Jump to content

Why aren't there any more PS3 store sales?


maxfighter23___

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Remilia Scarlet said:

 

Lie? Lmao so I guess you are just ignoring that it takes time and effort to make shit run on hardware it was never designed for. Jesus fucking Christ people like you are why we can't have nice things.

Bullshit, enough with the excuses standing up for them. Its money grabbing plain and simple. Dont mass advertise a product you can't deliver. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ResiGamer_28 said:

Bullshit, enough with the excuses standing up for them. Its money grabbing plain and simple. Dont mass advertise a product you can't deliver. 


https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/ps-plus/

 

This is the advertising for the different tiers of the PS+ Service.

 

All reputable news outlets covering the launch of the service, and all advertising around it, stems from the information contained within this page.


Which part of the information outlined in here is not delivered?

 

I’m genuinely asking here, BTW.

I didn’t get PS+ Premium, because it didn’t seem like a particularly good deal for me at the time, but I had though about it maybe in the future, and I would like to know if there is something they are promising in this info that is incorrect.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Remilia Scarlet said:

 

Lie? Lmao so I guess you are just ignoring that it takes time and effort to make shit run on hardware it was never designed for. Jesus fucking Christ people like you are why we can't have nice things.

Should have built the ps5 with actual backwardscompatibility for games older than the ps4.

Ps3 managed to do it with its ps1 software and CD playback why not the ps5?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SeniorRicketts said:

Should have built the ps5 with actual backwardscompatibility for games older than the ps4.

Ps3 managed to do it with its ps1 software and CD playback why not the ps5?

 

1) PS3 uses Cell architecture which is hard to develop on, and inferior to the x86 architecture which PS4 and PS5 share.

 

2) Almost nobody used the backward compatibility on the original PS3 FAT.

People like to complain over functions they in reality would never use.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, janzor88 said:

 

1) PS3 uses Cell architecture which is hard to develop on, and inferior to the x86 architecture which PS4 and PS5 share.

 

2) Almost nobody used the backward compatibility on the original PS3 FAT.

People like to complain over functions they in reality would never use.

 

Basically what I was going to say. I have a fat PS3 and at first I tried a PS1 game one time to see if it actually worked then went back to PS2 and PS3 games. Now if it worked for PS2 games, that would be a different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably dont even want to support it anymore.

Some things that the earlier console have in store isnt even on the new webstore or Ps5. Im talking about avatars. The only way to buy now is if game has its own link ingame. 

 

I wish they just give discount codes again. So I buy whatever the fk I want. Id definitely go to the ps3 store to pick up some stuffs i missed with the code.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My local videogame shop sells used PS3 games that are often more expensive than their PS Store counterparts (even at full price!) and in pretty rough shape: damaged boxes, missing cover art, scratched discs and so on. On top of that the variety of titles is very narrow so it's difficult to find something I'm looking for (Resistance 2 and 3 for instance are nowhere to be seen). So I still find myself using the PS3 store. It's a hassle but at least it's still online and functional (for now). Buying used games online is too much of a gamble to me.

 

Something I wish Sony would do is send more discount codes via newsletter. I recieved several 20% discount codes by email during the PS3 days however I haven't seen one of those for a long while. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DrBloodmoney said:


https://www.playstation.com/en-gb/ps-plus/

 

This is the advertising for the different tiers of the PS+ Service.

 

All reputable news outlets covering the launch of the service, and all advertising around it, stems from the information contained within this page.


Which part of the information outlined in here is not delivered?

 

I’m genuinely asking here, BTW.

I didn’t get PS+ Premium, because it didn’t seem like a particularly good deal for me at the time, but I had though about it maybe in the future, and I would like to know if there is something they are promising in this info that is incorrect.

 

2 months no psp ps1 or ps2 games like players are paying for. They aren't delivering what they are charging for. Not to mention the 90+ games on the NA catalogue compared to other regions but I won't go into that one, I don't want to burst a blood vessel 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ResiGamer_28 said:

2 months no psp ps1 or ps2 games like players are paying for. They aren't delivering what they are charging for.

 

There's actually a full list of the games included in the packages available to view before purchasing - it's on that site, so really, they were as up-front as they could have been about what players would be paying for...

... TBH, that's why I didn't purchase PS+ Premium - I checked the list, and didn't see enough value for my personal interests to justify the additional cost above the PS+ Extra package.

 

Quote

Not to mention the 90+ games on the NA catalogue compared to other regions but I won't go into that one, I don't want to burst a blood vessel 

 

Certainly regional differences will make the value proposition different depending on locale, but I think the list of what is included is shown by region, so really, there isn't a lot of reason to feel swindled - all the information was there.

 

I suspect some of the issue here is that people were expecting something different based on speculation and wishful thinking, but maybe didn't do the appropriate due diligence before handing over their money.

 

I really am not seeing where any lies were told - they showed the games available, and as far as I can see, never stated any slate of future releases or specific schedule for updates.

 

Whether what is being offered is worth the money is another question...

...personally, I say no... but I don't think they lied about it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ResiGamer_28 said:

2 months no psp ps1 or ps2 games like players are paying for. They aren't delivering what they are charging for. Not to mention the 90+ games on the NA catalogue compared to other regions but I won't go into that one, I don't want to burst a blood vessel 

I wouldn't expect this much from Sony as far as classic titles go, last gen we only got 54 ps2 ports on ps4 (3 of which were removed) across its entire life cycle and those you had to pay for individually, on their new service I really am not expecting them to add frequently, especially not monthly. They love to sit on these dormant games and franchises and do nothing with them for some reason. I would love to be proven wrong and we get games every month/every other month but I just can't see it happening unless their new subscription was a huge flop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's literally a dead system, they were going to stop selling games digitally on it for good, but went back on that decision with the backlash that was given. They won't put anything on sale as PS3 games are likely to increase in value at this point, some of the rarer ones already have, with it nearly being a retro system at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

backwards compatibility takes years to refine, ms have the advantage because their games all use directx and since they had no mass market triple a's coming out of their ears they doubled down on back compat. 

 

sony have put themselves in a position to make BC a bit more of a priority but even if it was highest tier priority your still looking at many years. 

 

I'd love silent hill, suffering, psi ops, the warriors all with a plat, but we just have to wait and see. with the muppets running the show though, who knows.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GabrielMS13 said:

My local videogame shop sells used PS3 games that are often more expensive than their PS Store counterparts (even at full price!) and in pretty rough shape: damaged boxes, missing cover art, scratched discs and so on. On top of that the variety of titles is very narrow so it's difficult to find something I'm looking for (Resistance 2 and 3 for instance are nowhere to be seen). So I still find myself using the PS3 store. It's a hassle but at least it's still online and functional (for now). Buying used games online is too much of a gamble to me.

 

Something I wish Sony would do is send more discount codes via newsletter. I recieved several 20% discount codes by email during the PS3 days however I haven't seen one of those for a long while. 


PS3 games aren’t exactly common anymore. Trying to find a complete edition of Mafia II or the Divine Edition of Dante’s Inferno is very hard to find these days. 
 

I’ve also had instances where the previous owner of a game clearly left the Blu-Ray PS3 disc sitting out in the open resulting in a lot of scratches. Blu-Ray can handle scratched discs better than a DVD disc can but they’re still far from damage proof. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty simple, blame all those who Jailbreak their PS3, they have ruined the PS3 imo. But also blame Sony for making it so damn easy. Too many security issues and many games online ruined. PS3 could've been a fantastic legacy console, but Sony's laziness, selfishness and stupidity has ruined it. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/08/2022 at 6:48 AM, Datboy1991 said:

Used disc versions are the way to go. The trouble is that dlc is almost never marked down in price, and can sometimes cost as much or more than the game itself. 

For the bigger games there do tend to by GOTY editions on disc with all the DLC included, as is the case with Fallout New Vegas for example.

Edited by pkopetzky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/19/2022 at 5:33 PM, janzor88 said:

 

1) PS3 uses Cell architecture which is hard to develop on, and inferior to the x86 architecture which PS4 and PS5 share.

 

2) Almost nobody used the backward compatibility on the original PS3 FAT.

People like to complain over functions they in reality would never use.

You missed the part where PS2 and PSone aren't done by the cell processor at all. The MGS4 bundle used software emulation for PS2, and while not perfect it was better than nothing at all. And PSone there is zero reason that the PS5 can't do either of them. Sony just doesn't want to pay a penny or whatever miniscule cost to license CD playback on the PS5. PS4 didn't have it either. Same reason Nintendo avoided DVD playback, and using actual DVDs/CDs/Blurays. They wanted to avoid paying anyone anything.


Who cares if nobody uses it? It should still be there. There's a finite and shrinking amount of PSone and PS2 systems out there. And PS3s. And people have started doing tedious crafts out of old consoles and handhelds that further destroy the availability that long term will just result in the only way to play games to be to play Jack Sparrow.

Edited by Elvick_
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Elvick_ said:

You missed the part where PS2 and PSone aren't done by the cell processor at all. The MGS4 bundle used software emulation for PS2, and while not perfect it was better than nothing at all. And PSone there is zero reason that the PS5 can't do either of them. Sony just doesn't want to pay a penny or whatever miniscule cost to license CD playback on the PS5. PS4 didn't have it either. Same reason Nintendo avoided DVD playback, and using actual DVDs/CDs/Blurays. They wanted to avoid paying anyone anything.


Who cares if nobody uses it? It should still be there. There's a finite and shrinking amount of PSone and PS2 systems out there. And PS3s. And people have started doing tedious crafts out of old consoles and handhelds that further destroy the availability that long term will just result in the only way to play games to be to play Jack Sparrow.

 

It would be great if PS4 and PS5 could play PS2 games. Some great PS2 games such as Scarface: The World of Yours and GTA Vice City Stories are not available to purchase on PSN store. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely would like to see a PS3 emulator for PS4/PS5 that would allow me to play the games I already own. However, I know I'm in the minority on that, so it will likely never happen.

 

Heck, I would even be willing to pay a one time purchase for that ability. Since I can't see paying a constant fee just to play some older games that I already have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Elvick_ said:

You missed the part where PS2 and PSone aren't done by the cell processor at all. The MGS4 bundle used software emulation for PS2, and while not perfect it was better than nothing at all. And PSone there is zero reason that the PS5 can't do either of them. Sony just doesn't want to pay a penny or whatever miniscule cost to license CD playback on the PS5. PS4 didn't have it either. Same reason Nintendo avoided DVD playback, and using actual DVDs/CDs/Blurays. They wanted to avoid paying anyone anything.


Who cares if nobody uses it? It should still be there. There's a finite and shrinking amount of PSone and PS2 systems out there. And PS3s. And people have started doing tedious crafts out of old consoles and handhelds that further destroy the availability that long term will just result in the only way to play games to be to play Jack Sparrow.

 

Because he was talking about the PS3, not the PS2 or PS1. It's apples and oranges and not a valid comparison. 

 

The PS3 was an expensive console to make and sold at a pretty significant loss and was also a notoriously difficult console to develop on due to its complex architecture. This in turn has also made emulation very difficult and only rather recently has PS3 emulation gotten good enough to be acceptable and played through via emulation. If it was easy and was a 'miniscule cost', they would do it. They would put the capabilities of backwards compatibility of PS3 games on the PS4 and PS5. But it's not quite that easy nor is it cost effective. 

 

Market demands matter as well. People say they want backwards compatibility and it's really important and I would tend to agree with respect to preserving the older games through time BUT at the same time, there's not many people still playing PS1, PS2 and PS3 games these days. People make a big stink about backwards compatibility when they don't have it but when they do, they don't use it anyway. It's a small market, miniscule you can say in comparison to the amount of players playing PS4 and PS5 games naturally. It's not that 'nobody is using it', it's that there's not enough people using it in order to justify spending the money to upkeep and support something that only a few amount of people still care about. 

 

There is never going to be a threat of running out of PS1, PS2 and PS3 consoles at least for the foreseeable future. Go to a flea market, they're everywhere with most still in working order and most non-functioning ones are capable of being fixed rather easily. There's more than enough out there in the wild to meet the current demand for them which isn't that high and demand that will only continue to dwindle over time. Same with even older consoles like the NES and Atari. They're just sitting in dusty old boxes in peoples attics long forgotten and just waiting to be bought by some person on a retro video game nostalgia trip. 

 

They can preserve the games through emulation, but native backwards compatibility is something people need to forget about, I personally don't think it's that important in the grand scheme of things. You want to play PS2 games? Get a PS2. The problem with official emulation would be getting and maintaining licensure but that's always going to be the problem with digital content. Physical is not forever either, eventually discs will rot out, blu-rays will burn out, be subject to other kinds of damage through time deeming them unusable and then what the hell is the point of having native backwards compatibility at that point if there are no discs to use it with? You want to reproduce all those discs that would need to be replaced? That costs money. Say the discs last 100 years, that's still a finite lifespan on physical media if the damaged products aren't being replaced or repaired which they wouldn't and couldn't be. It would work for now though but for long-term future preservation, emulation is the name of the game and I think Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are all well aware of that and are moving themselves in that direction. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 9/5/2022 at 1:51 PM, mega-tallica said:

 

Because he was talking about the PS3, not the PS2 or PS1. It's apples and oranges and not a valid comparison. 

 

The PS3 was an expensive console to make and sold at a pretty significant loss and was also a notoriously difficult console to develop on due to its complex architecture. This in turn has also made emulation very difficult and only rather recently has PS3 emulation gotten good enough to be acceptable and played through via emulation. If it was easy and was a 'miniscule cost', they would do it. They would put the capabilities of backwards compatibility of PS3 games on the PS4 and PS5. But it's not quite that easy nor is it cost effective. 

 

Market demands matter as well. People say they want backwards compatibility and it's really important and I would tend to agree with respect to preserving the older games through time BUT at the same time, there's not many people still playing PS1, PS2 and PS3 games these days. People make a big stink about backwards compatibility when they don't have it but when they do, they don't use it anyway. It's a small market, miniscule you can say in comparison to the amount of players playing PS4 and PS5 games naturally. It's not that 'nobody is using it', it's that there's not enough people using it in order to justify spending the money to upkeep and support something that only a few amount of people still care about. 

 

There is never going to be a threat of running out of PS1, PS2 and PS3 consoles at least for the foreseeable future. Go to a flea market, they're everywhere with most still in working order and most non-functioning ones are capable of being fixed rather easily. There's more than enough out there in the wild to meet the current demand for them which isn't that high and demand that will only continue to dwindle over time. Same with even older consoles like the NES and Atari. They're just sitting in dusty old boxes in peoples attics long forgotten and just waiting to be bought by some person on a retro video game nostalgia trip. 

 

They can preserve the games through emulation, but native backwards compatibility is something people need to forget about, I personally don't think it's that important in the grand scheme of things. You want to play PS2 games? Get a PS2. The problem with official emulation would be getting and maintaining licensure but that's always going to be the problem with digital content. Physical is not forever either, eventually discs will rot out, blu-rays will burn out, be subject to other kinds of damage through time deeming them unusable and then what the hell is the point of having native backwards compatibility at that point if there are no discs to use it with? You want to reproduce all those discs that would need to be replaced? That costs money. Say the discs last 100 years, that's still a finite lifespan on physical media if the damaged products aren't being replaced or repaired which they wouldn't and couldn't be. It would work for now though but for long-term future preservation, emulation is the name of the game and I think Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft are all well aware of that and are moving themselves in that direction. 


In other words, out with the old, in with the new. 
 

Let’s face it. We’re not exactly the target audience anymore. I’m in my mid 30s now and I’m no longer the face of gaming. The big corporations don’t exactly want me either because anything involving nostalgia or legacy content isn’t profitable by any means. 
 

Why do you think TikTok and Instagram are huge right now? It’s all about catering to the next generation of kids. We were the ‘in generation’ back in the days of MySpace and the dominance of the Xbox 360. That ship has long sailed. We’re not the target audience because marketing to young adults is far more profitable. 
 

Eventually people of the distant past like John Wayne will be forgotten too. Same with Jackie Chan, give or take a few decades. Same with pop sensation Michael Jackson, as the kids will cling to Soulja Boy style music artists that will be more marketable. 
 

The future of game preservation will be all digital. Corporations have put immense effort in cutting out the middle man. 
 

You basically nailed the reason why most PS1/PS2 haven’t gotten a re-release and will never get one. Syphon Filter 1 & 2, they haven’t exactly sold like hotcakes on the PS Store and for good reason. And getting those games readily available for modern Sony consoles wasn’t cheap at all. 
 

This falls to one thing. Adapt or die. If you hate where the gaming industry is going, you best find another hobby to occupy your time with.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:


In other words, out with the old, in with the new. 
 

Let’s face it. We’re not exactly the target audience anymore. I’m in my mid 30s now and I’m no longer the face of gaming. The big corporations don’t exactly want me either because anything involving nostalgia or legacy content isn’t profitable by any means. 
 

Why do you think TikTok and Instagram are huge right now? It’s all about catering to the next generation of kids. We were the ‘in generation’ back in the days of MySpace and the dominance of the Xbox 360. That ship has long sailed. We’re not the target audience because marketing to young adults is far more profitable. 

Absolute rubbish. The average age of someone who plays video games is 35 so you are smack bang on the target audience age. 

 

Also, it's far more profitable to market your products at people who have disposable income. Most young people under 25 don't have a large disposal income and therefore if the choice is there to have some food with friends or buy a game, they are likely to pick the food. 

 

On average, people earn the most money in their life time from 40 to 55 when they have been in the workforce for a while and kids etc have grown up so they have less financial dependants. These are are the people who are making more purchasing decisions than young adults. 

 

Your post of just another rant because you haven't embraced the new generation of games either through stubbornness, financial reasons or both. All generations have had great games - and bad games-but if you think gaming was better then rather than now, you are delusional. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, adam1984123 said:

Absolute rubbish. The average age of someone who plays video games is 35 so you are smack bang on the target audience age. 

 

Also, it's far more profitable to market your products at people who have disposable income. Most young people under 25 don't have a large disposal income and therefore if the choice is there to have some food with friends or buy a game, they are likely to pick the food. 

 

On average, people earn the most money in their life time from 40 to 55 when they have been in the workforce for a while and kids etc have grown up so they have less financial dependants. These are are the people who are making more purchasing decisions than young adults. 

 

Your post of just another rant because you haven't embraced the new generation of games either through stubbornness, financial reasons or both. All generations have had great games - and bad games-but if you think gaming was better then rather than now, you are delusional. 


This argument falters in the long run because these people eventually grow old and become a minority. 
 

It’s happening right now with the Baby Boomer generation because they are dying off. Millennials outnumber Generation X so they have been the target audience now for quite some time. 
 

So you’re saying that because I prefer the stuff that was around when I was 18 - 24 years old as opposed to now, I haven’t embraced anything modern?

 

This is the same argument that everything modern gaming is now is superior to anything that came before. Which goes back to the PS3/Vita consoles both being legacy consoles with a small minority left to play them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:


This argument falters in the long run because these people eventually grow old and become a minority. 
 

It’s happening right now with the Baby Boomer generation because they are dying off. Millennials outnumber Generation X so they have been the target audience now for quite some time. 
 

So you’re saying that because I prefer the stuff that was around when I was 18 - 24 years old as opposed to now, I haven’t embraced anything modern?

 

This is the same argument that everything modern gaming is now is superior to anything that came before. Which goes back to the PS3/Vita consoles both being legacy consoles with a small minority left to play them. 

It's not an argument. It's a fact. The fact is the average gamer is 35 years old. It's also a fact that marketing departments predominantly target people who the most disposable income which happens to be older people. They want to sell their product. 

 

Yes, facts will change over time just like everything else but this is the current state of play - not what you said. It will be difference in the years to come for sure. Baby bloomers aren't dying off either btw. They are in early retirement years or about to retire, they are cashed up and spending big - on other things besides gaming of course as that was mostly prior to their generation. 

 

And I didn't say you haven't embraced anything modern because you like stuff from 15 years ago. Please, don't Cathy Newman me. Like everything time moves on and there will be good things and bad things about current and past generations. You have said NOTHING positive about the current gen of gaming. 

 

Yes, it has it short falls like with all this shovel ware shit right now. But the cinematic master pieces produced in some modern titles are breath taking. These games have budgets of big screen movies these days. 

 

I'm just saying overall, the modern gaming experience is superior to the past generations. I've playing stuff since the early 90s too. And I used to love it. But I'm sure if you put me in front of a commodore 64 now and had to type, 8,1 to launch my game and play it, I'd be over it very quickly. 

 

On to the topic on this thread, which relates to that stuff in way. Gaming, and Sony, is first and foremost a business. It is no longer profitable to sell ps3 games on sale these days. And like most things that age, they will probably keep going up in value (classic cars, other gaming consoles, sports cards, etc). That's the way the free market works. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...