HappySqurriel said:
The said:
It's $400 for christ's sake. We're in 2009. The PS2 sold like crazy at $300 back in 2000, that was quite an amount of money back then (and that price tag was unchanged until MAY 2002)
PS2:
did NOT have ethernet or wifi
did NOT have a hard drive
did NOT have FREE online gaming
did NOT have wireless rechargable BLUE-TOOTH controllers
did NOT play any media content except for CDs/DVDs
did NOT have USB ports
did NOT have cutting edge disc format player (DVD was quite popular and affordable already in late 2000, in comparison Blu-ray launched with the PS3)
it DID have something to its "advantage" in that it played its prior generation games. PS3 doesn't do that anymore, but I wonder who cared to play PS1 games that much on their PS2s. Anyway, for whatever it's worth there were PS3s and, to some extent, still can be found that are able to play PS2 games, and upscale them for HD displays to boot.
Once you bought your PS2 you certainly HAD TO pay at least $35 for a Sony Memory Card. Most people who gamed a lot and cherished their precious saves ended up buying more than one. That's $335 in the year 2000,2001, half of 2002.
$400 for a high-quality marvelous system in 2009. Is that too much to ask? have gamers become so cheap? christ, lord almighty..... |
If we're using the 2009 price of the PS3 shouldn't we be using the 2003 price of the PS2?
If adding something onto a console made it more valueable why doesn't the PS3 have a built in Waffle Iron? Everyone loves waffles and a $400 gaming system with a waffle iron has to be worth more than a gaming system alone, doesn't it?
Why don't you add in the $10 price increase in the cost of games, the $20 price increase on controllers, and the lack of a decent library of value-priced games?
|
Funny, when CDs came out, a single CD cost around 15-30 dollars, unless bought in bulk, and even then it's expensive as fuck. DVDs? 20 dollars. BDs? 20 dollars. BDs now? About 5 per disc, or buy in bulk.
People like you are retarded. "Bare essentials" PS3 uses BD for it's main format, thus it's bare essentials must include a blu-ray player. wi-fi isn't needed but it's 2009. In 2000, ethernet and wireless wasn't needed. Any device you buy today has wifi, from things like PSP, DS, WII, even majority of MP3 players have it. It's cheap as hell to include as well. Ethernet is standard in anything big enough to have it. Microsoft is so cheap they removed a piece of rubber that cost 0.5 cents from the laser, which prevents the laser from touching the disc and ruining the disc and laser, to save money. If you take a PS3, or any normal DVD player today, you can pick it up and shake it madly, and nothing will happen to disc, because of a 0.5 cent piece of rubber, 360? Just nudge it.
You can't argue it's "not needed" it's a new standard today with whats needed and whats not. We don't need hard drives, we don't even need DVDs, why don't we use CDs? We only made DVDs because they were faster and more storage, BDs are faster and more storage then DVD, and higher resolution, and harder to scratch. Games LAST generation used more then 1 DVD, sure they were single layer DVDs, but data last generation was only 1/3rd the size then. People like to state things like a 12x DVD drive in 360 outperforms the 2x blu-ray drive. Though thats not true. For 1 you lose read speed when you increase the layers on DVD format due to it's angular reading rate, and DVD stays at a variable rate, at around 70% of it's max. BD doesn't lose any speed from more layers, and it reads at max rate, all the time.
1x BD drive reads at 4.5 MB/s
2x BD drive = 9 MB/s constant speed.(72 Mb/s)
1x DVD drive reads at 1.4 MB/s
1x DVD drive reading a dual layer disc = 1 MB/s
12 MB/s IF it was reading at max rate, since DVD drive reads at angular it can only maintain around 70% on average. Meaning a 12x DVD drive reading dual layer discs, on average only reads at 8.4 MB/s on average. But why does 360 seem or appear to read faster? Data size.
360 games, majority of them are highly compressed. Meaning they are smaller then they should be. BD also uses higher audio and video rate, so on average BDs data is about twice the size, causing a problem, if your player is reading about the same as the competition with a slight edge, and your data is larger, the other player would read faster. It's simple really. Though compressed data must be uncompressed so overall loading time usually equals out. What happens when BD data starts to become compressed on the disc? Until then, you'll have to deal with mandatory installs, even though they are not needed, and other tricks and tweaks like dupilicate data. If only sony pushed for a 4x BD drive, 360 would of had mandatory installs to keep up.
