Sony rumors

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

02 Jul 2003, 07:49 PM
Mr_Furious

Quote:

Originally posted by MechDeus
But if it didn't feel cheap then it wouldn't be a PlayStation! *rimshot*

Actually, Sony does make high end products that are actually very well built and reliable. I find it silly for people to think of their PS2 as a "high end" electronics device (or compare it to).

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeremy
MS and Nintendo don't have anything to mop up on in regards to the PSX, since it's not a new console, but just a revamped PS2 with tons of extras. Still, $850 is a bit steep for anything gaming related when the company has such a shaky track record for gaming stuff.

But things like the PSX happen in Japan all the time. Even though Sony may initially intend to release the PSX outside of Japan, I think ultimately they'll come to their senses. There's simply no viable market for it (at least in the U.S.).
02 Jul 2003, 08:02 PM
Omni

Quote:

Originally posted by 88mph
Then get yourself a PSone.

Nah. Saving a little bit of space is not worth money.

Well, maybe $10.
02 Jul 2003, 08:12 PM
Agent X

First of all, these are clearly labeled as rumors, not facts. It's possible any, or all, or none of these things can happen.

Now, regarding PlayStation 3 compatibility with PS1:

Quote:

Originally posted by Wildkat
The Chip that does the PS1 processing is embeded into the PS2 arcitecture, it will be there no matter what.

Yes, and there's the key. The PS2's I/O processor is pretty much a PS1 on a chip. They can't just eliminate that chip, unless they want to throw PS2 compatibility out the window as well. For that reason, it would actually be more difficult to make it so that it plays PS2 games but doesn't play PS1 games, than it would be to make it so that it plays both systems' discs. I suppose they could arrange it so that the system recognizes PS1 discs and simply refuses to boot them after that, but why?

A good analogy would be if Nintendo designed the Game Boy Advance system so that it could play Game Boy Color games, but not original (monochrome) Game Boy games. It could be done, but it would take more effort to retain GBC compatibility while locking out the monochrome GB games, than it would to just leave monochrome GB support in there.
02 Jul 2003, 08:14 PM
MVS

Quote:

Originally posted by StriderKyo
No way it costs that much at launch. No way. MS and Nintendo would mop the floor with them.

This is the kind of thing they throw out there so that when it launches at $449.99 early adopters think they're getting some awesome value.

It's a high end set top box, not a PS2.

PS2 will still be 149, you know.

Or 199 or whatever it is now.
02 Jul 2003, 08:53 PM
Mr_Furious

Quote:

Originally posted by Wildkat
The Chip that does the PS1 processing is embeded into the PS2 arcitecture, it will be there no matter what.

Well yes and no. The PS1 is emulated at least for the processing of graphics. Other calculations do have their own dedicated PS1 chipset and the only common chip used on PS1/PS2 is the sound processor. The PS2 emulates and recalculates how polys are rendered which is the reason for incompatibility with some games.

In order for the PS3 to do the same thing as PS2 it would need to both emulate PS2 AND PS1 which might not be worth Sony's effort/hassle to implement since the PS2 emulates the graphics processing of the PS1. Layering emulation might be a complete mess.
02 Jul 2003, 08:54 PM
StriderKyo

Quote:

Originally posted by MVS
It's a high end set top box, not a PS2.

PS2 will still be 149, you know.

Or 199 or whatever it is now.

Sorry, I read that as being the rumoured PS3 price. My mistake.
02 Jul 2003, 09:48 PM
RoleTroll

That's exactly what I expected. The Genesis had the SMS's Z-80 for the sound chip, the PS2 uses the PS1 for I/O -- that's fine, but it only goes back one generation. Sega said that adding Genesis capabilities to the Saturn would add nearly the cost of a Genesis to the price of the Saturn.

Did you really think the PS9 would be housing nine different consoles? Not bloody likely. The Xbox, on the other hand, should be able to do that kind of backwards compatibility with ease ... for free. Using off-the-shelf PC parts is costly, but it does have some advantages.
04 Jul 2003, 02:33 AM
Agent X

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr_Furious
Well yes and no. The PS1 is emulated at least for the processing of graphics. Other calculations do have their own dedicated PS1 chipset and the only common chip used on PS1/PS2 is the sound processor.

OK, I did not know that. I was under the impression that the PS2's I/O chip contained the vast majority of the PS1 chipset (or a condensed version of it).

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr_Furious
The PS2 emulates and recalculates how polys are rendered which is the reason for incompatibility with some games.

Wouldn't this support what I said earlier? If this "emulation" is done at the PS2 level, then by virtue of the PS3 including PS2 compatibility, it must include this feature also.

If the PS2 hardware still contains some unique PS1 chips that are only used for PS1 games and completely unused for PS2 games, then those chips could be omitted if (assuming the rumors are true) PS1 compatibility is going to be discarded in the PS3. The questions then become: How much of the chipset is unnecessary to retain compatibility with PS2 games? How much monetary savings would be realized by omitting these chips?

If the cost of these chips is relatively low, then it might be better for Sony's image in the public eye if they simply include them in the PS3 and retain PS1 compatibility. Some people like not having an extra console hooked up if they can help it. Also, Game Boy Advance has already set a precedent by successfully implementing backward compatibility to two generations back--why shouldn't Sony follow suit?

Quote:

Originally posted by RoleTroll
That's exactly what I expected. The Genesis had the SMS's Z-80 for the sound chip, the PS2 uses the PS1 for I/O -- that's fine, but it only goes back one generation. Sega said that adding Genesis capabilities to the Saturn would add nearly the cost of a Genesis to the price of the Saturn.

Well, the Genesis and Saturn have a lot less in common with each other than the relationship between PS1 and PS2. Externally, the PS2 uses the same physical interfaces for controllers, memory cards, A/V cables, and power cables. The PS2's DVD drive can also accept PS1 CD games. It was clearly designed with backward compatibility in mind.

Quote:

Originally posted by RoleTroll
Did you really think the PS9 would be housing nine different consoles? Not bloody likely. The Xbox, on the other hand, should be able to do that kind of backwards compatibility with ease ... for free. Using off-the-shelf PC parts is costly, but it does have some advantages.

I'm not so convinced that this would be free, either. Already, there are strong rumors saying that Microsoft might choose ATI for the graphics chip for their next system, instead of Nvidia as they did with the X-Box. I remember the ballyhoo about Nvidia's X-Box graphics chip being not your garden variety GeForce 3 or GeForce 4, but a custom solution tailored specifically for the X-Box. If that is the case (as per Microsoft hype and fanboy frothings), then I wonder just how much intellectual property Nvidia is willing to cough up to the rumored Microsoft/ATI alliance if Microsoft feels like retaining backward compatibility with the original X-Box system.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page