# Sony screwed up again huh.



## Kitoth (Mar 31, 2009)

So Sony has really F***ed up huh. A ton of people waiting about those rumors about a PS3 price drop only to finally find out that there was a price drop from Sony but not for the PS3, but for the PS2. Its now going to sell for $100. This is the worst idea the Sony game department has done. This is going to force a lot away from the Ps3 and thus hurt them more. The majority of gamers already have a working Ps2 and since they are only making a few new games for it, this is going to hurt Sony.

Will this change those who were waiting for news about a rumored drop, in some to maybe most cases yes. others will still wait or jsut go and get the damn thing.. I myself have decided that I'll just get one and get what games i want. Some may say thats a bad idea but I got my mind set. Though the priority of it has gone down on my list of things i want to get now.

Love to hear you thoughts and opinions on all of this so feel free to comment.

Source: http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/ps2-to-drop-under-100-on-april-1/1300867

Also what are your thoughts about the OnLive thing:

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/pcworld/...nlivewillitbeatxbox360ps3andwiiattheirowngame

Love to hear all your comments.


----------



## Grimfang (Mar 31, 2009)

I don't understand how rumors can be held against Sony in this scenario. It's a let-down, but that's what happens when people get their hopes up on a rumor they read on the internet.

After thought: A price drop would be nice. I really wonder if Sony could afford it though. I'm not a fan, and mainly because the price range of their stuff chops me out of their market.


----------



## Takun (Mar 31, 2009)

$100 PS2?

FUCK YEAH.  Going to get me a new one!

I HAVE SO MANY GAMES OMG.


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 31, 2009)

of course they deny the pricedrop^^ who in his right mind would buy a PS3 now if he knows that it will be 100$ cheaper in a few weeks/months?
just look at the PSP: they denied a slim version and shortly after that they released the slim and light PSPs 
there WILL be a PS3 pricedrop. my guess is that its gonna be announced at E3 at the very latest and it will be enforced right after its announcement.


----------



## Panzermanathod (Mar 31, 2009)

Oh, I thought this was a legitimate screw up. I kinda agree with Grimfang.


----------



## Furlop (Mar 31, 2009)

Kitoth said:


> Love to hear all your comments.



Perpetuating unfounded rumors and then trying to incite discussion on a topic that already has a multiple page thread.

Sorry, I won't be able to comment without getting another warning from the admins.


----------



## Lukar (Mar 31, 2009)

Dammit Sony, we did NOT want a fucking PS2 price drop.


----------



## mottled.kitten (Mar 31, 2009)

Actually, I need a new PS2...
lol

But I'd like a wii MORE.


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 31, 2009)

There's a thread already here on OnLive.
As Grimfang said; you can't hold a company responsible for rumors not being true, you're lucky it was mostly true.

As well, sony loses a lot of money already on every PS3. Go purchase an Xbox 360 and a blu-ray drive just to see how much.


----------



## Shokuji (Mar 31, 2009)

They make money on PS2s, not so much for PS3s. o.o; What they need is more & better games, then the system will sell on it's own.


----------



## Nathyn (Mar 31, 2009)

As much as I love Sony, I don't love them enough to warrant myself to go out any buy a PS3. There's still very few games that even interest me and my PS2 is working completely fine (it's an original launch version too). Not only that the games for it are all cheap as hell.

@Shokuji That's true. I go to a family owned video game store for all my gaming needs. He sells more PS2's and games then any other system he offers. (and he offers everything from the original Atari)


----------



## Shokuji (Mar 31, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> As well, sony loses a lot of money already on every PS3. Go purchase an Xbox 360 and a blu-ray drive just to see how much.


 I think it's down to just $50 loss now. (http://www.digitalbattle.com/2009/01/02/it-costs-sony-448-to-make-a-ps3/)


----------



## Runefox (Mar 31, 2009)

As has been said, nobody would buy a PS3 if they knew a price drop was coming. If a price drop was coming in a week's time, nobody in their right mind would go out of their way to buy a PS3 for the pre-drop price in that week. That can really hurt sales.

Also:



> As well, sony loses a lot of money already on every PS3. Go purchase an Xbox 360 and a blu-ray drive just to see how much.



... What? I don't get that last part. How does an X-Box 360 and a Blu-ray drive have anything to do with Sony's losses on the PS3?


----------



## Sam (Mar 31, 2009)

What's the point? Used Playststions here, including new one pretty much go for 50-75$. PS2 is antique, and the PS3 is a joke. It's too expensive, and it has none of the titles i'd like to play.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Mar 31, 2009)

Runefox said:


> ... What? I don't get that last part. How does an X-Box 360 and a Blu-ray drive have anything to do with Sony's losses on the PS3?



He's kinda comparing red apples to green ones; it's similar, but not relevant to one another.


----------



## Nathyn (Mar 31, 2009)

Sam said:


> What's the point? Used Playststions here, including new one pretty much go for 50-75$. PS2 is antique, and the PS3 is a joke. It's too expensive, and it has none of the titles i'd like to play.



And Sony pretty much knew the PS3 was a joke since they allowed the PS2 to exist alongside it. Just think, if Sony had canned the PS2 right after the launch of the PS3, would Sony still be here today?


----------



## lilEmber (Mar 31, 2009)

Runefox said:


> ... What? I don't get that last part. How does an X-Box 360 and a Blu-ray drive have anything to do with Sony's losses on the PS3?


It's basically the same console with a blu-ray drive, which costs a lot (yeah I know there's lots of other differences too).


----------



## Panzermanathod (Mar 31, 2009)

Nathyn said:


> And Sony pretty much knew the PS3 was a joke since they allowed the PS2 to exist alongside it.



Just like how they allowed the PSX to exist when the PS2 came about?


----------



## Nathyn (Apr 1, 2009)

Panzermanathod said:


> Just like how they allowed the PSX to exist when the PS2 came about?



The PSX didn't last as long as the PS2, also considering the PS2 could play PSX games. So, there really was no point to allow the PSX to exist as long as the PS2 has lived. Sony really pissed me off when they took away the backwards gaming for the PS3.


----------



## Panzermanathod (Apr 1, 2009)

The PSX lasted over 11 years (as in how long they were producing PSX consoles). The PS2 is pretty much 10 years even.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 1, 2009)

Panzermanathod said:


> The PSX lasted over 11 years (as in how long they were producing PSX consoles). The PS2 is pretty much 10 years even.



What? No.
The PSX isn't the PS1, and the PSX didn't last a year (to my knowledge) anywhere outside of Japan, and not much longer within Japan.


----------



## Nathyn (Apr 1, 2009)

Panzermanathod said:


> The PSX lasted over 11 years (as in how long they were producing PSX consoles). The PS2 is pretty much 10 years even.



I go by games being made, and from what I recall, Sony cut the PSX pretty fast. Seriously, who want want to buy the PSX console when they could get a PS2 that plays both PSX and PS2 games? 

However, not only were PS2 consoles still being sold after the launch of the PS3, PS2 games were still being made for the PS2. Sure, over time, the games being released were only ones that were available for every console out there.


----------



## Nathyn (Apr 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> What? No.
> The PSX isn't the PS1, and the PSX didn't last a year (to my knowledge) anywhere outside of Japan, and not much longer within Japan.



That's like saying the PS2 slim isn't a PS2. The PSX and PS1 played the same games, thus, they were the same system.


----------



## Panzermanathod (Apr 1, 2009)

Nathyn said:


> I go by games being made, and from what I recall, Sony cut the PSX pretty fast.



From what I've seen, there were PSX games made for it years after the PS2 was launched. it wasn't a quick severing of ties.


----------



## Carenath (Apr 1, 2009)

Nathyn said:


> The PSX didn't last as long as the PS2, also considering the PS2 could play PSX games. So, there really was no point to allow the PSX to exist as long as the PS2 has lived. Sony really pissed me off when they took away the backwards gaming for the PS3.


The fact that the PS3 wont play PS2 games, is why I still have my PS2.


----------



## PriestRevan (Apr 1, 2009)

Oh well. Thank the good lord I'm not a sony fan.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 1, 2009)

Nathyn said:


> That's like saying the PS2 slim isn't a PS2. The PSX and PS1 played the same games, thus, they were the same system.



The PSX could play DVDs, no they're not the same system. The PS2 could easily play almost any PS1 game and the PS3 could play most PS1 and PS2 games at first, the newer models of the PS3 can't because nobody cared anyway. Seriously you can now get a brand new PS2 (slim) for $100, second hand it's even less (especially non-slim) and why waste more money in a system they're already losing money over (the PS3 sells for less money than it takes to make). Backwards compatibility didn't work well in the PS3 in the beginning when it was able to do it, many games (especially PS1 games) didn't work, or work properly; instead of wasting more money into this as well resources on the PS3 to emulate the hardware they simply cut it out. If this bothers you so much go email/call/message/etc them about it and complain, I'm sure they (and anybody that owns a PS3) cares enough about not being able to play PS1 and PS2 games.


----------



## Adrianfolf (Apr 1, 2009)

I own a PS3 and I don't give a rats ass about it being able to play PS2 games in fact I'm glad they dropped it from the PS3 because that alone gives me a good reason to still use my big black box of love


----------



## Kirbizard (Apr 1, 2009)

Nathyn said:


> That's like saying the PS2 slim isn't a PS2. The PSX and PS1 played the same games, thus, they were the same system.



To put this simply, that's both saying the PS2 slim was out for the same length of time as a regular PS2 and the Wii is the same as a Gamecube for playing the same games.

Case rested. You were wrong.


----------



## Panzermanathod (Apr 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The PSX could play DVDs, no they're not the same system.



I looked it up and see what you're talking about. 

However, the name of "PSX" was used for years before that particular system came out.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 1, 2009)

OK, for those who _don't_ know, the PSX != Playstation. It was Sony's Playstation 2 armed with DVR functionality and the then-experimental XMB interface. Go check it out. Hooray on Sony for releasing a console with an acronym that supersedes its old consoles!

Anyway...



> It's basically the same console with a blu-ray drive, which costs a lot (yeah I know there's lots of other differences too).



Oh god. OK, there are so many things wrong with that statement. First, the 360 uses a commodity PowerPC-based CPU from IBM. The PS3 uses a more-or-less-built-for-the-PS3 Cell processor which _arguably_ is more powerful than the PowerPC in the 360. The 360 makes use of IR for Media Centre remotes and proprietary RF for its controllers. The PS3 makes use of Bluetooth to connect controllers, headsets, remotes, and what have you. The 360 makes use of a variable buffer between its video memory and system memory from a pool of 512MB; The PS3 is split 256/256. The 360 doesn't come with WiFi capabilities (not a big deal, really, but); the PS3 does, which makes it much easier to download updates/demos/etc, though I wouldn't recommend gaming over it. The PS3 (or at least, _my_ PS3) runs much more quietly and cooler thanks to a much better cooling solution. The 360's controllers run on AA batteries or rechargeable battery packs; The PS3's controllers run on internal batteries chargeable via USB, or on USB directly.

They can't be compared like that. The 360 is a much more cost-effective game console than the PS3, but the PS3 contains a lot of components that were exclusively built with the PS3 in mind. They're both completely different systems with completely different goals.

EDIT:


> However, the name of "PSX" was used for years before that particular system came out.


Yeah, well, now you're going to have to say PSX1 or PSX2 if you want to continue using that acronym. I tend to just say PS1. That's what Sony calls it; The PSX moniker came from the "Playstation Experimental" development codename.


----------



## Panzermanathod (Apr 1, 2009)

I'll just stick with PSX... because I'm too used to calling it that.

As for Newf, when he brought up the PS1 being different from the PSX, I thought he was talking about the "Experimental" as well, which confused me because I know the PS1 went public in '94 and DVD's being made public in '96 (there was an old Time magizine I saw in my house once... oddly enough knowing DVD's came out at around '96 was the only thing I remember from it.)


----------



## Foxstar (Apr 1, 2009)

Adrianfolf said:


> I own a PS3 and I don't give a rats ass about it being able to play PS2 games in fact I'm glad they dropped it from the PS3 because that alone gives me a good reason to still use my big black box of love



Cool. 

You however are not the sum whole of the market.

People need more then Blu-ray and PS3/PS1 games to shell out $400 dollars. Sony's simply cutting PS2 prices to try and deal with the red ink caused by the PS3 and the global downturn.


----------



## Adrianfolf (Apr 1, 2009)

Foxstar said:


> Cool.
> 
> You however are not the sum whole of the market.
> 
> People need more then Blu-ray and PS3/PS1 games to shell out $400 dollars. Sony's simply cutting PS2 prices to try and deal with the red ink caused by the PS3 and the global downturn.



Yeah I agree with you I think it would have been a better idea to just drop them both at the same time


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 1, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Oh god. OK, there are so many things wrong with that statement. First, the 360 uses a commodity PowerPC-based CPU from IBM. The PS3 uses a more-or-less-built-for-the-PS3 Cell processor which _arguably_ is more powerful than the PowerPC in the 360. The 360 makes use of IR for Media Centre remotes and proprietary RF for its controllers. The PS3 makes use of Bluetooth to connect controllers, headsets, remotes, and what have you. The 360 makes use of a variable buffer between its video memory and system memory from a pool of 512MB; The PS3 is split 256/256. The 360 doesn't come with WiFi capabilities (not a big deal, really, but); the PS3 does, which makes it much easier to download updates/demos/etc, though I wouldn't recommend gaming over it. The PS3 (or at least, _my_ PS3) runs much more quietly and cooler thanks to a much better cooling solution. The 360's controllers run on AA batteries or rechargeable battery packs; The PS3's controllers run on internal batteries chargeable via USB, or on USB directly.


Right, and still the price of a 360 and a blue-ray drive would be more than the PS3, thanks for pointing out the 360 is dirt cheap hardware but still would cost more if it had a blu-ray drive, which was my point; I know the hardware is different, but my point was the PS3 is expensive for a reason.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Right, and still the price of a 360 and a blue-ray drive would be more than the PS3, thanks for pointing out the 360 is dirt cheap hardware but still would cost more if it had a blu-ray drive, which was my point; I know the hardware is different, but my point was the PS3 is expensive for a reason.



No, that doesn't really add up. You must first remove the cost of the DVD drive. Next, add the cost of _supplier-costed_ (NOT consumer-purchased), bulk-purchased Blu-ray drive. Check numbers again.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 1, 2009)

Runefox said:


> No, that doesn't really add up. You must first remove the cost of the DVD drive. Next, add the cost of _supplier-costed_ (NOT consumer-purchased), bulk-purchased Blu-ray drive. Check numbers again.



It's still pretty damn close, and if you wish to throw in the rest of the system it gets closer; either way you look at it, for what you're paying for Microsoft charges more. Even if it's a better system because of games, the PS3 has the potential to be much greater.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> PS3 has the potential to be much greater.



Potential means fucking nothing if the market isn't there to support it.

LOOK AT MAC/LINUX


----------



## Runefox (Apr 1, 2009)

I hear this is the year of the Linux Desktop.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 1, 2009)

Eli said:


> Potential means fucking nothing if the market isn't there to support it.
> 
> LOOK AT MAC/LINUX



Linux yes, Mac no.
But the market is there, the gaming market is massive and once more games come out like MGS4 and Killzone 2 more sales will occur.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 1, 2009)

> ... more sales will occur


Hell, they got a sale from me, didn't they? After already buying a 360 that I couldn't afford.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> But the market is there, the gaming market is massive and once more games come out like MGS4 and Killzone 2 more sales will occur.



The market that developers are looking for isn't though. They aren't here to make games you love. they are here to make money. 

(and that's why there is so much shovel ware for the wii. It's the PS2 of this generation)


----------



## Runefox (Apr 1, 2009)

> (and that's why there is so much shovel ware for the wii. It's the *flash game repository* of this generation)


Fixed that for you.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 1, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Fixed that for you.



dude. do you remember how much fucking shovel ware was made for the PS2?


----------



## Runefox (Apr 1, 2009)

Eli said:


> dude. do you remember how much fucking shovel ware *is still being made* for the PS2?



Fixed, and yes, but I also remember that most of it had more substance than, oh, say, Chicken Shoot. As much as I complain about the many thousands of random, shallow jRPG's that were/are being released for the PS2, nothing can really compare to the fact that most of the shovelware for the Wii happens to be Flash game knockoffs, direct flash game ports, or games that may as well just be flash games, like Cooking Mama.

So I'd rather not compare it to the legions of crappy shovelware games that took actual effort to create at some point. Instead, I'd rather compare it to the legions of crappy Flash games that are indeed feeding it. It's funny, I remember long ago when the Wii was called Revolution and they were showing off Metroid Prime footage, I remarked that the whole "point the remote at the screen and watch the cursor fly around" bit reminded me of on-rails Flash shooters. I suppose that was a bit of foreshadowing.

Of course, there are _good_ Wii games, but... Well...


----------



## Nathyn (Apr 1, 2009)

Kirbizard said:


> To put this simply, that's both saying the PS2 slim was out for the same length of time as a regular PS2 and the Wii is the same as a Gamecube for playing the same games.
> 
> Case rested. You were wrong.



Bad analogies. Try again. The Wii can play gamecube games, yes. I never said the Wii and the Gamecube were the same exact system. Sure, you can get technical and say the Wii is pretty much a Gamecube since it can play the discs, however, it's old tech, nothing new. 

However, the PS1 and the PSX (the PSX merely a smaller version of the PS1) are the same system. They played the same games. 

Just as the PS2 and the PS2 Slim (the PS2 Slim merely a smaller version of the PS2) are the same system. And once again you can get technical and say the  PS2 is a PS1 since it can play the games. 

But to sit there and say the PS1 and the PSX, as well as the PS2 and the PS2 Slim are all different systems is an idiotic statement. 

Once again, that's like saying the DS and the DS Lite are two different systems.


----------



## Aurali (Apr 1, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Fixed, and yes, but I also remember that most of it had more substance than, oh, say, Chicken Shoot. As much as I complain about the many thousands of random, shallow jRPG's that were/are being released for the PS2, nothing can really compare to the fact that most of the shovelware for the Wii happens to be Flash game knockoffs, direct flash game ports, or games that may as well just be flash games, like Cooking Mama.
> 
> So I'd rather not compare it to the legions of crappy shovelware games that took actual effort to create at some point. Instead, I'd rather compare it to the legions of crappy Flash games that are indeed feeding it. It's funny, I remember long ago when the Wii was called Revolution and they were showing off Metroid Prime footage, I remarked that the whole "point the remote at the screen and watch the cursor fly around" bit reminded me of on-rails Flash shooters. I suppose that was a bit of foreshadowing.
> 
> Of course, there are _good_ Wii games, but... Well...



hrm. Don't seem to understand how easy it is to make shovelware do ya?
But how did we get here? Fanboism?


----------



## Runefox (Apr 1, 2009)

Eli said:


> hrm. Don't seem to understand how easy it is to make shovelware do ya?
> But how did we get here? Fanboism?



Eh, not really. Just observing the growing pile of titles I don't want to play on the PS2 and the growing pile of titles I don't want to play on the Wii.


----------



## Imperial Impact (Apr 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The PSX isn't the PS1,


 What the fuck?

Yes it is, In fact the PSX was the beta name for the PS1.


----------



## Foxstar (Apr 1, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Linux yes, Mac no.
> But the market is there, the gaming market is massive and once more games come out like MGS4 and Killzone 2 more sales will occur.



SDFers have been saying that for years. When Lair comes out, when Heavenly Sword comes out, when Uncharted comes out, when MGS4 comes out, when Little Big Planet comes out.
Every few months it's some other game and the sales still stagnate.


----------



## Runefox (Apr 1, 2009)

Foxstar said:


> SDFers have been saying that for years. When Lair comes out, when Heavenly Sword comes out, when Uncharted comes out, when MGS4 comes out, when Little Big Planet comes out.
> Every few months it's some other game and the sales still stagnate.



Well, there IS one thing that's happened recently, and that's that Sony has released a new SDK that supposedly makes it much easier to program for the PS3, which should give it some more wiggle room. That said, the main reason why the PS3 isn't popular right now is because there aren't many exclusive titles being produced at all right now, which puts Sony at a disadvantage because its hardware is more expensive to play the same games as Microsoft's hardware.


----------



## Kirbizard (Apr 2, 2009)

Nathyn said:


> Bad analogies. Try again.


They weren't bad analogies, they were exactly what you said to begin with. :9


----------



## Kitoth (Apr 2, 2009)

Sorry I did not reply sooner forgot to make it send me e-mail notices when a rply. well anyway.

I want to get a Ps3 because there are games on it that I really want to play, and will not be on any other console unless of course something like a merger happens you know.. As for a 360 there are also games on that I want to play, but my issue is this. The Ps3 is $400 not including the tax which is 5% here. I don't care about the 120 gig version atm. I just want a damn price drop.. The 360 if I get the arcade like some suggest, it will cost me $200 plus tax, and then of course for the HD another $135 plus tax since i don't want the 20 gig one and seems no 60 gig hd's for it so its more wasting moeny on my opinion. Also I can only play single player games or single player modes of games that may in fact have little or none, until i get the HD, and if I want the 60 gig its $300 without tax and if i want the 120 one its also $400 without tax. So leaves little room to get games and stuff i might need to enjoy it. In all honest opinion I'd love to get a 360 where its used yes but a trusted 100% guarantee the damn thing will work on me. but of course that is hard to do since that stupid Red ring issue and the new issue with the E73 which is honestly stupid because if you make something like a PC and the hardware inside has a life span like that. wth you know.


----------



## Nathyn (Apr 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The PSX could play DVDs



http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn151/DarkHorseUnited/psx.jpg

^

That could not play DVDs.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 2, 2009)

Nathyn said:


> http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn151/DarkHorseUnited/psx.jpg
> 
> ^
> 
> That could not play DVDs.



That's a PS1, this is a PSX: http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20031213/psx3_01.jpg


----------



## Imperial Impact (Apr 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> That's a PS1, this is a PSX: http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20031213/psx3_01.jpg


 lol bootleg.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 2, 2009)

The Japanese PSX totally failed, Newf, I don't know what you're trying to do.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 2, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> The Japanese PSX totally failed, Newf, I don't know what you're trying to do.


He's calling the PS1 a PSX, when it's not; the PSX exists.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 2, 2009)

PSX is more commonly used to refer to the original PlayStation but I understand what you're talkin' 'bout.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 2, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> PSX is more commonly used to refer to the original PlayStation but I understand what you're talkin' 'bout.



Not once in my life have I ever heard anybody call a Playstation System a PSX, I've heard PlayStation, PlayStation One, PS1, PS, Original PlayStation, Old PlayStation, (as well as the slim variants for all).


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Not once in my life have I ever heard anybody call a Playstation System a PSX, I've heard PlayStation, PlayStation One, PS1, PS, Original PlayStation, Old PlayStation, (as well as the slim variants for all).



Neither have I, but when sony remade the PS1, it was called PSX for some odd reason. Unless they got rid of the name, and are re-using it for their new console.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 2, 2009)

Ark said:


> Neither have I, but when sony remade the PS1, it was called PSX for some odd reason.


What? Show me.
The PSX (as I remember) was a console that came out before the PS2 but after the PS1, it could play DVD's as well do some other odd shit I can't remember because it didn't get past a year and the PS2 came out later, which to date is the best console ever, with the most sold.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> What? Show me.
> The PSX (as I remember) was a console that came out before the PS2 but after the PS1, it could play DVD's as well do some other odd shit I can't remember because it didn't get past a year and the PS2 came out later, which to date is the best console ever, with the most sold.



I just remember the name floating around, but there was no console by that name that existed. Who knows, it's all a blur to me now.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 2, 2009)

Ark said:


> I just remember the name floating around, but there was no console by that name that existed. Who knows, it's all a blur to me now.



I hate the mass consumer base. :\


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I hate the mass consumer base. :\



Are you like some die hard sony fan or some somethin'?


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 2, 2009)

Ark said:


> Are you like some die hard sony fan or some somethin'?


Nope, I'm no die-hard fan of any company, only products.


----------



## Shokuji (Apr 2, 2009)

Ark said:


> when sony remade the PS1, it was called PSX for some odd reason.


 I thought they renamed it "PSone"

Proof: http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/PS1
Read: "PS oneâ„¢"


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 2, 2009)

Shokuji said:


> I thought they renamed it "PSone"
> 
> Proof: http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/PS1
> Read: "PS oneâ„¢"



Yeah, me too.


----------



## Bellini Tabloid (Apr 2, 2009)

Shokuji said:


> I thought they renamed it "PSone"
> 
> Proof: http://www.us.playstation.com/Support/PS1
> Read: "PS oneâ„¢"



Yeah, your right. I just remember seeing the name before.


----------



## lilEmber (Apr 2, 2009)

Ark said:


> I'm to lazy to check the history of sony, ok.



They started out as "S" and eventually bought out "O", the rest is history.


----------



## Panzermanathod (Apr 2, 2009)

I've pretty much always referred to the original Playstation as the Playstation or the PSX. Just because there was a PSX that played DVD's doesn't mean there's not another PSX that represents the original Playstation. I mean, I can see where the confusion was coming from, but some of you guys were acting hard headed about it.


----------



## Foxstar (Apr 2, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Not once in my life have I ever heard anybody call a Playstation System a PSX, I've heard PlayStation, PlayStation One, PS1, PS, Original PlayStation, Old PlayStation, (as well as the slim variants for all).



Maybe you haven't up there in the Great White North, but i've been hearing it called that and seeing it called that from before it was even out. What the hell does it matter anyway?


----------



## Runefox (Apr 2, 2009)

No, it's been called the PSX up here, too. Again, it's Sony's internal name for it - Playstation Experimental. It was never the official name, though.


----------



## Bokracroc (Apr 2, 2009)

+1 for PSX use in Down-under.


----------



## Zero_Point (Apr 7, 2009)

Screw your $100 PS2, I'mma go buy me a THIRD $50 Dreamcast! DREAMCAST, BITCHES! Man, I bet you're all SO jealous that I have TWO of them already! You just WISH you were as cool as me!


----------



## Corto (Apr 7, 2009)

Unless someone linked to Wikipedia I didn't know what this whole "PSX" discussion was all about, because for me the PSX was the name for the original, big, fat and gray console and named like that to tell it apart from the "PSOne", name used to denote the slim version of the PSX. Not only had I never heard of that PSX console, but everyone I went (including most spanish game sites) used PSX as the name of the original PS.


----------



## Bokracroc (Apr 7, 2009)

Zero_Point said:


> Screw your $100 PS2, I'mma go buy me a THIRD $50 Dreamcast! DREAMCAST, BITCHES! Man, I bet you're all SO jealous that I have TWO of them already! You just WISH you were as cool as me!


Dreamcast was easiest to pirate :3


----------



## Runefox (Apr 7, 2009)

Corto said:


> Unless someone linked to Wikipedia I didn't know what this whole "PSX" discussion was all about



I did, sometime around page 2.



Bokracroc said:


> Dreamcast was easiest to pirate :3


Actually, no it wasn't, at least, not until very late in its life. While it played CD-R's fine, getting the data off the GD-ROMs was a bitch, and even more so was either pruning or compressing the data to fit on a measly CD. I remember because long ago I tried to play Skies of Arcadia, a game I couldn't find _anywhere_, and due to the compression used by the rip and lower data density of the CD-ROM, the game was a lot slower, and cutscenes skipped all over with glitches abound.


----------



## Adrianfolf (Apr 7, 2009)

Also where do you get that the PSX could play DVDs? I know for a fact it couldn't play DVDs because it used the same damn lazer as the Playstation (Fat)


----------



## Runefox (Apr 7, 2009)

Adrianfolf said:


> Also where do you get that the PSX could play DVDs? I know for a fact it couldn't play DVDs because it used the same damn lazer as the Playstation (Fat)



See my post above; PSX refers to a Playstation 2 retrofitted with the new XMB menu system and a hard drive (of varying capacity) and TV tuner for use as a DVR. It was only released in Japan.

The PSX you're thinking about is the Playstation, or PS/PS1, or possibly the redesigned Playstation One / PSOne. The moniker "PSX" in reference to that wasn't used officially by Sony, but rather came about due to the console's development name, Playstation Experimental.


----------



## Adrianfolf (Apr 7, 2009)

Ah ok I didn't know that ^^


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Apr 7, 2009)

Zero_Point said:


> Screw your $100 PS2, I'mma go buy me a THIRD $50 Dreamcast! DREAMCAST, BITCHES! Man, I bet you're all SO jealous that I have TWO of them already! You just WISH you were as cool as me!



I already have a original run Dreamcast


*Plays a burned copy of De La Jet Set Radio*


----------



## xjrfang (Apr 11, 2009)

one thing that really bugs me about console gaming is that the games are crazy expensive, and theres not much replay value in them. in most pc games theres more custimizations, and user made mods, but on consoles it just gets old and fast.

so shelling out the cash for a system then 60$ a game is not really appealing to me.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Apr 11, 2009)

xjrfang said:


> one thing that really bugs me about console gaming is that the games are crazy expensive, and theres not much replay value in them. in most pc games theres more custimizations, and user made mods, but on consoles it just gets old and fast.



Because the PC has more memory, faster processor, the games are upgradable.
Consoles are not upgradable, really, and the games are limited to the console's power.
PCs (and Macs) are constantly evolving, and can go through several generations in the lifespan of one console.


----------



## Foxstar (Apr 12, 2009)

xjrfang said:


> one thing that really bugs me about console gaming is that the games are crazy expensive, and theres not much replay value in them. in most pc games theres more custimizations, and user made mods, but on consoles it just gets old and fast.
> 
> so shelling out the cash for a system then 60$ a game is not really appealing to me.



You can trade in console games. The preowned PC game market last time I checked was in the shitter, so while console games do retain value after a fashion, with some of them fetching retail price or more, PC games do not.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Apr 12, 2009)

Foxstar said:


> You can trade in console games. The preowned PC game market last time I checked was in the shitter, so while console games do retain value after a fashion, with some of them fetching retail price or more, PC games do not.



That's because most PC games use that keycode, and if you register it, you can't install the game on another computer (usually).


----------



## Zanzer (Apr 13, 2009)

Ty Vulpine said:


> That's because most PC games use that keycode, and if you register it, you can't install the game on another computer (usually).


 Yeah it's true you can't trade in PC games becuase of that.



But with Things like Steam you can have the Game anywhere you like under one account which is very usfull and helpful, But then you must have steam on your computer or you can't play the game.


----------



## Bokracroc (Apr 14, 2009)

Honestly, they couldn't of screwed up more than this though.


----------

