| Latest news |
|---|
Slim PS3 could have been even smallerDVDBack23 @ Dec 15, 2009 18:10 | 20 comments
One alternative was the use of flash memory. The advantages of using flash memory are smaller size, decreased running costs, and lower noise levels (although the PS3 runs pretty quietly regardless). Disadvantages are price-per-GB.
Another alternative to an HDD was to completely get rid of physical storage and instead let users save all game data, personal files and settings online, via the PlayStation Network.
Chatani said bothe options were actively considered but the HDD won out. "We felt that the price would be too high for the amount of storage capacity the PS3 needs," he adds.
As for other considered redesigns, Chatani says the power supply was considered being made external, just like in the Slim PS2, however that "would have imposed restrictions on transport and use, making it harder to use freely." |
According to
 |
|
Comment by: nintenut (Dec 15, 2009 21:45) It also could have had BC, Linux, and not suck in comparison to launch units. |
|
Comment by: xnonsuchx (Dec 15, 2009 22:00) Originally posted by nintenut: '
|
|
Comment by: Tecbot (Dec 15, 2009 23:59) Quote:Originally posted by nintenut: No kidding I have all those things and NEVER use them. I thought after the price cut the cry babies would stop but it has just unleashed the tears even more. The ps3 could be free with a foot massage from a playmate and there would still be a flood of babies crying about something. |
|
Comment by: SDF_GR (Dec 16, 2009 01:12) ^^ totally agree |
|
Comment by: KSib (Dec 16, 2009 02:33) I think we're all in agreement here :)
|
|
Comment by: chris4160 (Dec 16, 2009 03:19) Originally posted by KSib: Lol, $100 for a hdd... $200 for blu-ray? A 5400 rpm 250gb hard drive bought in bulk would be $50 max, more like $40. Sony probably paid $10 for the 20gb hard drives in the launch date consoles. The blu-ray player only costs $66 right now, more like $100 at launch. If the hdd and odd cost $300 alone then the 250gb slim cost a lot more than $350.
Originally posted by nintenut: I agree, not to mention the hideous case. |
|
Comment by: DVDBack23 (Dec 16, 2009 04:40) Quote:Originally posted by KSib: $125 for the drive, $40 for the HDD
|
|
Comment by: Ragnarok8 (Dec 16, 2009 07:34) Do you really need 120gb for this generation's console games? My PS2 runs on 8mb memory cards. |
|
Comment by: xnonsuchx (Dec 16, 2009 08:25) Originally posted by Ragnarok8: NEED for GAMES??? Not for physical media titles so much (if you didn't mind possibly longer load times), but with so much downloadable content (including full games and demos) and other media uses, it would be stupid not to have enough storage available on it for its intended uses. |
|
Comment by: atomicxl (Dec 16, 2009 13:19) Flash memory seems like the only possible option, but you'd need alot of it. ALOT of games on PS3 have mandatory installs that are anywhere up to like 5gb of data. Almost all of the multiplatform games that I own would require an install. That's like 40gb of data right there. The whole reason it installs them is because it can't read from the disc fast enough so I doubt online storage would be useful for that. |
|
Comment by: Icanbe (Dec 16, 2009 23:38) No comment |
|
Comment by: nintenut (Dec 17, 2009 11:47) Quote:Originally posted by nintenut:
|
|
Comment by: KSib (Dec 17, 2009 11:56) Quote:Originally posted by KSib: HDD? I never said HDD. You do realize I said HD, as in High Definition for both sound and video. What do you think the Wii would cost if it were capable of high definition images and sound? That's right, probably $300+ or so. Hard drive? really? Come on now. Let's actually think about what I said here. you can get a TB hard drive for about $100 so that obviously doesn't make a lick of sense to conclude.
|
|
Comment by: Gnawnivek (Dec 17, 2009 16:57) Originally posted by nintenut: BC? Never really use it nor have the desire to use it (playing PS2 games and worn out my PS3? Hell no, i would use my PS2 to do that).
|
|
Comment by: nintenut (Dec 17, 2009 20:52) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Comment by: salsa36 (Dec 20, 2009 05:56) It's really awesome that they can redesign the console as they want. What about coming out with a game that makes it worth to buy it? |
|
Comment by: nintenut (Dec 20, 2009 10:37) Originally posted by salsa36:
|
|
Comment by: KSib (Dec 20, 2009 11:25) I kinda want to get it to play the new Final Fantasy, but 300 is a lot of money.. |
|
Comment by: Gnawnivek (Dec 21, 2009 20:55) Quote:Quote: Because you can play the PS2 games on the PS2 console? You can't play PS3 games on the PS2 console you know... It's similar to watching dvds in a BD player. If you don't do that very often, then it's not a big deal. But if you watch dvds on a BD player 50% of the time, isn't it a better option if you do it with the dvd player? Anyway, what i'm saying is, i won't be adding wearing and tearing to my PS3 by playing PS2 games, because i can do that with my PS2. If you're a fan of PS2 games, chances are, you have a PS2...
Quote:Quote: Okay, so what's the point of installing Linux on the PS3? I thought the whole purpose of installing Linux on the PS3 is to manipulate all kind of media files.
Quote:
Then I don't know what you mean by sucks comparing to the launch units. I think the slim is a much better buy than the launch units or even the fat units... |
|
Comment by: KSib (Dec 21, 2009 21:15) The fact that people are starting to cry about no longer being able to install their own OS on a GAMING console means that consoles and PCs are very well going to become one in the same if this keeps up. I wish all games just came out on the PC as well as consoles (cept some Wii games). That would be nice. I have a 360 controller for games that are awkward with a keyboard and a mouse.
|
 |
RSS Feeds: