What else is new, PS2 had the same issues and was resolved. I'm not really interested in spending $600 to play PS2 games.

Makin' Money

overcastWhat else is new, PS2 had the same issues and was resolved. I'm not really interested in spending $600 to play PS2 games.

For $600 dollar I not going to play it. I already have 3 on reserve and I'm selling them for $3,000 a pop. For all I care that person can deal with the problem.

XshadowfoxXFor $600 dollar I not going to play it. I already have 3 on reserve and I'm selling them for $3,000 a pop. For all I care that person can deal with the problem.

Ok?

XshadowfoxXFor $600 dollar I not going to play it. I already have 3 on reserve and I'm selling them for $3,000 a pop. For all I care that person can deal with the problem.

Good for you, did you register to tell us that?

You are aware that reserve means that you are guranteed to get them, but no when you get them.
You will prob. only be able to sell that for that much around X mas..That is if you get them before X mas.

$3,000 a pop hahahaha I better wait. No one is going to buy them at that price.

bebobsa$3,000 a pop hahahaha I better wait. No one is going to buy them at that price.

I am sad to say that he prob. will be able to sell it at that price the week before X mas.
People are crazy at that time of the year.
Prices go up like crazy then too.
He might not be able to get exactly $3000, but he will prob. be able to make at least 3x-4x profit.

Well Japanese PS3 consoles were going for a max of £950 on ebay. So i dont see how youll be able to get $3k per console.

You might be able to sell it that high if someone wants one enough, but I wouldn't be sure of it.

Edit: and you would need to be really sad to buy one at that price.

OH WELL, its the price you pay for getting stuff first.

There are already stores in Japan selling "used" PS3's for $1200 USD.

overcastWhat else is new, PS2 had the same issues and was resolved. I'm not really interested in spending $600 to play PS2 games.

People who didn't have a PS2 (like me) could be a bit more interested in the PS3 during the first year when there are not many PS3 titles IF they could also play ("the best") PS2 games. Especially as some of these titles are very cheap second hand.:cool:

DanTheBanjomanGood for you, did you register to tell us that?

That little comeback just made my morning. :p

lemonadesodaPeople who didn't have a PS2 (like me) could be a bit more interested in the PS3 during the first year when there are not many PS3 titles IF they could also play ("the best") PS2 games. Especially as some of these titles are very cheap second hand.:cool:

This will be fixed with an software upgrade, the PS2 was fixed, so will this. Buy a $100 PS2 if you want to play PS2 games right now. It'll save you $500+.

I don't think the is the major problem, because that can be fixed in a patch but the fact it can't upscale PS2 games into HD totally blows.

newbielivesI don't think the is the major problem, because that can be fixed in a patch but the fact it can't upscale PS2 games into HD totally blows.

I never heard that the ps3 can do that.

ghost101Well Japanese PS3 consoles were going for a max of £950 on ebay. So i dont see how youll be able to get $3k per console.

erm actually............cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=007&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=170048640527&rd=1&rd=1

newbielivesI don't think the is the major problem, because that can be fixed in a patch but the fact it can't upscale PS2 games into HD totally blows.

A PS2 game would look total pants in HD.....as it was originally coded for the now piss poor PS2!

newbielivesI don't think the is the major problem, because that can be fixed in a patch but the fact it can't upscale PS2 games into HD totally blows.

Uhhh, your tv upscales everything into it's native resolution. Assuming of course you're not on an HD CRT. No amount of software is going to automagically turn old games into high resolution versions.

This isn't a big issue for me, chances are it won't play my largly pirated collection of games anyway, at least not for quite some time.

newtekie1This isn't a big issue for me, chances are it won't play my largly pirated collection of games anyway, at least not for quite some time.

Probably best if no one sees that... :laugh:

overcastUhhh, your tv upscales everything into it's native resolution. Assuming of course you're not on an HD CRT. No amount of software is going to automagically turn old games into high resolution versions.

This post is 100% wrong. HD TVs will use all of their pixels, but they definately will not display at their native resolution.

mout12This post is 100% wrong. HD TVs will use all of their pixels, but they definately will not display at their native resolution.

Is that right? Please explain in full then. If they are using all of their pixels, then THEY ARE DISPLAYING AT THEIR NATIVE RESOLUTION.

All source content is scaled to fit, just because the source content isn't that resolution, doesn't mean it won't be displayed that way.

Don't argue, you're wrong.

overcastIs that right? Please explain in full then. If they are using all of their pixels, then THEY ARE DISPLAYING AT THEIR NATIVE RESOLUTION.

All source content is scaled to fit, just because the source content isn't that resolution, doesn't mean it won't be displayed that way.

Don't argue, you're wrong.

Example: An LCD monitor with 1680x1050 resolution, physically has 1680x1050 pixels. If you set your destop resolution to 800x600, the monitor will use all of it's pixels; however, it will only display 800x600, but stretching it to fit the monitor - a fuzzy image will occur (it will not be crisp) - displaying an image which is less than the monitors native resolution. However, if the desktop was set to 1680x1050, every physical pixel of the monitor will display the exact pixel sent to it from the computer.

The definition of DISPLAYING AT THEIR NATIVE RESOLUTION: When the input resolution to the monitor equals the physical resolution of the monitor.

Woot!

ownt. noob

mout12Example: An LCD monitor with 1680x1050 resolution, physically has 1680x1050 pixels. If you set your destop resolution to 800x600, the monitor will use all of it's pixels; however, it will only display 800x600, but stretching it to fit the monitor - a fuzzy image will occur (it will not be crisp) - displaying an image which is less than the monitors native resolution. However, if the desktop was set to 1680x1050, every physical pixel of the monitor will display the exact pixel sent to it from the computer.

The definition of DISPLAYING AT THEIR NATIVE RESOLUTION: When the input resolution to the monitor equals the physical resolution of the monitor.

Woot!

ownt. noob

Wow, you are clueless. The image is STILL SCALED. Why do you think it fills up all of the pixels on the screen. You changed the source resolution FINE - it STILL scales it up to fit it's resolution. What do you think "stretching it to fit the monitor means" ???????? :confused: The reason for the "fuzzy" image is because it's no longer a 1:1 pixel mapping. If it was "only displaying 800x600" you would see an 800x600 box in the middle of the screen with black borders around it. So enough with your leet speak and read a book.

The definition of Native Resolution = the maximum resolution of the display - THAT IS IT. It has nothing to do with the source equal the physical monitor resolution. That would be 1:1 pixel mapping