PS3 80gig worth it?

  • Thread starter Picc84
  • 37 comments
  • 1,687 views
Picc84

Picc84

1,151
AmuseR1
I'm a Sony games kinda guy, But The price really does scare me abit. I mean, It did go down to 500 but is it worth the price AS OF NOW, or should I still even wait for the price to drop again after christmas. I have to get the 80 gig for I really need the wireless internet thing, and All the features that dont come with the 40, i want... haha; (i'm also a huge music buff)

So what do you guys feel? do you have the 40 and wish you bought the 80? viseversa?
 
I bought the 40, and couldn't be happier. I already have a slimline PS2 so backwards compatibility was irrelevant to me, and no one in their right mind needs more than 2 USB ports. 40gb is also a lot more space than some people think.

Oh, and i don't think that the price is gonna go down again anytime soon, so you'd probably be better off taking advantage of some stores' current holiday deals. There are a lot of really good PS3-HDTV bundles, especially.
 
80GB is only really worth it if you want BC because no other model of PS3 now offers it, however if you have a working PS2 there isnt really any point, just buy a 60GB or 40GB.....

The 20 GB isnt worth the huge increase in price, you could put your own HDD in for a lot less.

Robin
 
Depends on which features you really need, but i guess if you need all the wireless things you should go for a 80gb! If you don't then get a 40gb and either way you can upgrade your HDD without any problems (I'm planning on getting a 160gig) :D
 
Ya the wireless thing is big but it also depends what you get with the deal, I saw an 80GB PS3 deal that included 2 controllers a game (Motorstorm I think) and 5 Bluray DVDs for $500. That to me is an awesome deal as the extra controller would be $60, 1 bluray costs around $25 x 5 is $125 dollars so if you could get a deal like that one, it is worth it. Plus the BC extra USB etc...
 
Ohh, i thought the wifi was cut on the 40gb, my bad :P

I'm wired too for my inet :P
 
Yes. Considering all of the things you get over the 40gb model, it is totally worth it. Even if you have a PS2 (but it isn't as obvious then).
 
I got the 80gb but that was before the 40gb was available. I probably should have waited those extra couple weeks - I wouldn't have missed out on anything but MotorStorm, which is pretty much fine by me.
 
It was a tough call for me, a quieter, more efficient 40gb PS3 that sacrifices backwards compatibility, memory card readers, two USB ports, and harddrive space, or the 80gb model, which has everything.

I personally feel like going to the 40gb model, but after playing a few PS2 games, I realized how much nicer it is to have everything on one system. My slimline PS2 makes a great supplement for another room. I like the ability to download game saves, which is much easier given the nature of the PS3's save utilities. I find re-playability of older games revitalized with saves containing infinite health, etc. Just my two cents.
 
Toronado
Yes. Considering all of the things you get over the 40gb model, it is totally worth it. Even if you have a PS2 (but it isn't as obvious then).
Click to expand...

Which would be the Memory Card/SD/CompactFlash Slots, playing PS2 games, and a little bit shinier trim. That's it.

The 40gb also runs more efficiently, on less electricity.
 
Giancarlo
Which would be the Memory Card/SD/CompactFlash Slots, playing PS2 games, and a little bit shinier trim. That's it.
Click to expand...
The first two are painfully evident considering there are two less USB ports to use a USB adapter for those, and the PS2 was, is and always will be a completely unreliable piece. Not 360 bad, but not good. I see no reason why one wouldn't spring for the 80gb model even if they had a PS2 already. The fact that you do it just dandy, but as long as PS2 games are still coming out I see no reason to get the tard pack.
And that is ignoring the bad business sense it makes.

Giancarlo
The 40gb also runs more efficiently, on less electricity.
Click to expand...
Yes, because when you blow $400 on a game system, that is important.
 
Toronado
The first two are painfully evident considering there are two less USB ports to use a USB adapter for those, and the PS2 was, is and always will be a completely unreliable piece. Not 360 bad, but not good. I see no reason why one wouldn't spring for the 80gb model even if they had a PS2 already. The fact that you do it just dandy, but as long as PS2 games are still coming out I see no reason to get the tard pack.
And that is ignoring the bad business sense it makes.


Yes, because when you blow $400 on a game system, that is important.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? And why do you say the PS2 is useless, then say that we should keep buying PS2 games? Also, what kind of business sense would it be to shell out $100 for a PS3 that plays PS2 games? That would be like buying a second PS2, which not only doesn't make "business" sense, it doesn't make sense period.

I'm only considering the environment, seeing as how creating PS3s probably causes a lot of pollution.
 
Giancarlo
And why do you say the PS2 is useless, then say that we should keep buying PS2 games?
Click to expand...
Quote me.

Giancarlo
Also, what kind of business sense would it be to shell out $100 for a PS3 that plays PS2 games?
Click to expand...
The business sense that says that all of the PS3s competitors have BC, and Sony dropping it after poking at Microsoft's limited BC for a year and a half is pretty stupid. Furthermore, the PS3s promises of a multimedia machine are rather ruined when you strip it of some of its multimedia abilities.

Giancarlo
That would be like buying a second PS2, which not only doesn't make "business" sense, it doesn't make sense period.
Click to expand...
Actually, it is nothing like that. Buying a second PS2 when you already have one and paying $20 less than that to get a superior PS3 model that comes with a superior PS2 model inside is night and day.

Giancarlo
I'm only considering the environment, seeing as how creating PS3s probably causes a lot of pollution.
Click to expand...
And what difference does that make what model you get? I doubt the 40gb causes any less pollution in the manufacturing stage than the 80gb one does.
 
Toronado
Quote me.
Click to expand...

Now you're just making less sense.

Toronado
The business sense that says that all of the PS3s competitors have BC, and Sony dropping it after poking at Microsoft's limited BC for a year and a half is pretty stupid. Furthermore, the PS3s promises of a multimedia machine are rather ruined when you strip it of some of its multimedia abilities.
Click to expand...

Oh ok that's true, but that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about which one Picc84 should buy.

Well, the PS3 should play betamax then, since Sony endorsed it so strongly a while ago; yet it doesn't, and that's ok. Just like betamax, PS2 discs are an "inferior" form of media. That's why playing PS2 games or not playing PS2 games is pointless when judging between buying the 40gb or the 80gb, and just because God of War II came out on PS2 doesn't change that fact. Nearly all the new PS2 games now are watered-down PS3 games.

Also, seeing as how the Picc84 is afraid of paying too much, the obvious choice is the 40gb. It costs less, a lot less.

Toronado
Actually, it is nothing like that. Buying a second PS2 when you already have one and paying $20 less than that to get a superior PS3 model that comes with a superior PS2 model inside is night and day.
Click to expand...

Why is it a superior PS2 model inside? What's the difference from a Slimline PS2?

Toronado
And what difference does that make what model you get? I doubt the 40gb causes any less pollution in the manufacturing stage than the 80gb one does.
Click to expand...

The 40gb probably doesn't cause any less pollution to manufacture, but that's my point. It runs on less electricity, which means fewer fossil fuels being burned to get that electricity when you use it.
 
I have to agree, if you have a fine and working PS2 there isn't a whole lot of reason to get the 80gb.

And really how long did you play PS1 games after you got your PS2 anyway.
 
For me, it's a tough draw. I bought the 80gb because of it's larger harddrive space, backwards compatibility, and other features. I do say that having more than two USB ports is a life saver considering I use not only a controller connected to it for charging, but also a USB headset, keyboard, and EyeToy camera, filling up all the ports rather quickly. I did not think I would need BC because I have a slimline PS2, but given that everything is in one nice package without needing another system hooked up to my television set, it works out, and my games look nicer on a HD set. Also, I can download gamesaves and get a little more replay value out of my older games, like stealth camo in Metal Gear Solid 1-3, which makes the game fun to play around with.

The whole thing about the 40gb using less watts per hour is great, but when people are hooking up both systems (PS2 and PS3), you kind of defeat that purpose when you have both plugged in (I think). The 40gb is a great system and one that I did considered for a while. When I pay so much for a system, why not go all out and get something that's functional and at the top of it's game. The 40gb system kind of is bait to lurer more people I think. I don't know. Anyways, that's my two cents.
 
First of all, the 40 GB model does come with wireless internet connection. Lets get that straight.

Toronado, Who are you to judge a company's decision to provide a simpler version of their product to appeal to those who just find it a little ridiculous to spend 500 dollars on a game system. The only multimedia features that are removed from the 40 gb model are the card readers. You could just buy a usb card reader, for twenty bucks. No harm, no foul.

Oh, the 40 gb model doesn't have enough usb ports? Well just buy a usb hub, something that will split it up into four usb ports. Not that difficult. Of course, this is only if you want to save some money, because it would be simpler to just buy the 80gig.
 
Toronado
and the PS2 was, is and always will be a completely unreliable piece. Not 360 bad, but not good.
Click to expand...
Got anything to back that up ?... I'm still on my first fat PS2, chipped it meself while adding a 160Gb, brought it everywhere for a period with too many family happenings, including being abused by kids - Has yet to miss a beat..

You wouldn't be talking FUD now would you ?..
 
Giancarlo
Now you're just making less sense.
Click to expand...
Quote where I said the PS2 is useless.

Giancarlo
That's why playing PS2 games or not playing PS2 games is pointless when judging between buying the 40gb or the 80gb, and just because God of War II came out on PS2 doesn't change that fact.
Click to expand...
So, because the disc system is inferior, BC is useless?
Besides, your analogy is filled with so many holes it is silly. BETA was the better of the two, for one. And Sony doesn't support BETA anymore because it failed. DVD pretty obviously did not. And Sony wasn't behind DVD, either.

Giancarlo
Nearly all the new PS2 games now are watered-down PS3 games.
Click to expand...
And? There are thousands of games for the PS2 that aren't watered down PS3 games, and some of the new games still aren't.

Giancarlo
Why is it a superior PS2 model inside? What's the difference from a Slimline PS2?
Click to expand...
Well, first of all, its obviously going to be more reliable. Second of all, the games are supposed to look better at times. Third of all, it isn't a "fry eggs on it because of how hot it gets" video game console. For that matter, we don't even know if Picc84 has a working PS2.

Giancarlo
It runs on less electricity, which means fewer fossil fuels being burned to get that electricity when you use it.
Click to expand...
First of all, I'm sure a big environmental message isn't that big up on people's reasons for buying a game console.
Second of all, I doubt the difference in wattage is anywhere near enough to make a difference in this one case.

Dead_Poetic
Toronado, Who are you to judge a company's decision to provide a simpler version of their product to appeal to those who just find it a little ridiculous to spend 500 dollars on a game system.
Click to expand...
When Sony ridicules another company for a year and a half about how their system has a wonderful feature that the other doesn't, and then makes it their obvious intention that they plan to drop said feature as soon as possible, it kind of annoys me.

Casio
And really how long did you play PS1 games after you got your PS2 anyway.
Click to expand...
I can think of a half-dozen franchises that were run into the ground on the PS2. I'm sure things will be the same way on the PS3.

Flerbizky
Got anything to back that up ?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure Sony got sued, and lost, over DREs. You are essentially using the same argument I've seen used to defend 360 reliability (it hasn't happened to me), and it doesn't fly for them.
 
I have too add that I don't ever want to go back to using my PS2 for PS2 games. 1st reason is unlimited memory cards and being able to back them up with ease. The second is the forced progressive scan and slight AA enhancements. It does look better on PS3. I still play PS2 games and I did not mind starting over. And Sony has not dropped BC untill the 80gig systems run out of stock. Sony can and will return full PS2 BC when they see a price window to do it.

But to add to the topic The 40gig system is worth it if you do not care for Ps2 games. Thats pretty much it.
 
i must admit that im far from happy with the PAL ps3 60gb playing PS2 games.

40gb is awesome.

You save $300 AUD and all you loose is BC and 20gb..

you can buy a PS2 for $145 AUD brand new and it will play PS2 games far better than the old 60gb

you can buy an external 320gb HD for $139...

So we still saving $16 and yet we now have 360gb PS3 and an brand new PS2 vs's 60gb and a plays not so well PS2 games PS3.

this logic has destroyed 99.9% of all my customers questions as to why the 60gb is no longer made.
 
Toronado
I can think of a half-dozen franchises that were run into the ground on the PS2. I'm sure things will be the same way on the PS3.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. But as soon as a new console comes out how many people buy new released games for the previous gen console? Most new games for previous gen consoles are just poor ports of current gen. Remember how bad THPS4 was for PS1?

The only PS2 games I would probably play if I had a PS3 would be GTA and GT4, which is only because the new ones aren't out yet, and even then, I wouldn't fork out the extra just to play them when I've got a perfectly fine and working (and launch model for that matter) PS2.
 
If you are one of those people that is gonna want to upgrade in the future, whether it be for backwards capability or whatever, buy the best you can afford. Or save till you can.
I learned a long time ago that if I "settle" for what I can get now, I'll eventually end up buying what I wanted in the first place. So now, I just wait till I can get what I actually want. It saves money in the long run, and frustration.
 

Latest Posts

Back