Yo. I never cared too much about the new gen consoles. However, today I got my first HDtv, and so you could guess what I am thinking.. -I heard that the first PS3 models where able to play PS1 and PS2 titles, right? -What were it's models, I mean, how do I know which is the right to buy? -Any other functions it used to have? And.. if retro gaming was so cool, why did they remove it? Thanks
And here's the wiki article that alphagamer's image came from -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3#Retail_configurations For me desirability of models goes: 60gb, 20gb, 80gb, 40gb. That's because I viewed the PS2 backwards compatibility as an asset, whereas I think the buying public were more interested in a lower price. Price is the reason why backward compatibility went first from hardware to software & eventually was removed altogether from the 40gb units. Pulling it reduced the cost of each console to manufacture, saving Sony money. The wiki article describes the other hardware differences (wifi, card readers, etc).
From what I've heard last year, they did it to save on production costs, by removing the chip that allowed that. However they kept the PS3 at the same price, I think it was an idea to try to recover from all that money loss. Anyway, I dunno if that's true, it's just what I heard.
Thats exactly what they did. The kept the consoles at the original prices and removed the hardware for BC. only the 80GB has software BC (to be honest its not fully in software I think they took out the GS and left the EE chip in so its kinda half and half).
IIRC, the PS3 implemented the EE & GS in one chip package & thus both are gone after the motherboard revision. Also, at least some of the manufacturing cost reduction was later reflected in a later retail price reduction for the models remaining available. See this article for pics of the motherboard design with the EE+GS chip -> http://panajev.blogspot.com/2006/11/httppcwatchimpresscojpdocs20061111ps332.html And this one for pics of the revised design first introduced for Europe -> http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/24/europes-playstation-3-motherboard-on-display/
I'd heard the opposite. They emulate the EE, but the GS chip is still needed. Someone suggested something to do with the difficulty of emulating some kind of RAM behavior or something related to the GS. I don't think it's worth it to lose PS2 BC to save a few bucks now.
I've heard both, but I've yet to see a teardown pic where the GS chip is positively identified on the newer boards. I've not looked that hard though, so I could be persuaded otherwise. That would explain the rationale for the existence of the 40gb design (with no emulation, even in software). I agree that losing the PS2 BC isn't worth saving a few bucks, but I'm guessing that the EE+GS is a relatively expensive piece of silicon, so they probably saved more than a few bucks. Hmmm, I wonder what the cost difference between a EE+GS design and a GS design actually is?
Thanks for the replies dudes! I now feel more "updated" =) Another question... I heard that the PS2 emulation on the PS3 was worse graphically than the actual PS2. Is this correct?
Initally the PS3 had graphics issues I believe. However they were fixed in a firmware update. I don't think the EE or GS alone costs that much. Certainly not worth it in the long run unless you despise the PS2 generation of games.
This was true on the earlier PS3 firmware, as there were some bugs in the upscaling code - I think that issue is pretty much fixed now (at least I've not seen problems on the games I've looked at). Part of the issue is that PS3s are generally going to get hooked up to shiny new HDTVs & these tend to make any images at lower screen resolutions look a bit jaggy, even when the upscaling is working well.
Thanks, I guess that if I happen to buy a PS3 in the future, I'll go for the cheapest one.. since I got a Ps2 already. I got another n00B question. I am really out of the Playstation seen.. whatever! We all know tha the PS3 runs bluray disks.. and the TV I bought, LG HDtv, doesnt seem to feature bluray compatibility. Or does it have=? At leat on the functions guide, it doesnt point out anything about it. Does this means the xbox360 will look better then the PS3 on my tv? (yeah, I know this is f**in noobish...it's a shame to ask I know xD)
There no such thing as a tv not supporting blue ray, but there is such a thing as issues with old tvs and HDCP compatibility. If i remember right the NTSC/U Ps3 doesnt have HDCP enabled, also if ur tv is brand new there will not b a problem. Picture quality between x360 and PS3 on ur tv would be affected on the type of connection used to hook one or the other up to the tv not blue ray playback.
@Treamcaster No the us 60gb sku doesnt have hdcp disabled or we could rip hd content straight from the output. Debugging stations have an option to turn it off but not retail units. If I were you i would get a ntsc u/j (either or) 60gb model. Every revision after that they tried to cut costs. just my opinion though. oh and the ee chip they removed saved them something like $30 to $33 us dollars.
The 80GB PS3 still had the GS and EDRAM for compatibility with PS2. It's not perfect, but most mainstream games work fine in my experience. Supposedly removing the EE saved $20 and removing the EE/GS combo and EDRAM saved $45. Times 5 million, that's a lot of money!
Factor in that the PS2 makes money when sold, so sell people a PS2 in addition to a PS3, and all is swell in the money books
Bullshit, my PAL 60 GB PS3 emulates PS2 and PSX more than good, removing it completely was RETARDED since PAL units did it by software anyway. :fresh:
It only emulated the emotion engine & IOP, the graphic synthesiser existed on every motherboard with PS2 backward compatibility. Everywhere I've looked the price of a second hand PAL PS3 with PS2 backward compatibility is higher than the cost of a new PS3 + PS2. On that basis, I think it's a waste of money. My old fat PS2 looks good enough on my 1080p tv anyway.
