New PS3 hardware hits stores, CECH-2101. Contains 40nm RSX, Awesome FAQ inside!

[Wingman1977]

Originally Posted by Psybits

They actually did, back then blu-ray was new tech..being new it was still expensive.
sometime around when the PS3 was to be released, sony gave a media statement that though they are losing out on the PS3 console itself, they were confident that they could pioneer a new home media entertainment experience with music, movies, and games.
Though they were losing out on the console, they said that they hoped to make the profit from the games.

I even remember a statement made by Sony Japan president since I thought it was funny.
He goes on to say that "We are selling it at a loss so we can provide it to the public at a good price. A $600 price point should not keep customers away from a complete home media entertainment, "my phone costs more than $600"."

I would've expect that to come from Ken (krazy Ken) Kutaragi.

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by Velmeran

I've never understood the huge amount of complaining that came when the BC for PS2 games was removed.

For those complaining, how did you play your PS2 games before you got your PS3? Is there some rule I'm unaware of that only allows consumers to own 1 console?

You must have missed all of Sony's marketing in Fall 2006.

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

When the ps3 was $500-$600, people complained about the price, When Sony removed bc and a few other seldomly used features to drop the price, people complain why were they removed. Jeez, people find anything to complain about.

I didn't complain about the price. I do complain that BC is gone, especially when it was so emphasized that the PS3 could do it and the 360 "only" had a percentage of titles that could.

[Psybits]

Originally Posted by Uxi

I didn't complain about the price. I do complain that BC is gone, especially when it was so emphasized that the PS3 could do it and the 360 "only" had a percentage of titles that could.

haha now that you mention it..I suddenly remembered all those comparison's why you should buy a PS3 then..

and now I suddenly remember their current ads "It only does everything" hahaha lol

[Wingman1977]

Originally Posted by Uxi

You must have missed all of Sony's marketing in Fall 2006.



I didn't complain about the price. I do complain that BC is gone, especially when it was so emphasized that the PS3 could do it and the 360 "only" had a percentage of titles that could.

What I find sad is that people bought ps3's so they can play ps2 games instead of buying ps3 games. they were better off sticking with their ps2.

[Psybits]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

What I find sad is that people bought ps3's so they can play ps2 games instead of buying ps3 games. they were better off sticking with their ps2.

that is sad..not giving justice to the PS3

[Wingman1977]

Originally Posted by Psybits

that is sad..not giving justice to the PS3

Go figure.

[Monkey]

they were confident that they could pioneer a new home media entertainment experience with music, movies, and games.

They sure as hell delivered

[Shin-Ra]

Originally Posted by Ascended_Saiyan

This should help you out a bit, from a numbers perspective.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...&postcount=605

That translation omits that the standby Wattage is with Remote Start for Remote Play enabled. Normal standby on the slims uses well under 1W.

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

What I find sad is that people bought ps3's so they can play ps2 games instead of buying ps3 games. they were better off sticking with their ps2.

lol wtf, are you serious? Yeah, I could probably pull out my big fat PS2 and put it on the TV. I'd prefer a working 60GB. It looks horrible compared to modern gear and the tray door makes a terrible racket.

It's sad that ability in having one device take the place of two is beyond your perception and that you're apparently ignorant of one of Sony's primary marketing points at the beginning of this console generation. I bought a launch PS3 because it could replace my PS2 while also playing Blu-ray and also play PS3 games and also play SACD and also run Linux. It could everything then. Now, it only does almost everything.

[Wingman1977]

Originally Posted by Uxi

lol wtf, are you serious? Yeah, I could probably pull out my big fat PS2 and put it on the TV. I'd prefer a working 60GB. It looks horrible compared to modern gear and the tray door makes a terrible racket.

It's sad that ability in having one device take the place of two is beyond your perception and that you're apparently ignorant of one of Sony's primary marketing points at the beginning of this console generation. I bought a launch PS3 because it could replace my PS2 while also playing Blu-ray and also play PS3 games and also play SACD and also run Linux. It could everything then. Now, it only does almost everything.

Guess what? PLANS CHANGE.

[alphapyro]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

Guess what? PLANS CHANGE.

Meh. That's fine and all, but you're talking about consumer electronics, it's not a baby. Just because a company's plans change from what they advertising to deliver doesn't make it right even though it doesn't necessarily inconvenience you.

I think the message you were going for was, "Get over it."

[hellmonkey]

Originally Posted by Wingman1977

Guess what? PLANS CHANGE.

But not my underwear!

[toef]

I don't think Sony intended to market it as PS2 compatible.

They were somewhat forced to, because they had to pitch it as anything they could, to get people to buy a $600 console, when there was another console that'd been around for a year, for a lot less money, and a much larger library.

How to make PS3's library bigger?

I know! Hype up the PS2 compatibility!

"We know you're not too interested in any of our PS3 games that are out right now, but while you're waiting for better ones, YOU CAN PLAY YOUR PS2 GAMES ON THIS MACHINE INSTEAD!!!"

Once Sony was able to build up a PS3 library, it was safe to cut the cord to the PS2 library, and sail on without it.

Backward compatibility isn't a selling point for a vast majority of people who own a PS3. Far more people buy it as a Blu-ray player than a PS2 player. People who actually still play PS2 games on a regular basis are probably some serious gamers. And if they care about games that much, maybe they should play the games on the console they were made for, to get the full effect.

I could play NES games on my Dreamcast, but why would I want to? Blowing in the cartridges and trying to get my NES to work is as much of the NES game experience as the actual game. For PS2 games, maybe the loud rickety disc tray is part of the experience.

Obviously I'm somewhat joking, but there's also somewhat of a real point in there.

[Wingman1977]

Originally Posted by alphapyro

Meh. That's fine and all, but you're talking about consumer electronics, it's not a baby. Just because a company's plans change from what they advertising to deliver doesn't make it right even though it doesn't necessarily inconvenience you.

I think the message you were going for was, "Get over it."

That would work too but it would come out too strong.

[Wingman1977]

Originally Posted by hellmonkey

But not my underwear!

[Uxi]

They most definitely intended to market it as PS2 compatible. You're most likely right on their reasons for doing so (launch library's are always weak) but there was also potential there. Remember, GoW 2 launched as a PS2 game. Ask how I know. I also finished GTA: San Andreas and didn't buy Battlestar:Galactica (PS2 game) until I had a PS3. The PS3 is far more polished and integrated into the AV rack than the PS2 was (though they were trying). Then there's the whole memory card things that are virtualized on the PS3 (I thought they could have taken it one step better and gotten rid of the artificial division between card 1 and card 2 while at the same time spoofing the 'virtual ps2' inside the ps3.... but that's neither here nor there).

And Wingmann is right... plan's most definitely do change. But much of the argument against seems either indifference on features that don't concern them (only natural, I suppose) but too much seems predicated on ignorance of the original vision that BC was a part of. Maybe that original vision of the PS3 died when Kutaragi left... or when they were stuck in perpetual 3rd place and had to rush rush rush to get the

Remember the scorn MSFT got when releasing dual SKUs... and then the PS3 followed suit. Turned out it was a pretty good idea since Sony has stayed with it from the 20/60 all the way through the current 120/250 and will no doubt continue. I would just like more oomph in the higher end model than simply a user replacable HDD and a few bundled games. Cheapies are now quite plentiful. Where's the beef?

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Uxi

Remember the scorn MSFT got when releasing dual SKUs... and then the PS3 followed suit. Turned out it was a pretty good idea since Sony has stayed with it from the 20/60 all the way through the current 120/250 and will no doubt continue. I would just like more oomph in the higher end model than simply a user replacable HDD and a few bundled games. Cheapies are now quite plentiful. Where's the beef?

It's about running two different product lines. It makes everything significantly more expensive having two different motherboards as they become two different products. Having different HD sizes makes it an assembly and procurement issue. Having two different motherboards makes it design and production expense which is far higher and gives the PS3 that expensive feeling again which is something it doesn't need.

Premium SKUs are not the way to get mass market adoption, maybe the niche might make use of them, but making a specialise product to sell to maybe 1-2m people over the whole generation isn't a money making prospect.

[Snah]

Originally Posted by Maximus

It is true to the extent that all PS3s play all PS3 games. So regardless of what something looks like on the outside (or in this case, inside) no PS3 ever becomes outdated.

45nm is the last easy die shrink for Cell. 32nm will require repackaging and a redesign of the pin configuration, but I'm told IBM and Sony are already working on it and 32nm Cell should roll out sometime next year. RSX shrinks all the way down to 22nm without too much trouble. I think moving both chips onto the same package like Westmere is the next step once RSX is down to 32nm. This could pave the way for power consumption equal to that of a regular laptop and allow for a smallish external power brick.

GDDR3 is now in 2 banks of 1Gbit Samsung/Hynix (depending on where it was manufactured) and is external to the RSX package. Other changes are the use of 2 Elpida 1Gbit XDR modules at 65nm as opposed to the original 512Mbit Samsung modules at 90nm.

The next revision on the roadmap is for late 2010 early 2011, RSX is scheduled to shift down to 32nm as Toshiba have got their fabs up and running for NAND at 30nm already so complex silicon should follow in due course. XDR will probably shift down as well as Samsung have got 45nm 1Gbit chips planned for sometime this year.

Basically all of this points to a new superslim mid-late 2011 depending on whether IBM can roll out 32nm Cell sometime soon.

An interesting fact; the original slim was being designed to accommodate 45nm Cell and RSX, but RSX was delayed and Sony didn't want to wait so used better (more expensive) cooling to get it out the door before the end of 2009.

Let me get this straight, so are you saying that PS3s being manufactured now have more RAM than just 512 MB? Is it a similar issue to hard drives, where Sony constantly upgrades the HDD because it's more or less a fixed cost, and vendors simply do away with older varieties that have less memory?

If this is the case, what is stopping Sony from releasing an 'upgraded' PS3 with more RAM, where developers can easily scale between old PS3 hardware (with less RAM) and new PS3 hardware (with more RAM)? Blu-Ray discs are plenty big enough for high resolution textures.

In other words, PS3 would be a forward compatible platform.

[androvsky]

Hardware BC was always a temporary thing. Sony didn't even announce they were going to have to go that route until summer 2006. I wonder what happened to the PS2 software emulator they were working on...?

Not having PS2 BC is kinda like if blu-ray players didn't play DVDs. Sure, not many DVD players handled VHS tapes, so it's not a big deal, right? Besides, everyone's just watching the movies that came out since the blu-ray format started. Only real movie fans would watch something as old as Lord of the Rings.

According to the Wall Street Journal's paraphrasing of SCEA boss Jack Tretton, the removal of PS2 backward compatibility and other components isn't "dramatically reducing Sony's cost of manufacturing" on Sony's behemoth console.

Instead, the handicapping of the PS3 was part of an effort to "encourage buyers of the entry-level PlayStation 3 to purchase more games designed specifically for the new system."

Oh yeah, I forgot about how one of the PS3's main competitors was actually the PS2. And the PS3 was losing to it that first year. I can understand how they didn't want to be another Supergrafx, but I think the PS3 is getting to the point where it can compete with 5+ year-old games now.

Besides, if Sony put the games on PSN, even if we could play our discs, they'd still sell a fair number. It's not like many people who play PS2 games have a complete collection, there's no shortage of rare and/or out-of-print titles.

Oh well, maybe it'll be a perk of Premium PSN. I could see the current SCE doing something like that.

[aphex]

You guys are stupid. They're gonna be looking for army guys.



Anyways, to keep on topic, any news on when thisll be out? Considering I should get a new ps3 soon. I hope they release a nice bundle premium ps3 with these new tech specs