you really showed him. That 1.2 million completely changes everything about the point he was trying to make.

Are you mad about something?  I wasn't trying to change his point.  Just wanted to point out it is not at 20 million yet, and may not be by the end of the year even, so 20 million after a little over 2 years is not correct.  That is all.  Sheesh, everyone takes any correction as some sort of attack.



docholliday on 31 December 2008
nightsurge said:
czecherychestnut said:
^^ Wow, you really showed him. That 1.2 million completely changes everything about the point he was trying to make.

Are you mad about something?  I wasn't trying to change his point.  Just wanted to point out it is not at 20 million yet, and may not be by the end of the year even, so 20 million after a little over 2 years is not correct.  That is all.  Sheesh, everyone takes any correction as some sort of attack.

Well since u did nothing to contribute to the thread besides correcting him with what is basically a one word response i'd say it was pretty much an attempt to undermine his point. Someone else just got banned for doing these type of posts, i'd stop now if I was you.

 



SnesTea on 01 January 2009
docholliday said:
nightsurge said:
czecherychestnut said:
^^ Wow, you really showed him. That 1.2 million completely changes everything about the point he was trying to make.

Are you mad about something?  I wasn't trying to change his point.  Just wanted to point out it is not at 20 million yet, and may not be by the end of the year even, so 20 million after a little over 2 years is not correct.  That is all.  Sheesh, everyone takes any correction as some sort of attack.

Well since u did nothing to contribute to the thread besides correcting him with what is basically a one word response i'd say it was pretty much an attempt to undermine his point. Someone else just got banned for doing these type of posts, i'd stop now if I was you.

 

Aww! The n00blets are fighting about something everyone cares about!

 

/sarcasm

 

OT: Selling a PS3 with the blu-ray is like selling a DVD player that doesn't play DVDs. Pointless. Or even better: