So...The real question is, can a 6.00 CFW be made?
Cause I want to buy Soul Caliber >.<
PSP ita have posted some observations of whats hidden in firmware 6.0:
The release of a new official Sony firmware is always cause for debate among PSP owners, is to comment on any additional features introduced with the new update is to figure out if Sony has corrected any bugs found in previous versions and has introduced new anti-hacking. Just hours after the release, the French site PSPGEN is already successful in decrypting the new version of system software and is able to provide the earliest information.
A preliminary analysis of the new firmware you can see the new ones. Prx appointed 04G, for future PSP Go! as the same firmware files are also 01G, 02G and 03G respectively provided for PSP-1000, PSP-2000 and PSP-3000. The most important thing in this regards POPS 6:00, the PS1 emulator, stand-alone Sony. For the first time it has a version of that. Prx specific to a single console. As you can see from the image to follow, has made its appearance file pops_04g.prx which, as explained above, is reserved for imminent PSP Go!. The questions then arise spontaneously. Why Sony decided to introduce this new. Prx? The PSP Go! operate differently emulation of PlayStation 1 titles? The answers have nothing but the first October, when the new console will be available in European shops.
So...The real question is, can a 6.00 CFW be made?
Cause I want to buy Soul Caliber >.<
^ You can play the european version of soul calibur on 5.50 gen b
Also, I think that the gen team is working on a 6.00 cfw
Hi wraggster, you know me.
The source of our news is PSPGEN.
Doesn't the new PSP Go! have a more powerful CPU? Perhaps they can utilize the extra power for better PSOne Emulation. So this could be why they have added an extra .prx file.
no, it might be ever so slightly smaller and more energy efficient (then a phat) but not more powerful, that would have made since
See all they had to do is increase cpu speed, increase the ram and slap a 2 on the end of the name and there would not have been any issue
But they decided to go this route
Last edited by osgeld; September 11th, 2009 at 01:55.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks