PS3: 60GB or 160GB

Gaming on the Playstation and Xbox Platforms
User avatar
lost_within
Next-Gen
Posts: 2218
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 5:05 pm
Location: VA

Re: PS3: 60GB or 160GB

Post by lost_within »

This thread is old but i figured this needed to be posted:





This is why i dont like system BC. You can never recreate a game to a T with BC, reguardless to what anyone believes. I had bc...i sold it...then i got an 80 gig...then im ABOUT to sell it now, JUST to upgrade to a 160 for the space so i dont have a usb HD hanging off the side of it. Its all personal opinion but i would check the link before you think about spending 400-500$ thinking you can just play your ps2 games and be happy.


And yes i know this problem has susposibly been fixed,and that the video is old as shit....i just get gothered by the hey lets hate on sony due to not being able to play my ps2 games....keep in mind they still SELL ps2s...why would you leave BC and lose sales when you still have ps2s on the shelf? Take the wii...fully BC...but yet, they also dont sell GCs anymore. The ps3,they say anyway i cant test this, plays all ps1 games...then it comes back to, we still sell/make ps2s and games for it.
Yep, I know im the one ya love to hate.
Niode
Next-Gen
Posts: 7831
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:34 pm
Location: UK

Re: PS3: 60GB or 160GB

Post by Niode »

andythebadass wrote:as long as you dont get ripped of for one i would say get a 60 gig. it has the full backwards compatibility, memory card readers, 4 front usb connections, wifi, and actual nice chrome trim (not brushed aluminum finish).

you can always upgrade the hard drive to some even bigger that 160. ive seen 320 gig drives new for $80 on slickdeals.net and that will only get less expensive with time. the dualshock 3 can be your second controller that you add to your setup.

how does that sound?
Why should you have to pay more for a second hand unit than a brand new one?

Bottom line, these features should never have been removed. Like LoneCynic and myself have been saying for so long, Sony removes features then drops the price. That does not constitute as a price drop in my book or anybody else's book. Sony have hit a brick wall with the PS3, there is simply nothing left to lose to drop the price, hence the fact that they refuse to price drop. Short of selling a model without HDD (which can't happen due to almost every PS3 game having mandatory installs) it makes you think that Microsoft's decision to have two separate SKUs one with HDD and one without to help keep the entry level model's price down wasn't such a daft idea after all. It has the added bonus of forcing games to be developed that don't require installs, plus it leaves the option for Microsoft to get rid of the Arcade SKU altogether later down the line. Which seems more and more likely with them offering very cheap refurbished HDD on their website to owners of the Arcade. (it might just be a ploy to make more money out of the Arcade demographic since you can't get much DLC on a 256MB memory card, but still there's always hope). Also I'm not sure I even want games to require a HDD, because all that spells to me is mandatory installs, one of the main reasons I don't buy multi-format games for my PS3. I simply don't want to wait 10minutes for any game to install when I can buy the equivalent for 360 and have it load instantly and much faster whilst in game.

Sony are stuck between a rock and a hard place right now. They can't lower the price because they can't lose any more features and they're losing money because the PS3 costs too much for the majority. With the economic downturn people just can't afford to spend that much on a gaming system. Even the 'cheap blu-ray player' doesn't work now that you can get a decent blu-ray player for under £100 now. Sony have missed the boat with selling the PS3 off the back of the next generation media format. I think they were resting on their laurels and expecting the PS3 to be another PS2 with everybody buying it because it could also play DVDs. I bought my PS2 mainly as a console but I loved the added bonus that it could be my own DVD player in my bedroom. That was quite a luxury then. It's just not the case this time around. I know I'd definitely rather have a 360 and a separate Blu-ray player than a PS3 given the choice since they cost the same price now. Although I have very little interest in the BD format.

My PS3 just sits there gathering dust. I pick it up for the odd game of Wipeout HD every now and then but that's becoming more rare these days. Sometimes the only console I kinda regret buying is the PS3 and I owned a Jaguar...
Marurun wrote:Don’t mind-shart your pants, guys
Post Reply