Why an 80 gig PS3?

BrettT1

If I want to buy a PS3, why should I go for the 80 gig instead of the 40?

Thanks,

Brett

bobman1235

Cuz they're not making the 40GB anymore, and if you can find it, it costs the same as the 80?

BrettT1

ok. Shows what I know about them. I guess I'll go get one today and try out FarCry2. I'm tired of upgrading my computer and the bluray feature is definitely a plus.

cheddar

A larger hard drive is used mainly for downloadable content and to store media files like music and movies locally on the drive instead of streaming them over a network connection from a PC. Blu-ray and disk based games don't really fill it up much. But who knows what BD-Live (Blu-ray internet connectivity) may bring in the future...

However, it is almost always better to buy the cheapest available ps3 and do a hard drive upgrade yourself if you think you might need the space eventually. It uses generic SATA laptop drives that cost less than 100 bucks for 160GB+, installs with a screw driver, and the instructions are in the manual. Search youtube for many videos on how easy it is. There used to be actual bonus features to moving up the ps3 chain. But with just larger hard drives, there really isn't any advantage anymore. Do it yourself for a larger drive for less money...

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=937486&postcount=7

That thread also suggested that you can still find 40GB ones for a better price. Worth reading it. But the best deal might be the sony credit card discount...

avelanchefan

I got a 20gb one and have not even come close to filling it up, plus it is so easy to add a larger Hard drive.

Go as small and as cheap as possible and add a hard drive later. Seriously. I am so glad I got the 20gb.

BrettT1

Thanks for the tips, guys. :cool:

Erik Tracy

Doesn't the 80GB PS3 also play SACDs?

I have the 40GB version and it does not.

Just something else to consider.

BrettT1

I bought the 80g from walmart today. I didn't add the $29 two year agreement. If it makes it through the first year, I guess I'll be alright. Gonna try it out later.

steveducie

do any of the PS3's play PS2 games ?

dave shepard

steveducie wrote: »

do any of the PS3's play PS2 games ?

The 80g will, the others won't.

steveducie

dave shepard wrote: »

The 80g will, the others won't.

any 80g or just the MGS version ?

audiobliss

As listed on Sony's SonyStyle online store, the 80GB will NOT play PS2 games, but will play original PSone games.

dagame27

From what I understand, they are nearly identical systems. However, the new 80gb reportedly has the cooler running chip, but is still slightly louder than the 40gb.

FWIW you can buy one on Ebay w/ 30% cash back. That puts either system at around $250, which is a hell of a bargain. This deal is what finally got me to buy one.

bobman1235

dave shepard wrote: »

The 80g will, the others won't.

Eh, I believe the only one that plays PS2 games is the elusive 60GB one. Which is why it's probably the one in highest demand on eBay and the like.

The "original" 80GB version was backwards compatible (using software emulation) but the current 40GB and 80GB versions do not have any PS2 compatibility.

Wikipedia has a handy chart that explains that and other features.

avelanchefan

See this is what pisses me off about Sony. Some 80gb ps3 will do this, the 40gb ps3 will only do this, the 20gb wont do anything but ps3 games....yada yada.

It's so annoying.

Kris Siegel

avelanchefan wrote: »

See this is what pisses me off about Sony. Some 80gb ps3 will do this, the 40gb ps3 will only do this, the 20gb wont do anything but ps3 games....yada yada.

Sony did this to cut costs as they actually had the PS2 hardware in some configurations (others did emulation through software; not sure why this isn't in all PS3s but it's harder to maintain and doesn't work as well as actually having the PS2 hardware in the system).

From Joystiq

Joystiq wrote:

The 40GB PlayStation 3 models, devoid of any PS2-related semiconductors, will likely not have any options for backwards compatibility in the future. Speaking to Joystiq, SCEE Director of Corporate Communications Nick Sharples said that there are no plans to offer emulation software as downloadable content at a later date.

"We have no plans to do so at the moment. The sheer numbers of PS2 titles available, together with the increased complexity of using a software only solution for each and every title means that to ensure accurate software emulation for the majority would be technically challenging, time consuming and costly," he said.

"As we have mentioned on several occasions, our engineering resources are now focused on developing new and innovative features and services for the PS3 and, as a result the 40GB model does not have backwards compatibility with PS2 titles," he said.

I own an XBox 360 and planned on picking up a PS3 when the prices come down but since they no longer sell any models with the PS2 hardware and no longer will include backwards compatibility even through software, I just can't see myself doing it. Since my PS2 doesn't work very well anymore, I can't see myself buying a PS2 and a PS3. Oh well. Funny how they all still support PS1 games though, heh.

BIZILL

that's why i'm like, "fugg sony". even i was confused. about to pull the trigger on another ps3, this time the 80 gig as i already have the 60, only to find out from my boy cheddar that the piece of crow doesn't play sacd's any longer nor backward compatible with older generation games. granted, i may possibly never use those features, but it still sucks sony would wet our whistle and then downgrade their offerings. piece of sh** right there.

mutelight

I upgraded my 60GB to 320GB for $100 which was a great upgrade. The extra space is good because many games require installs, some a few gigs a piece.

avelanchefan

See I am not a fanboy of either system, and the Wii has its own qwirks.

But, this is what is killing both systems, and actually that is why there is no clear winner between the ps3 and 360. If Sony would wake up and just add the ps2 **** to it then they would sell more. If the 360 would not be such a huge pile of steaming crap with a great game library, they would sell more.

cheddar

It's not really so confusing. Basically, if you got into the game early, you got all sorts of features like SACD that probably shouldn't have been in a game console in the first place. All models still have blu-ray and great media center capabilities which are probably higher on most people's list of extra features to have going forward.

The problem with the ps2 BC is that even software emulation required ps2 HARDWARE to make it work. You can't do ps2 BC completely in software like you can with the ps1 stuff. They basically had a ps2 inside the 20GB and 60GB consoles at release. They then cut the hardware to the bare minimum in the 'old' 80 GB and made up for most, but not all of the shortfall through software. But I guess they made a calculation that they couldn't keep the last few components in there to satisfy the few ps2 gamers that had to have everything in one console. Sucks if you're one of them that waited two years too long, I guess.

But that's really the only thing that Sony shafted people on, if you want to view it that way. Very few ps3 owners or potential owners care or even know what SACD is. Again, sucks if you're one of them and jumped too late.

So for the still in production units, no matter what version you get, it seems that it's just the 40GB with varying HDDs included as upgrades for a premium. Just buy the smallest one and if you need serious local media storage for things like movies, then do it yourself for cheap. Don't torture yourself with the charts and trying to figure everything out. If you really need SACD or ps2 BC, your only real option is probably the secondary market at this point unless you're lucky enough to come across some seriously old stock somewhere.

AsSiMiLaTeD

I hate Sony. I 'get' that not everyone is going to want PS2 or SACD playback.

Fine, so make and produce most of your models without that stuff. But how about let's keep at least one higher end model that has it, at least the PS2 stuff, and charge me more for it. if Sony didn't have their head so far up their ****, they would see that there's actually a fairly high demand for at least the PS2 capability, and alot of people would be willing to pay for it.

Why is it that my 360 can play all my old XBOX games but my PS3 can't play any of my PS2 games?

cheddar

avelanchefan wrote: »

See I am not a fanboy of either system, and the Wii has its own qwirks.

This is a better statement. Let's not turn this thread into a my 360 is better than your ps3 shouting match. Each system has its own quirks at this point. I don't think any system is perfect. People thought sony was stupid for cramming all sorts of unnecessary stuff in there including blu-ray for a gaming machine. Now people are complaining that some of the lesser demand stuff is being phased out after two years. Can't keep everyone happy. And maybe that's best. Three systems with different strengths for many different preferences. The ps3 is still a fine blu-ray player and media center in addition to being a game console. They've only improved these abilities (instead of cutting back on them) via firmware over time. So a lot of consumers still benefit from these higher demand features. If they included the ps2 hardware, but then couldn't streamline their production process enough to cut costs, people would call them stupid for not controlling costs. Seems like the consumer wins in the end as they have a choice and can just vote with their money and enjoy what they have. You even have the choice to buy a fully supported still in production ps2 almost a decade after they first went on sale. And games are still being released for it.

mutelight

cheddar wrote: »

This is a better statement. Let's not turn this thread into a my 360 is better than your ps3 shouting match. Each system has its own quirks at this point. I don't think any system is perfect. People thought sony was stupid for cramming all sorts of unnecessary stuff in there including blu-ray for a gaming machine. Now people are complaining that some of the lesser demand stuff is being phased out after two years. Can't keep everyone happy. And maybe that's best. Three systems with different strengths for many different preferences. The ps3 is still a fine blu-ray player and media center in addition to being a game console. They've only improved these abilities (instead of cutting back on them) via firmware over time. So a lot of consumers still benefit from these higher demand features. If they included the ps2 hardware, but then couldn't streamline their production process enough to cut costs, people would call them stupid for not controlling costs. Seems like the consumer wins in the end as they have a choice and can just vote with their money and enjoy what they have. You even have the choice to buy a fully supported still in production ps2 almost a decade after they first went on sale. And games are still being released for it.

Couldn't agree with you more. MS was in a tighter spot to support the original Xbox's games since the production stopped on them before the 360 was released, as well as the development of games for it.

BIZILL

cheddar wrote: »

This is a better statement. Let's not turn this thread into a my 360 is better than your ps3 shouting match. Each system has its own quirks at this point. I don't think any system is perfect. People thought sony was stupid for cramming all sorts of unnecessary stuff in there including blu-ray for a gaming machine. Now people are complaining that some of the lesser demand stuff is being phased out after two years. Can't keep everyone happy. And maybe that's best. Three systems with different strengths for many different preferences. The ps3 is still a fine blu-ray player and media center in addition to being a game console. They've only improved these abilities (instead of cutting back on them) via firmware over time. So a lot of consumers still benefit from these higher demand features. If they included the ps2 hardware, but then couldn't streamline their production process enough to cut costs, people would call them stupid for not controlling costs. Seems like the consumer wins in the end as they have a choice and can just vote with their money and enjoy what they have. You even have the choice to buy a fully supported still in production ps2 almost a decade after they first went on sale. And games are still being released for it.

exactly how long have you been on sony's payroll?

cheddar

BIZILL wrote: »

exactly how long have you been on sony's payroll?

I haven't said anything bad about other systems in this thread. I own all three systems and enjoy each for its strengths. The wii is great for casual games you can play with other people. I use the 360 exclusively for games and really enjoyed games like bioshock before it was released on the ps3. I use the ps3 to game, as a blu-ray player, and as a media hub.

I learned a lot of things about the ps3 while using it for various tasks. So I share them here. As always, I'm just trying to cut through the misinformation that sometimes makes it into threads like these. Since you said you learned about the current ps3's SACD limitations from me, seems like I helped you out too.

BIZILL

yes, i agree you help when it comes to the ps3, thank you. i'm still just sayin'....

GEBBY44

If you were a big PS2 gamer, the 60 GB really is worth the premium. The hardware emulation is much better than the software one and SACD is just an added bonus. Craigslist is the best (unfortunately) option to score a 60 GB. Lots of people there that wouldn't know the difference between the 60 and 80. Bargained mine down to $290, although I'm pretty sure mine was a stolen unit. It had a few scratches on it and some teenager's pictures on it. And I bought it out of the back of an Astrovan.

cheddar

BIZILL wrote: »

yes, i agree you help when it comes to the ps3, thank you. i'm still just sayin'....

At least I didn't call another console a "piece of sh**" just because it was phasing out stuff I thought I might not ever use...;)

C'mon Bizill...all friends here ok?

BIZILL

cheddar wrote: »

At least I didn't call another console a "piece of sh**" just because it was phasing out stuff I thought I might not ever use...;)

C'mon Bizill...all friends here ok?

to be certain, i did not call the console a piece of sh**. i called the parent company one.;)

yeah, we're all friends. but will you just let me know if you are on sony's payroll or not. thank you. point being you come to playstation's aid when in crisis. like its body guard or what not. surely even you can agree it really sucks hard that sony is offering LESS of a machine, a few years after its introduction...

BIZILL

bait 'n switch comes to mind.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Let's not turn this thread into a my 360 is better than your ps3 shouting match

OK, how about this - MY 360 is better than MY PS3

Actually, I think my PS3 is a better machine in many respects, and if I were forced to choose between my 360 and my PS3 I'd keep my PS3. The media center functionality works fine for how I use it. The Blu Ray player is very nice. The graphics are comparable to the 360, but none of my consoles can touch my PC when it comes to video game graphics, so I stick mostly to PC when it comes to gaming.

Still, I don't understand why they couldn't keep at least one model with PS2 support...