Originally posted by S_D_JXBOX it's HALO... and viceversa
but I dont think a new developer could handle HALO... to much pressure... not to mention fanboys nitpicking on every detail.
HALO stays a MS exclusive, no matter what... Bungie going independent doesnt mean they would leave HALO to them. it's their game afterall... exclusivity its a whole different issue
Meh, a talented developing firm can easily do Halo because its more pressure for a company to produce an original game than to produce a game from an moneymaking cash cow .
Originally posted by ESB -1138
And I was talking about Wii games. Congrats, I guess this is why this is called a Next-Gen Console Discussion and not an Xbox 360 Discussion.
I don't know what your problem is.
But I replied to your post:
Originally posted by ESB -1138
Blue Dragon is the only none-shooter game the 360 has that's worth mentioning. Dead or Alive 4 was okay but once DOAX2 came out...I couldn't look at DOA4 anymore just knowing that those two games are related.
Where you said that the X-Box 360 didn't have anything good other then shooters, and I mentioned ME and AC.
Originally posted by Lana
Nope. Neither does the 80 GB one (the current $600 one), though that one at least I think has software updates to allow it. I haven't actually read anything about the $400 system yet - that's the 40 GB one I mentioned before, right?
80GB has minor software based BC, which requires the Graphics Synthesiser to work and can emulate over 55% of PS2 games.The 40GB lacks this and therefore can only emulate PS1 games.
Originally posted by BackFire
The new, $400 PS3 that was recently announced has no backwards compatibility at all.
but do you honestly think that's a bad thing?
currently, IMO, people who consider getting a PS3, over a 360, already have a PS2... I dont think BC its a mayor factor when considering getting one..... unless said person never had a PS2
Getting a next gen console oughta be due to next gen games (and in case of of a PS3, HD media as BR)...
😆 the problem here it's: PS3 lacking that many good next gen games 😄
but I'd be happy just by getting one... R&C, MG4, FF, GoW and other warrant my purchase (besides other games already out).... given I had the money to get one
the 400$ version gives me just that... plus the BR player
btw: has the 400$ version been confirmed? I heard it was confirmed in Europe... and for about 450... not 400 😕
Originally posted by Lana
You'd be surprised how many people actually buy a PS3 that don't already have a PS2.
my point is
did they buy the PS3 just so they could play PS2 games on it?
then in that case they should have gotten a PS2 instead
....and isn't PS2 sells still going strong?
I can present hard proof, but I was under the impression it still is...
Originally posted by Smasandian
Meh, a talented developing firm can easily do Halo because its more pressure for a company to produce an original game than to produce a game from an moneymaking cash cow .
but it ends up in utter disappointment. Most of the time, it doesnt live up to it's expectations, the stigma of being compared to the original it's always present
...even if the game doesnt suck... there's always fanboys who'd criticize it down to the smallest detail
Do people buy a PS3 just to play PS2 games? No, of course not.
But are they going to want to be able to? Probably. I mean, people with just a 360 still buy regular Xbox games. A lot of people get rid of their old systems.
Sony also made a huge deal out of backwards compatibility because the 360's was limited. And now they themselves have made it limited (80GB model only does software updates for it, similar to the 360) or non-existant (40GB model has no capability for it).
They're shooting themselves in the foot with that. Not everyone wants to keep around a bunch of systems to play their games on, but they're effectively forcing people to do just that.
Originally posted by S_D_J
but do you honestly think that's a bad thing?currently, IMO, people who consider getting a PS3, over a 360, already have a PS2... I dont think BC its a mayor factor when considering getting one..... unless said person never had a PS2
Getting a next gen console oughta be due to next gen games (and in case of of a PS3, HD media as BR)...
😆 the problem here it's: PS3 lacking that many good next gen games 😄
but I'd be happy just by getting one... R&C, MG4, FF, GoW and other warrant my purchase (besides other games already out).... given I had the money to get one
the 400$ version gives me just that... plus the BR player
btw: has the 400$ version been confirmed? I heard it was confirmed in Europe... and for about 450... not 400 😕
Yes, it's a bad thing. It's something both other systems have and there's no real reason that the most expensive system out there wouldn't be able to have it too. It's a simple feature.
It's not going to completely dissuade people from buying one, granted, but it certainly wouldn't hurt having backwards compatibility.
I have a PS2, but I'm already running out of room as it is, so if I were to get a PS3 (which I probably will someday) I will have to unhook the PS2 and put the PS3 in it's place. However, there are still PS2 games that I really enjoy and will most certainly want to play again, and now in order to do that I'll have to switch the PS2 with something else, and that's just a hassle that shouldn't exist. In this day there is no good reason other than incompetence and laziness to not have backwards compatibility.
I have a PS3 and, yes, I still play my PS2 games and PS1 games on the system. I also play my Gamecube games on my Wii. I gave away my Gamecube to my little cousin the day after purchasing my Wii, and I sold my PS2 to Gamestop after I got my PS3.
In my honest opinion, Sony not having backward compatibilty on the PS3 is idiotic.
in that case I should have considered laziness as a factor.....
BC is a great feature to have... and Sony could get hurt by it,
but considering such feature over new games when thinking of getting the console it's ridiculous... I want to play MG4 not MGS over again, and if I wish to do it.. it played on PS2 not PS3.. there's no real advantage of playing it on PS3... other than not having room for it or being bothered with plugs.
And nobody tells you to give away your older system... or is SONY responsible for that too?
if you dont have the money, then dont buy it, buy a Wii or a core 360 instead. (that's what I did)
if you dont like what the machine offers you, don't buy it.
No one is forcing you to
SONY do shoot themselves on the foot every now and then... but you guys seem to do such big deal out of it when it hasnt even occurred yet
I might be mistaken, but the new version hasnt even been revealed (only been officially announced) to say for certain that it wont be able to play last gen games... backwards compatibility it's always possible via software emulation... or does it need any special piece of hardware to do so? (if it does then tell me)
the 80 gigs isnt out as well
BC it's still present in all of 60gig PS3 (with emotion chip) in the US. Is not hurting anyone. if you live in the UK then in that case it might hurt you... but it still present with SE.
if you have 500$ to spare, and if you want one, get one now.
PS3 it's definitely expensive, but it is a expensive console to make. Sony it's not a charity organization that'll make a console just to sell it at the same price it cost to make, they're looking to get a profit out of it... it wouldnt be business if it wasn like that
and please, dont forget that the new version it's a cheaper version, not necessarily budget, but cheaper nonetheless. It is bound to not have full features as the more expensive version.
besides BC, the only thing said to be missing it's that it wont have the memory slots... are you guys also going to make such big deal out of it too?
to GK: in that case i can see why it could hurt you... but they are replaceable machines... they are bound to break eventually.... though not all the time like a 360 😄
i got 360 and ps3. halo online rocks but it only sixteen player. what the **** is going on there? my ps3 can play majority of my ps2 games. in fact the only games that don't play are everybodys golf(crap any way) and hitman blood money didn't but now does. i think PS3 is the better console and will probably be dominating the market next year. but i will never buy a xbox again or anything from microsoft. i am on my 3rd 360 inside a year and when the current one dies (which it will) i won't even bother to get microsoft to send a replacement. unrelated note warhawk is da best online game. my PS3 online address is Robo-Chimp.
I think you should send it if dies again... the warranty covers it, so it'll be a waste of your money if you didn't.
what I'd do, however, in case I don't want the 360 anymore, it's sell it... or trade it for something else, that way you get some of your money back...
and if you don't have one already.. get a Wii 😉
SDJ, what you think about backwards compatibility is neither here nor there. It is simply sa well established marketing fact that backwards compatibility is a major factor in ales0 and ironically it was Sony who proved that.
So think all the people who care about it are stupid all you like- doesn't matter a damn, they are still the paying pubic.
The European market has never had the backwards compatible version, I will remind people, and that has been a source of heavy criticism. That said, it can do a lot of it in software... but even so, not a good point.
in that case i can see why it could hurt you... but they are replaceable machines...
That would be a good point if not for one factor. Sony's not going to keep making the PS2 forever. Considering how much games for it have slowed the past few months I wouldn't be surprised if this Christmas is the last for the PS2. Not to mention that the PS2 isn't quite the most reliable system in the world - we like to joke at work that the reason sales for it are so high is because everyone who's ever bought one has had to get a second because their first broke. Case in point, my family has had three break on us.
And you say no one's making people get rid of their old systems. Of course not. But that's just stupid, isn't it? Sony has always made a big deal out of full backwards compatibility, and now they've effectively cut it out, making people keep their old systems around in order to play their old games.