What do you mean? It matters to me.

But it does not matter as much to everyone. There are plenty of people on here claiming this had 0% value to them, not everyone has a real desire to look under the hood.

I think all the core technology is still there, like I stated in the past: Blu-Ray, Cell, default harddrive, gigabit ethernet, USB, Wi-Fi, etc. Never did I say OtherOS support is to be considered to be a core feature of the PS3. Playstation Home for example I consider far more a core feature for the long run.

@ slowmo

But I do like to see PS2 backwards compatibility back someday.

I do know Sony's comments with regard to this, but I am not certain that what they state is really their long term strategy. I wouldn't be surprised if when after the PS2 gets discontinued they find a way to include a software emulator like they have for PS1 software (nomatter how complex this is to implement).

@ kowenicki

With well over 20 million PS3s out there able to use OtherOS, I don't think it's a crucial feature at this point for the slimline PS3.

I don't understand, why people like you are unable to understand what I am saying...

@ dtewi

In a year your argument is going to fail. With Sony motion control from a tech standpoint beating out the Wii controls and with Natal aiming to exceed that further, the Wii will truly be, from a tech standpoint pathetic.

@ dtewi

And from a developer standpoint, the Wii will still be the go-to device for 3rd parties that aren't willing to spend $20 million+ on a game.

Just because the tech is nice, doesn't mean that will entice every developer to build for the system. The Wii is cheap to dev for, offers decent motion controls, and (best of all) offers a platform with more than twice the user penetration of the PS3.

And that's what makes the PS3 pathetic. Why would you really want to develop an exclusive title for the worst-selling console that is also the most expensive to build games on? Economics trump tech, which is why the PS3 has been languishing in 3rd place, and continuing to burn holes in Sony's slimming pocket.

Time has shown us that the best tech isn't always the winner. The PS1 didn't have the best tech compared to the N64 or Saturn. But what it offered were unique economic characteristics (cheap development, good but not perfect tech, and a killer price point) that led to it's success. Sony has none of those.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Yes, but that isn't what I was talking about, I was talking about the Tech. The best tech isn't always the winner, sure, but I know i'd rather have it than not. I am a consumer, not a developer, and Sony's first party offerrings are plenty for exclusive needs. Multiplat support isn't going to die for the system either. As for the Wii, it hasn't exactly had great 3rd party support, so your argument flaws a little there. If Nintendo has a consumer base that they continue to please with their monopoly like 1st party lineup, then there is little room for 3rd party exclusives, so they turn elsewhere.

@ Highlighted, if you are going to make a profit on the game, are well off anyway and have a loyal relationship with the PS Brand then why not? The whole 'PS3 has more potential' thing comes into it aswell, but that's very opinionated so lets not go there. This obviously doesn't apply for the vast majority of devs but that's not the point.

Sorry but on this he didn't contradict himself, things change with time and that feature was more useful before than now and most enthusiasts already got a PS3 with that feature, at least this is how I understand what he said.

Despite your argument, developers are disagreeing with you. What system did Monster Hunter 3 (a former PS exclusive) come out for? Which top-selling Japanese RPG has not, nor will not, see a Playstation iteration this entire generation? I would certainly agree that for the first year or two, the onus was against the Wii for 3rd party development, but that has certainly changed when developers saw the costs involved in bringing an exclusive PS3 HD game were vs. a similar Wii or 360 product. If your curious about how 3rd party support changes on a Nintendo system if the right criteria (lots of hardware shipped), look at the DS. The DS fits your exact arguments, but proved that 3rd parties will adopt a system when the econometrics point to it being the most viable system.

Say what you will, but developers have marginalized the Playstation 3's technology because it's not technology that benefits them as the producers of a game. I agree that, as a consumer, I want the best techology. However, I don't leverage the technology at all - developers do. And if developers cannot leverage the technological benefits from the cell, blu-ray, motion control, or any other advantages, they become totally moot. If your all about a few great exclusives that look pretty, I would love to sell you a Neo Geo or Nintendo 64.

And the problem is that developers have a long 2-5 year lifecycle for games on the Playstation, as they do with any system. We've seen loyalty take a back seat for hard economic realities of this generation. How many exclusives were on the PS2 that have jumped ship this gen? I could probably name 10 3rd party titles for every 1 that stayed with Sony. This is why the Xbox 360 has seen far more major 3rd party games come out on it's system than the Playstation 3 has - it sells more, and is cheaper to develop for. Furthermore, the developers that weren't considering the Wii as a viable option in the beginning have greenlit far more projects as of late (as stated - MH3, DQX, Tales, ect) because they know that profits do not lie with a Sony-branded system this generation. Just because a product offers potential does not mean it can, or will be realize. Sure, Sony-based games will funnel tens of millions of dollars into projects, but that will be it. Nintendo did the same thing in the N64 era - great 1st party games followed my meager 3rd party exclusives, and some ports.

This isn't made to be a Sony bash, but is merely the truth of economic reality. To the victors go the spoils. Sony has tried to sell a system is the pinnacle of buffoonery from the developers standpoint, and has paid billions in lost revenues, profits, and software titles for their corporation, and their once loyal userbase.

Also, I don't get the idea of 'PS3 has more potential' - in what way? The fact it may sell another 25 million hardware units before it dies? That developers can spend more money to bring a title to market (after all, any increase in a title's graphical assets are going to see an increase in cost to develop - something we've seen with many major software titles). I'd argue that the Wii and Xbox 360 have much potential left, and even moreso from the standpoint that a developer will make more profit either on one of those two systems, or by going multi-plat. However, the days of PS3 3rd party exclusives are nearly dead, sans Sony reaching out with a hat filled with money - and given the loss of money on each Slim PS3, I don't think it's an economic decision that Sony should really make.