Playstation 3

edited March 2009 in Games
Alright hombres, it's opinion gathering time.

I want to buy a Playstation 3 and hopefully will be getting one within 6 months or so.

I have a few options in front of me. Just to make sure everyone's clear and knowledgeable, there are essentially two types of PS3s out there: those with hardware emulation capable of full backwards compatibility and those with software emulation that (as some sources say) doesn't work perfectly with backwards compatibility.

Now, I have a lot of Playstation 1 and 2 games and the PS2 that I inherited is probably going to die within the next few years. As such, I would really like a system that is capable of playing all three generations of games. It follows that the 60GB hardware emulating PS3 is the most attractive option.

HOWEVER, since the 60GB has been discontinued, you can only buy it used. Apparently Gamestop sells them used for about $450, a price that I am happy with. But it IS a used system, which makes me a bit leery. I bought a GameCube used and it worked just fine. But it was a GameCube.

So, my other option is to just buy an 80GB model for $400 and eventually purchase a new PS2 if it turns out that the PS3 doesn't run my PS1 games. That way I get a brand new console for a bit cheaper and it might even run the older games just fine.

So, here's my question. Which path should I take? Should I brave the waters of used hardware to get a spiffy all-in-one package (60GB), or should I play it safe and get a new system and deal with any lack of backwards compatibility later (80GB and possibly a new PS2)?
«1

Comments

  • edited October 2008
    used I say! All my systems are used, and the only problem is my xbox with a shitty reader. Besides you could get a 80 gigabyte and return it if it doen't read your ps games.
  • edited October 2008
    You could get the new PS3, then buy a used PS1 for dirt cheap to cover backwards-compatibility. That way you get the nice warranty from the new product, as well as peace of mind from increased reliability and longevity. Personally, I tend to keep older consoles as long as I can, because nothing beats backwards-compatibility like actually having the original hardware.
  • edited October 2008
    I would probably buy a PS2 though... I'd probably be able to find a newer PS2 that would survive longer.

    Of course, my current PS2 is just old, I haven't had any problems with it other than the A/V cable being a bit loose in the back. It might last me for quite a while.
  • edited October 2008
    I like Mario's idea personally. Used systems can be kind of iffy, and I would suggest you do not buy used simply out of spite for Gamestop. They make little to no profit on new systems, so the markup on used is ridiculous.
  • edited October 2008
    And if you're picking between a used PS1 and a used PS2, the PS1s will be cheaper to replace if they go bad.
  • edited October 2008
    I called Gamestop to get a little extra info. I'll reserve a small amount of doubt just in case, but I found out some things.

    The new 80GB PS3, which is the only new system you can get, does not have backwards compatibility for PS2. It does, however, play PS1 games, regardless of model. (???)

    However, he said that though it isn't confirmed, rumor has it that the reason they're taking out backwards compatibility now is that they're going to make it an optional download in the future, so that if you don't want to play PS2 games, you don't need to take up the hard drive space. This makes sense, since all the backwards compatibility after the first two models was software based.

    The new PS3, however, lacks certain features. It has 2 USB ports instead of 4, no flash card reader, and no SACD support, and (currently) no PS2 compatibility. Now, will these be a big deal? Maybe not. I'm pretty sure the flash card reader and SACD reader won't be necessary, but I do know that lack of USB ports is a problem on the Xbox 360. I still have a PS2, so that's not a big deal, and it sounds like they may fix the compatibility problem in the future.

    So I guess my only concern is the lack of USB ports. I think, though, that almost all PS3 controllers are wireless, so that potentially nullifies that. But it's still a spot of worry in the back of my mind.

    But, as you both say, I do want to spite Gamestop, and the security of a new system is nice. I'm leaning toward a new 80GB system at this point.
  • edited October 2008
    Update:

    I've read a different source that states something contrary to what I was previously told. Apparently the rumor of a software add-on that would allow PS2 backwards compatibility is false. Of course this could be false as well. But the man essentially stated that the PS3 just doesn't have the capacity to run PS2 games on exclusively software support and make them look good. So if you want to run PS2 games, you're better off with the hardware emulation (60GB). Dammit. Why the hell couldn't they just keep the 60GB one in production?
  • edited October 2008
    Well, whatever you decide, INSTALL LINUX ON IT.
  • edited October 2008
    tofh046.gif
  • edited October 2008
    Hamelin wrote: »
    Well, whatever you decide, INSTALL LINUX ON IT.
    PS3 Linux can't use half of the console's hardware. You'd be better off just getting a cheap PC with TV-out if you want a Linux console.

    Or wait for the Pandora.
  • edited October 2008
    To my knowledge the new PS3's without hardware emulation could emulate both PS1 and PS2 games, but probably aren't that great at PS2 emulation much as your second story suggests.

    The older systems basically had an PS2 built in. This only really happened in North America and Sony was already losing loads of cash on every PS3 they sold so, they cut the PS2 hardware as a cost cutting measure.

    That said, the newer systems are using an updated processor that is more energy efficient than the original and the graphics hardware could be as well, I'm not sure on that. The upshot of that is that it would produce less heat meaning it can run a bit quieter (less cooling required) and/or last a bit longer (less stress on hardware). The lack of PS2 hardware certainly adds to this as well.

    That said, not being used isn't the only reason new hardware would be good.
  • edited October 2008
    You make an excellent point, good sir.

    And you may even have swayed me. I suppose PS2s are going to be quite plentiful for many years to come, so in the event that my PS2 craps out, I'm sure I could easily get a new one.

    And the new PS3 comes with a year warranty.

    But I plan on getting Guitar Hero and Rock Band eventually... will I have to resort to a crappy USB hub as you do with the Xbox Rock Band? That's why having 4 USB ports instead of 2 is attractive to me. That and the fact that new PS3s don't have any kind of card reader, unlike the 60GB model.

    Urrrghh... I don't know! Each path has pros and cons.

    60GB
    + 2 more USB hubs
    + Flash card reader
    + Plays PS2 and PS1 games nearly perfectly
    - Costs slightly more
    - Less energy efficient, may crap out sooner
    - Used, so a little more risky
    - Have to buy from Gamestop (probably)

    New 80GB
    + New system, so more reliable
    + Slightly less expensive
    + More energy efficient, lasts longer
    + 1 year warranty
    - Only 2 USB hubs
    - No card reader
    - Only plays PS1 games

    BUHH!! I don't know. New is sounding better right now. I have a fully functional PS2, it would be nice and shiny and all mine, and it would suck less power.

    Here's what I need: personal experience. Is there anyone out there with a PS3? Anyone who knows someone with a PS3? How necessary are those two extra USB ports, especially with peripheral-heavy games like Rock Band? Or were the two extra ports just unnecessary, so they cut them out?
  • edited October 2008
    Here's what I need: personal experience. Is there anyone out there with a PS3? Anyone who knows someone with a PS3? How necessary are those two extra USB ports, especially with peripheral-heavy games like Rock Band? Or were the two extra ports just unnecessary, so they cut them out?

    Rock Band I know requires you to buy a USB hub. I always found it odd that it didn't come with one, considering both the 360 and Wii versions do. But you can get one for pretty cheap, and then you'll have 5 USB ports! I don't know of any situation other than Rock Band/GH4 that requires more than 2 USB ports though. Unless you have a lot of wired controllers.
  • edited October 2008
    I thought all the controllers were wireless.

    Also, do you buy a special Playstation 3 USB hub, or just a general USB hub?

    Regardless, you again have made me reevaluate. It doesn't really matter that much whether it has the extra USB ports or card readers... if I REALLY need them I can just get external attachments.

    So, the only thing that remains is the lack of PS2 backwards compatibility, which doesn't seem like a large concern.

    80GB it is!
  • edited October 2008
    They are, but I’m not sure about Rockband (I don't have it). The only thing we use our USB ports are for charging the controllers and using the Playstation Eye

    Edit: from watching a un-boxing video the mic and drum use USB but the guitar is wireless, so 2 USB ports should be enough. Video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_t12s5oILKY&feature=related
  • edited October 2008
    I have Rock Band for PS3, I'm pretty sure we didn't have to buy anything extra despite having only two USB slots. Then again, I don't think we used bass as there were only three of us. I haven't tried hooking up all four instruments.
  • edited October 2008
    What I want is for Sony to make a high-definition PS2. Don't bother making it play Blu-Ray discs or handle the new PS3 games, just make it up-res PS2 games so that they look good on a HDTV. Probably never going to happen, though.
  • edited October 2008
    If you really want to be a nut about it I suppose if you could find a good enough capture device for a computer you could hook the PS2 to the computer and maybe you could find some software to upscale it through the video card? I'm really not sure about all this, but it sounds like something that could be done if you were really serious about it.
  • edited October 2008
    All that would do is make things blurry and blocky, and HDTVs already do that when playing SDTV content. The graphics would still only be rendered at SDTV resolutions (480i in most cases) and would simply be blown up for display on a higher-resolution screen.
  • edited October 2008
    I put little faith in the abilities of scaling hardware built into the TVs. A computer could probably do the job a bit better (as in it could possibly do more advanced upconverting techniques using the more powerful hardware), but regardless, what you are asking for is basically to remake hundreds to games to have HD content instead of SD content. They can't just make a new PS2 that magically recombobulates SD into HD or something. If you want HD content with a PS2, then get the proper component cables and take advantage of the couple PS2 games that aready are HD. And yes there are a couple HD PS2 games. You don't need new hardware for that.
  • edited October 2008
    I was all set to ignore the PS3 but then they announced Stephen Fry was going to be narrating littlebigplanet and I knew I needed one, regardless of cost. Now I'm essentially gonna be spending ~£300 on one game :(
  • edited October 2008
    XoLore wrote: »
    I put little faith in the abilities of scaling hardware built into the TVs. A computer could probably do the job a bit better (as in it could possibly do more advanced upconverting techniques using the more powerful hardware), but regardless, what you are asking for is basically to remake hundreds to games to have HD content instead of SD content. They can't just make a new PS2 that magically recombobulates SD into HD or something. If you want HD content with a PS2, then get the proper component cables and take advantage of the couple PS2 games that aready are HD. And yes there are a couple HD PS2 games. You don't need new hardware for that.
    All of the PS1 emulators I've tried were able to increase the resolution of the 3D stuff to whatever you wanted. I'm pretty sure the XBox 360 also uprezes the Xbox games it's compatible with.
  • edited October 2008
    I for one was seriously debating getting a PS3, but now it looks like Star Ocean 4 is only coming out for the 360. So... I am conflicted.
  • edited October 2008
    I'm pretty sure the XBox 360 also uprezes the Xbox games it's compatible with.

    The Xbox could be doing the upscaling thing I was talking about having the computer do. It'd just be doing it internally to the machine. On the other hand, the X-box uses directX which can support all this stuff pretty easily. Did you know the original X-box ran a stripped down version of windows 2000? It was basically a windows PC. It supported higher resolutions and all this from the beginning, so it's no surprise that the X-box games which already basically supported HD still do.
    All that would do is make things blurry and blocky, and HDTVs already do that when playing SDTV content. The graphics would still only be rendered at SDTV resolutions (480i in most cases) and would simply be blown up for display on a higher-resolution screen.

    This is what confused me. My argument is that this is basically false. The SD content is that way on the tv now because it is not upconverted in an effective manner internal to the TV. For whatever reasons the TV's don't scale stuff very well. It's like scaling a photo in mspaint versus scaling it in photoshop. A PC with the right software could do this much better. It's the same principle behind upconverting DVD palyers.

    The changing output res of the 3d part in PS1 emulators? This is a good point. I wasn't really thinking too hard about this with my earlier comment. But really, you'd need a faster version of the PS2 hardware that can run an extra layer of software to force a change in the rendering resolution and upscale the 2D bits while you're at it (what's the point otherwise?) and do so without a loss of performance. So basically a Playstation 2.5? That wouldn't make business sense. Sony can't afford to go developing consoles all will-nilly so stop dreaming.

    Your options are thus: Buy a PS3, or hook a PS2 to a PC and try to upconvert the signal that way as I said. If the PC option won't work then you have no recourse but to buy a PS3 for your PS2HD needs, and I don't even know if the PS3 will do a good job of that. It might these days, but I'm not up on that news.
  • edited October 2008
    The PlayStation 3 is the third home video game console produced by Sony Computer Entertainment, and the successor to the PlayStation 2 as part of the PlayStation series.
    ________
    Pattaya Heights Condos
  • edited October 2008
    I couldn't have put it better myself! Thank you for the informative input! I will have to request that you, as a spambot, not have any silly advertising signatures. I'm sure you understand. As long as you're only here to educate, I'm totally cool with you.
  • edited December 2008
    So. Today I bought my PS3.

    Here's the best part. It only cost me $250 plus shipping.

    Yes, I got a brand new 80 GB PS3 for the price of a Wii. So though I won't get backwards compatibility, I'll have a spanking new system within (hopefully) two weeks. Woot!
  • edited December 2008
    And I'm guessing you already have a damn PS2
  • edited December 2008
    Yes, I do. It's old, but dependable.
  • edited December 2008
    I tried to sign up for that deal! But I haven't yet been approved for the fancy Sony credit card. I fear that approval won't go through until the deal ends, which is the biggest piece of crock in the world. LittleBigPlanet beckons for me!!