Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony Officially Dropping 20GB PS3 in North America

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the get-thee-behind-me dept.

Sony 144

An anonymous reader writes "Sony has just announced they're officially ditching the 20GB model of the PS3. 'Due to the overwhelming demand for the 60GB model from both retailers and consumers, we have ceased offering the 20GB model here in North America. In addition to the larger internal hard drive, the 60GB PlayStation 3 features added storage media slots and built-in Wi-Fi not found in the 20GB system. Based on retailer and consumer feedback, we have decided to focus our current efforts on the more popular 60GB model.'"

cancel ×

144 comments

xbox elite (2, Interesting)

k_187 (61692) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695697)

Seems MS was right to put the new xbox at $480 then. Keeps the $100 premium for the PS3 intact.

Re:xbox elite (1)

*weasel (174362) | more than 7 years ago | (#18701097)

In the same sense that they were 'right' to price games at $60... sure.

But I'm not about to celebrate the fact that they're successfully pushing the upper-limit of what the gaming public is willing to pay.

Re:xbox elite (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 7 years ago | (#18701159)

Giving the roaring success of the PS3, I'm not sure they've succeeded.

Sound familiar? (2, Interesting)

Mark Gordon (14545) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695699)

So much for "20 GB is enough for anyone"

Re:Sound familiar? (0, Offtopic)

DanTheManMS (1039636) | more than 7 years ago | (#18697231)

So much for "20 GB is enough for anyone"
What are you talking about? It's 640 kb, remember?

Re:Sound familiar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18699763)

you really ARE new here!

i wonder if... (-1, Troll)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695703)

This means the 20 gig models are going to get even cheaper at retail?

I mean, they're just lying about...

Re:i wonder if... (1, Flamebait)

The PS3 Will Fail (998952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695763)

Hey - the PS3 at any price is still being marketed by a company that installed rootkits on the computers of their own customers and launched predatory lawsuits against lik-sang.com (a legitimate business that was merely employing the right of resale) - and that, my friend, is why the price wasn't the issue for me.

Re:i wonder if... (0, Redundant)

SaDan (81097) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695821)

Amen! :-)

Different company (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695921)

The company with the rootkits is Sony Music, not Sony Games. If your brother robbed a bank should you go to jail too? Truly large companies are really lots of smaller companies that make their own choices.

Re:Different company (3, Insightful)

calbanese (169547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696097)

There is only one Board of Directors for Sony. There is only one Chariman and CEO of Sony. They are responsible for every last employee from both the Games and Entertainment divisions. The responsibility is with them, whether or not they approved the actions or not.

Responsibility but nopt the choice (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696425)

Do you think the Board of Directors approved the rootkit? Or even the president? Hell no. That was up to the division. That division made a bad call, and the Board is responsible insofar as they hired the doofus that made that choice for Sony Music. But they are not directly responsible, and Sony Games being yet a step further removed is less responsible.

Again I ask, if your brother rob a bank should you go to jail? Your father raised both of you, why shouldn't he go to jail? You talked to your brother at some point, surely you are to blame. All of these statements are as silly as what you are trying to say.

Re:Responsibility but nopt the choice (1, Offtopic)

The PS3 Will Fail (998952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696571)

"Again I ask, if your brother rob a bank should you go to jail? Your father raised both of you, why shouldn't he go to jail? You talked to your brother at some point, surely you are to blame. All of these statements are as silly as what you are trying to say."
Apparently, you're not smart enough to discuss the situation without an inappropriate analogy. Okay - I will play along. I'm going to modify your statement to make it applicable to the situation with Sony.

Let's suppose I have a brother who shoots lots of people. He's a mad man, he's got lots and lots of guns and he just loves to walk around on the street putting the gun in someone's face and blowing their head apart. And when he runs out of bullets, he takes a big fucking knife out and just goes to town carving people up. Alright? So we've got my brother - who is doing some bad stuff. Then you've got me - I'm selling game consoles. You've also got my other brother who files predatory lawsuits against lik-sang.com and drives them out of business - stealing the right of resale and basically making garage sales illegal. So we've got two asshole brothers and me. Then you've got my father, he's running the show.

Now, do you want to buy my console knowing that when I get some money, that money may end up going up to my father and then down to one of my asshole brothers? Perhaps the brother that shoots people wants to buy some more bullets. Well, look at that, I just sold a console and made a little money. That should get my brother some more bullets.

Your analogy is fucking stupid but I used it to show that in your analogy, rewarding one brother results in civilians getting shot in the face.

Next?

Re:Responsibility but nopt the choice (1, Informative)

radish (98371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696575)

Again I ask, if your brother rob a bank should you go to jail? Your father raised both of you, why shouldn't he go to jail? You talked to your brother at some point, surely you are to blame. All of these statements are as silly as what you are trying to say.

There's a fundamental difference you're missing (or rather, ignoring). The Sony board are legally responsible for the actions of their employees. My father is not legally responsible for my actions.

Re:Responsibility but nopt the choice (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18696809)

There's a fundamental difference you're missing (or rather, ignoring). The Sony board are legally responsible for the actions of their employees. My father is not legally responsible for my actions.


In the United States he is until you turn 18.

Re:Responsibility but nopt the choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18696917)

In the United States he is until you turn 18.

Umm, no. A parent is never criminally liable for their minor children unless the parent themself was directly negligence or contributory in some way.

Civilly, they have a little more liability, but even so the child is usually the one who receives the judgement against them.

Re:Responsibility but nopt the choice (1)

Micklewhite (1031232) | more than 7 years ago | (#18697283)

Offtopic

Re:Responsibility but nopt the choice (1)

flewp (458359) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698339)

Again I ask, if your brother rob a bank should you go to jail? Your father raised both of you, why shouldn't he go to jail? You talked to your brother at some point, surely you are to blame. All of these statements are as silly as what you are trying to say.

There's a fundamental difference you're missing (or rather, ignoring). The Sony board are legally responsible for the actions of their employees. My father is not legally responsible for my actions.
So if they pass a law making parents legally responsible for their child's actions, does that make a difference? Whether or not something is morally right or wrong, does not depend on legality. I'm not excusing Sony for the rootkit scandal, I'm just saying that legality shouldn't play a role in a moral judgement.

Re:Responsibility but nopt the choice (5, Insightful)

asdfghjklqwertyuiop (649296) | more than 7 years ago | (#18697537)

Do you think the Board of Directors approved the rootkit? Or even the president? Hell no. That was up to the division. That division made a bad call, and the Board is responsible insofar as they hired the doofus that made that choice for Sony Music. But they are not directly responsible


And I wonder, after the rootkit scandal broke, did the board of directors or the president use their vast power to do anything, so as to discourage their other subordinates from making equally bad decisions in the future? Nope:

The uninstaller for the DRM had security problems of its own.

Thomas Hesse, president of that division, who said "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?" still has his job today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy _protection_scandal [wikipedia.org]

It is their responsibility of those people to keep the company in line and fix quickly when it isn't. That's why they have so much power get paid tens of millions of dollars a year (supposedly). By continuing to delegate their power to somone who wonders why people would care that their machine had been rooted, they clearly approve of those actions.

Again I ask, if your brother rob a bank should you go to jail? Your father raised both of you, why shouldn't he go to jail? You talked to your brother at some point, surely you are to blame.


And I ask, are you given power to control your brother's actions? Are you his legal guardian? Is he under 18 or mentally retarded? If so, yes, you might in fact go to jail. With power comes responsibility.

Re:Responsibility but nopt the choice (0, Offtopic)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698347)

Ok Spider Man, it's true that the president of that division is still in place. So your father was in on the heist (though frankly I think it's ore the case the board does not realize just how large a blunder that was). Should you too go to jail?

Re:Responsibility but nopt the choice (1)

calbanese (169547) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698155)

Once I can buy stock in Sony Games or Sony Entertainment without buying stock in Sony, let me know.

Every dollar that goes to SONY Entertainment, SONY Electronics, or SONY Games goes to improve SONY's bottom line. All the money that flows into all the subdivivions of Sony gets distributed based on what the Board decides, not necesarily on who sold the original product.

Arbitrary distinctions which are used solely to divide responsibility for product markets does not mean that Sony Corporate should is not responsible for actions of their divisions. They are not seperate legal entities with a parent-subsidiary relationship. Even if they were, Sony would still be responsible if they were wholly owned and operated by the parent company, which they aren't.

Why don't you check Sony's 8-K or 10-Q and see who paid for the rootkit settlement and who funded the liksang litigation?

Re:Responsibility but nopt the choice (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698405)

If a son goes to jail, it's the father that pays bail. That does not make the father more culpable. It is just sad for the parent.

Myself, I think it would be better to reward divisions that do well financially (Sony has made some good choices like Linux support and folding at home clients that I approve of). If that division grows, while we all ignore and punish the "bad" divisions, then it's more likley Sony might get rd of or change Sony Music in ways we approve of. Since killing the whole company is not an option or even a good idea, I prefer to take an approach that actually has an effect of improvng the company rather than simply joining a meaningless boycott supported by so few people it has no effect.

Do you want real change or not? You are on a path to no-where, that only limits your wn choices without affecting Sony.

Re:Responsibility but nopt the choice (1)

The PS3 Will Fail (998952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18700623)

"If a son goes to jail, it's the father that pays bail. That does not make the father more culpable. It is just sad for the parent."
Ah, still using the dumbest analogy ever I see! It's so sad that you can't discuss the actual situation. Sony Games gets money from a customer. That money goes to Sony, the parent. Does that money then go to Sony Music to fund more rootkits? As a customer, I don't know but it's possible. That's why I won't buy anything from any Sony division. Tell me where the failing in logic is. [Extra points: do it without making a stupid analogy.]

Re:Responsibility but nopt the choice (1)

remmelt (837671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18699873)

> But they are not directly responsible

And therein lies the main problem of corporate or political anything today. And I'm not just talking about the USA here, it's world wide.
As the board of directors of a company, you have a bunch of perks. You also have a bunch of responsibilities. You are the person responsible for mistakes made by your company. The family analogy is moot because there is an explicit task, an explicit burden of responsibility for the board. This doesn't mean that when some Joe in the mail room drives over a cat on the weekend you take the fall, but when something big and terrible (world wide infection of computers by your company, by malice even) happens, you get to take the fall. That's one of the downsides of being high up in the chain.
These days though, the only thing we hear are excuses. "It was a division, not me!", "it was the secretary of state, not me!", "surely you cannot expect me to take the fall for that!" These people didn't end up there because they couldn't help it. It's a job that you choose to take, and it comes with responsibility. If you're not prepared to take it, don't take the job. Also see: politics.
It's not as if these people aren't compensated for the risk they take. Now they want to mitigate the risk? Come on.

Re:Different company (0, Offtopic)

The PS3 Will Fail (998952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696505)

"The company with the rootkits is Sony Music, not Sony Games. If your brother robbed a bank should you go to jail too? Truly large companies are really lots of smaller companies that make their own choices."
First of all - corporations are not people. Let's dump the analogies. I believe I am intelligent enough to discuss the actual situation rather than a contrived and inappropriate analogy. Hopefully, you are too. If I buy a PS3 and games, any profit they make off that sale ultimately ends up in the coffers of Sony proper. It is because Sony is a profitable company that all of those divisions exist. In fact, the games division has been helping Sony to stay in the black for many years. So why would I want to give money to a company that does something I completely disagree with?

Furthermore, where was your defense of their predatory lawsuits against lik-sang.com, I don't seem to see it in your post.

Re:Different company (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18697533)

First of all - corporations are not people. Let's dump the analogies. I believe I am intelligent enough to discuss the actual situation rather than a contrived and inappropriate analogy.

Corperations are run by people, and your poor choice of userID indicates you are an idiot - or a troll, it matters not which one.

Furthermore, where was your defense of their predatory lawsuits against lik-sang.com, I don't seem to see it in your post.

That's Sony Games. Not Sony Music. Was I ever defending Sony Games from other accusations? No, you assumed and as the old saying goes, made an ass of yourself (already accomplished by your user ID really). I am only saying that blaming Sony Games for the rootkit thing is stupid and ignores how large companies work and make choices.

I'm so sorry the PS3 killed you mom and then ate your dog or whatever, but why go that extra distance to try and discredit them that only goes to discredit anything else you say?

Re:Different company (2, Insightful)

The PS3 Will Fail (998952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18697801)

"Corperations are run by people"
But the relations between divisions within companies are quite different than the relations between siblings - which is what you were comparing them to. Parents don't often sell off their lesser children. Your analogy was flawed. I did the best I could with it.

"and your poor choice of userID indicates you are an idiot - or a troll, it matters not which one."
That's a really good argument. You made a personal attack against me. Nowhere did I do that to you. I attacked your crude and inappropriate analogy. It's obvious now that you can't debate the issue and need to resort to childish attacks.

"That's Sony Games. Not Sony Music. Was I ever defending Sony Games from other accusations? No, you assumed and as the old saying goes, made an ass of yourself (already accomplished by your user ID really). I am only saying that blaming Sony Games for the rootkit thing is stupid and ignores how large companies work and make choices."
I'm not blaming "Sony Games". I am blaming Sony. I'm not going to support a company like Sony. I have named two examples where Sony has behaved badly. The money is ultimately going to Sony proper - not Sony Games or Sony Music or any other division. My dollars simply will not go to Sony because of what Sony Music has done. Sony Games doesn't get a free pass - it's still one company. Of course, this is what I said in my other two posts in response to you - but you chose to attack me rather than respond with any type of argument.

"I'm so sorry the PS3 killed you mom and then ate your dog or whatever,"
I am really unimpressed with your ability to have an adult conversation.

"but why go that extra distance to try and discredit them that only goes to discredit anything else you say?
I pointed out two instances of Sony behaving badly, in my opinion and that I would not and will not support a company that did those things. That is my right. You never replied to any of my points. And just to go ahead and sink to your level, you're a fucking moron. Your argument is basically that Sony Games is a great sub-company and so I should just ignore everything else Sony does. If Sony Music was responsible for genocide, do you still think I should support Sony Games? You haven't told me why I should give money to Sony Games that makes its way to Sony proper - which could use that money to install more rootkits. But, of course, you're not interested in having an actual debate. You want to make your stupid fucking analogy and anyone that disagrees with you is either an idiot or a troll, right?

Looks like I've been trolled. [Hey! Look at that, it's so much easier to just label you a troll (or perhaps an idiot) that actually make any points.]

Re:Different company (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698389)

But the relations between divisions within companies are quite different than the relations between siblings

Man, you REALLY do not know companies and the people that run them do you. Have you ever met a VP? Do you understand the rivaries and turf wars that go on?

Your analogy was flawed. I did the best I could with it.

My analogy is perfect. Your inept handling and understanding of same is not my problem.

That's a really good argument. You made a personal attack against me.

That is an observation, not an attack. Look at your own user ID. You are an idiot. No offense, that's just what you have to work with is all.

I am really unimpressed with your ability to have an adult conversation.

You are the one childishly punishing the whole of Sony for the sins of a part. Even if the money flows up, how much flows down? Each division is responsible for making its own money you know. If you cannot think or act like an adult, why should I treat you like one?

You want to make your stupid fucking analogy and anyone that disagrees with you is either an idiot or a troll, right?

Not at all, there have been some intellgent responses to my posts and I respond to those in turn. If you want to have a rational conversation try not having a userID that marks you as a childish idiot. Your own fate was sealed by poor choices in your past. Perhaps next time you'll reconsider just what you are saying to the rest of the world about your mental age when choosing a screen name to represent yourself.

Re:Different company (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698975)

Wow, you truly are inept. Did Sony catch you masturbating to furry Britney porn that you cannot rationally discuss their business decisions? Or even understand basic corporate law? As for user names... glasshouses and bricks come to mind. Or eye of the beholders. Or other silly truisms.

Re:Different company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18699465)

Dude, you're a loon.

Re:Different company (1)

The PS3 Will Fail (998952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18700645)

"Perhaps next time you'll reconsider just what you are saying to the rest of the world about your mental age when choosing a screen name to represent yourself."
Oh, okay "SuperKendall". You're a pretty good troll.

Re:Different company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18700499)

Those two are the same company. There's only one Sony. Unlike you and your brother, who are clearly not the same person.

Re:i wonder if... (-1, Troll)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696435)

who the hell modded this troll? It's the truth!

Re:i wonder if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18697573)

No bias there, 'The PS3 Will Fail'. I am curious about your 'right to resale' though. If I'm the manufacturer of something, *I* have the right to say who can and cannot sell my product. If that hurts business, that's my problem, not anyone else's.

Re:i wonder if... (1)

The PS3 Will Fail (998952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18697837)

"No bias there, 'The PS3 Will Fail'."
What the fuck? It's a message board. People are stating their opinions. Are you saying everyone else on Slashdot is making unbiased statements that don't reflect their own personal views and are only about the facts?

"If I'm the manufacturer of something, *I* have the right to say who can and cannot sell my product. If that hurts business, that's my problem, not anyone else's."
I'm going to assume we're talking about U.S. courts. Care to cite the law you believe gives a manufacturer the right to dictate what I do with their product after I purchase it?

Re:i wonder if... (1)

flewp (458359) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698371)

It may not be a law, but companies certainly do have the right to tell their resellers what they can and don't with their product. If the reseller signs a contract with Sony (or whatever company), the contract may stipulate what can and can't be done, and the reseller is legally obligated to follow that contract.

Re:i wonder if... (1)

flewp (458359) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698391)

Also, the post you responded to says *I* have the right to say who can and cannot sell my product." - It doesn't say anything about dictating what you can and can't do with a product you've purchased.

Again, it may not be a law, but a company can sell or refuse to sell their product to anyone they choose. A reseller can't force a company to sell them their product.

Re:i wonder if... (1)

The PS3 Will Fail (998952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18700597)

"Again, it may not be a law, but a company can sell or refuse to sell their product to anyone they choose. A reseller can't force a company to sell them their product."
But let's get back to the original point - lik-sang had legally purchased Sony products in one market and was selling into another. Sony can't control the entire distribution chain and yet they were allowed to by suing lik-sang.

It holds that if I buy a PS3 in Japan, take it to France and sell it there - Sony believes they have the right to sue me for that. Do you agree with that?

Re:i wonder if... (1)

gunny01 (1022579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698521)

I'm going to assume we're talking about U.S. courts. Care to cite the law you believe gives a manufacturer the right to dictate what I do with their product after I purchase it?


DMCA.

Has this guy recently spent some time legally dead for tax reasons?

Re:i wonder if... (3, Insightful)

Scottoest (1081663) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695831)

Although the PS3 sales are hardly strong, I honestly think the 20GB PS3 was more or less vaporware, from a practical stand-point. I swear to the Lord that I have never seen one in any store. Ever.

I've come across mountains of 60GB PS3's, but never the lesser one. Which makes me curious about this whole "more demand for the better one" thing. How would they even gage something like that, when it's seemingly impossible to find the goddamn things in the first place?

It's like General Electric making five toasters, selling out of them, and then saying demand was too low to justify building them because you only sold five at retail. What planet am I on?

- Scott

I agree (2, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695959)

I don't think there was even much of an opportunity to evaluate true demand, because there was never really a choice - you took would you could get. I think Sony just didn't want the 20GB model as an anchor weighing them down as they move into media sales...

However, there is one small bit of anecdotal evidence that backs up what Sony is saying. Amazon had at one point a lottery to get a chance at buying a PS3 from a shipment, you could enter either a lottery for the 20GB or the 60GB model (you didn't pay anything, but could only sign up for one or the other). They displayed the odds of winning a purchasing slot, and the 60GB model had about 8x more people signed up for a chance.

The one thing I could see that would make it more appealing is the WiFi support which would make it easier to hook into a network, since so many people have WiFi... even if it's not your own!

Re:I agree (1)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696145)

That (hardly) seems like a reasonable sample; people who are so desperate to buy a system that they're willing to enter a lottery for the opportunity to buy one. It is likely that the 20GB model would be far more attractive to someone who ended up playing Resistance or Motorstorm at their friends house and decided to buy a PS3; certainly (at the price) this is probably a small portion of the population but would grow as the price drops and more games come out to be the majority of the gaming population.

Didn't say it was a good sample... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696485)

Just a point was all, as to why they might have thought that. But as I said I don't think they ever gave the market a real chance, and think they pulled that model for other reasons with that one as cover.

I think they were not sure they could really sell as many as they wanted at $600 as $500 - once they saw they could outsell the 360 [eproductwars.com] at the $600 price point they decided to stick with that model to make things simpler for retailers and Sony. Sony (and Microsoft) do not really care about the Wii I think, since they are aimed at such different markets... I see next gen gaming being the Wii + at least one other "power" console for many gamers (though probably lots of casual gaming households with only Wii's).

Re:I agree (1)

amuro98 (461673) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696393)

That seems a bit unbalanced.

I've never seen a 20GB PS3 in stores, only the 60GB ones. Even Sony admitted they were going to be shipping 4 60GB PS3s for every 1 20GB PS3. Assuming this was true, then there was obviously demand for the 20GB model, as it actually sold out.

However, what I suspect is going on is that Sony was losing more money per console on the 20GB model verus the 60GB one, even though it has "more stuff" in it.

Re:i wonder if... (5, Interesting)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696217)

Yeah, the 20GB model was practically a hoax, Sony released a few of them, here and there, so they could say, openly, that the PS3 started at only $500. It was all just a sales gimmick to get people to come in and buy them, and then when there weren't any 20GB models on the shelves, they'd just go "oh well" and buy the 60GB models. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me. I mean, it's Walmart's tactic (get people to come in for the cheap stuff, but then sell them the expensive stuff), but at least Walmart actually HAS the cheap stuff, Sony didn't really even ever have a 20GB, there's little evidence that very many ever existed.

This also gives credence to the concept that the PS3 is not going to have a price drop for a VERY LONG TIME.

Re:i wonder if... (2, Interesting)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696739)

Exactly. I've seen estimates that extra parts and labor that go into the premium PS3 versus the regular is about $35 and the assembly lines can be diverted late during production to keep a variable ratio of one to the other. It would have been useful if they were having trouble keeping PS3s on the shelves but, evidently not. In practice, the 20GB version has been MIA in retail for a while... it costs $100 more so making all 60GB versions lets Sony takes about $65 less in red ink. It's a good way to mitigate the bleeding since they simply did not sell as many as they wanted to.

With the $480 360 Elite, if Sony REALLY wanted to, they could skip buying this year's ivory back scratchers and drop the PS3 to $500 and really put the pressure on the top end of the 360 consumer. Sure there'd be a lot of PS3 owners pissed off to see a price drop so soon, but, it wouldn't be the first time Sony's spit in the faces of their fanboys.

Re:i wonder if... (3, Insightful)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695987)

I love how they decided to drop the 20GB model because of the "overwhelming demand for the 60GB model from both retailers and consumers" when I can walk into any retailer and buy a 60GB PS3 whereas the 20GB model has never been in any store or online.

So, if you bought one of these... (-1, Troll)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695739)

You no longer have an obsolete, underpowered, crippled little-brother games console. You have a discontinued, obsolete, underpowered, crippled little-brother games console.

Which was still rather more expensive than a Wii.

What's crippled about it? Was superiour. (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695853)

The 20GB model has:

GigE networking

A Hard drive that is user servicable and replaceable

The same AV connections

Anything else used to actually play games, lacking only a media reader for things like CF cards.

I was going to buy the 20GB model, and put a larger HD in it. So I personally think it was the superior option as it was more configurable and it did not have wireless if you did not need it. Lots of things are coming with wireless built in now which is nice, but I was going to wire it up anyway so as not to have the possibility of interference.

I can kind of see why they did it but I'm annoyed they are removing that option.

Re:So, if you bought one of these... (2, Funny)

amuro98 (461673) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696431)

So that makes it a collector's item, right?

EBAY!

Finally, PS3 owners will get the $1000+ auctions they were dreaming of!

Low demand (-1, Troll)

JFMulder (59706) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695745)

I read this on TeamXbox's forums [teamxbox.com] :

"if they're dropping it due to poor demand, they should drop the 60GB model too:P"

Right on! :)

Outselling the 360 for the past few weeks... (4, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695897)

if they're dropping it due to poor demand, they should drop the 60GB model too:P

Wouldn't that mean asking Microsoft to drop the 360 as well? The PS3 has been outselling [eproductwars.com] the 360 every day since Amazon finally had them in stock a few weeks ago (scroll down to "Sales rank of the primary Systems").

And yes, the Wii is still trouncing them both.

Re:Outselling the 360 for the past few weeks... (1)

JFMulder (59706) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696005)

Errr... I don't think taking a single store's sales is enough to declare a trend. Heck, the Wii and the 360 are not available right now at a store near where I live and there are PS3's lying around. <sarcasm> Oh my god, Microsoft still can't meet demand...</sarcasm>

Re:Outselling the 360 for the past few weeks... (1)

valathax (916966) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696019)

Wouldn't that mean asking Microsoft to drop the 360 as well? The PS3 has been outselling the 360 every day since Amazon finally had them in stock a few weeks ago (scroll down to "Sales rank of the primary Systems"). And yes, the Wii is still trouncing them both.

Number of games/accessories that can ship today
Current leader: Xbox 360

Salesrank of top 10 products
Current leader: Wii

Sales rank of the primary systems:
Current leader: Wii

# in top 100
Current leader: Xbox 360

# in top 1000:
Current leader: Xbox 360

So I see xbox, wii, wii, xbox, xbox; the PS3 isn't winning single category.

Read again - didn't say winning (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696395)

I already said the Wii was winning. I also said the PS3 was outselling the 360, so those that think PS34 sales are low would also have to apply the same wonderment to the 360.

I don't have any of them at the moment, so it's not like I have the fanatical devotion to any one system that you have. I'm just pointing out that Amazon sales for the PS3 are not bad.

Gee, way to spin the statistics ... (1)

jchenx (267053) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696931)

Wouldn't that mean asking Microsoft to drop the 360 as well? The PS3 has been outselling the 360 every day since Amazon finally had them in stock a few weeks ago (scroll down to "Sales rank of the primary Systems").
Good lord, you should apply for marketing at Sony or something. On that page, every other statistic shows that either the Wii or the 360 is selling far better than the PS3. And even in your particular example, it's only based off the last 2 weeks of data, and in only one store (Amazon), and the difference between the "sales rank" is small (360 is 20, and the PS3 is 16). It's not that clear what "sales rank" even means.

And you call that "the PS3 is outselling the 360 for the past few weeks"?

The February NPD numbers [joystiq.com] show a much different story. Granted, the NPD values aren't complete either, but much more so than merely combing just Amazon.

In any case, the March NPD numbers will be along shortly, so we'll see if your theory holds up.

That said, yes, the Wii is still trouncing them both. :)

Look again (3, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18697597)

Good lord, you should apply for marketing at Sony or something. On that page, every other statistic shows that either the Wii or the 360 is selling far better than the PS3.

No, other entries say things like "There are more items for sale for the 360" Well, yes - that's pretty obvious - it's been out longer. And as the 360 has been out longer with more games the games they do have are also outselling most PS3 games. That seems pretty obvious as well. What is not obvious, and what is interesting, is that the PS3 every time it was availaible at Amazon, has outsold the 360. It just happens that that has only held true (Amazon havng stock) for any length of time starting around the end of March.

And even in your particular example, it's only based off the last 2 weeks of data, and in only one store (Amazon), and the difference between the "sales rank" is small (360 is 20, and the PS3 is 16). It's not that clear what "sales rank" even means.

You need to understand "the rest of the story". See all those times the graph is low? On every one of those days, the PS3 was not in stock and sales were from third parties charging $100 more for the console. That's every day since the start of the year.

As for what "sales rank" means, you cannot of course derive absolute numbers from sales rank. But what you can say is hat something with a sales rank of x+1 sold more units than something else with a sales rank of x. It might be only one more unit, or it might be 10k. But it is more. And ever since Amazon has had the PS3 in stock, it has outsold the 360.

The February NPD numbers show a much different story. Granted, the NPD values aren't complete either, but much more so than merely combing just Amazon. In any case, the March NPD numbers will be along shortly, so we'll see if your theory holds up.

The Feburary NPD numbers agree with the graph. The March NPD numbers will also agree with the graph, and should show the 360 with a lead (note the rise in the graph only started around the 23rd or so of March). It's the April numbers that will be interesting and will or will not bear out the point I am making.

Of course when the Elite comes out, that will probably push the 360 in front of the PS3 for a while again I imagine.

Let me be clear, I am making no judgements against or for any console with these numbers (I own none of them). I am just saying what the charts and obvservation of all three since the start of the year has shown.

Re:Look again (1)

jchenx (267053) | more than 7 years ago | (#18697659)

You need to understand "the rest of the story". See all those times the graph is low? On every one of those days, the PS3 was not in stock and sales were from third parties charging $100 more for the console. That's every day since the start of the year.
Here's the problem. How do you know that's truly "the rest of the story"? Could there be a similar problem with 360 sales now? Or perhaps the PS3 sales are artificially inflated for some other reason? We don't know because we don't work at Amazon.

Of course we could play the "what if" game all day. That's why I always take sales numbers from one retailer with a huge grain of salt. You also need to consider different retail venues. I would argue that many console buyers won't do so online because they are heavy pieces of equipment, and paying shipping on something that you can just as easily pick up in a store, seems like a silly thing to do. (Now games are an entirely different matter)

That's why aggregated numbers are so much more useful than ones that come from one source (and an online one at that).

In any case, I'm not trying to argue that the numbers are necessarily "fake". I just disagree with your assessment that, coming from one online retailer, the PS3 has surpassed the 360 overall in sales, since all the other data and trends so far hasn't indicated this. Basically, I think you jumped the gun way too early.

The Feburary NPD numbers agree with the graph. The March NPD numbers will also agree with the graph, and should show the 360 with a lead (note the rise in the graph only started around the 23rd or so of March). It's the April numbers that will be interesting and will or will not bear out the point I am making.
I guess we'll revisit this in April then. :)

Re:Look again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18698187)

Basically, I think you jumped the gun way too early.

Wait, wait. You didn't even mention when the best time to jump the gun is.

I know (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698335)

Here's the problem. How do you know that's truly "the rest of the story"? Could there be a similar problem with 360 sales now? Or perhaps the PS3 sales are artificially inflated for some other reason? We don't know because we don't work at Amazon.

I know because I have been monitoring this almost daily for months. You can look at the 360 and the PS3 and see if they are in stock, or not. Why? I have no idea, it amuses me to see which way the trends turn.

Of course we could play the "what if" game all day. That's why I always take sales numbers from one retailer with a huge grain of salt.

Yes, but we are not just talking about any retailer - we are talking about Amazon. I personally think it's pretty representitive of the market, or at least represents a large segment of sales.

I agree aggregated numbers are more useful and revealing (though I think NPD excludes some large retailers as well) but until those arrive Amazon is a good leading indicator. As I've said, the graphs from Amazon track very well with results revealed so far.

I just disagree with your assessment that, coming from one online retailer, the PS3 has surpassed the 360 overall in sales, since all the other data and trends so far hasn't indicated this. Basically, I think you jumped the gun way too early.

Possibly, like you say we'll know more for certain when the April figures come out... I am not wed to this evaluation, though I'm pretty certain it's correct. March should be better than Feburary for the PS3 though even if it doesn't quite match the 360 at that point.

Re:I know (1)

jchenx (267053) | more than 7 years ago | (#18699009)

Yes, but we are not just talking about any retailer - we are talking about Amazon. I personally think it's pretty representitive of the market, or at least represents a large segment of sales.
I don't know if you read my other reply fully but I disagree. As I said before, consoles are heavy pieces of equipment. Why pay shipping on it, when you can just as easily pick it up at a normal brick & mortar store? The only reason why you would buy something that heavy online is because there's a heavy discount on it (TVs, DVD players, etc.). But that's certainly not the case for consoles, which come at a fixed price. I know it's just anecdotal, but in the many years I've been a video game fan, and all the gaming friends that I have, no one has ever bought a console online, for those very reasons. Sure, games and accessories are fine, but never the actual console.

To convince me that Amazon does represent a large segment of sales, you'd have to somehow get actual sales data from them. Are they selling thousands of consoles each week? Or something much smaller? If we're talking about only a handful of consoles either way, then the console data itself is pretty much irrelevant. (Actually, I have a friend who works at Amazon, but I imagine he won't be able to give me that data ... maybe it doesn't hurt to ask?)

I agree aggregated numbers are more useful and revealing (though I think NPD excludes some large retailers as well) but until those arrive Amazon is a good leading indicator. As I've said, the graphs from Amazon track very well with results revealed so far.
Yes, NPD excludes online retailers and some of the big box stores. That said, it's certainly better than just one retailer. Additionally, you can also use sales numbers given by the respective console manufacturers, although as expected, you have to take all of those with a grain of salt as well. And finally, your logic is flawed if you think that just because Amazon happens to follow the trend so far, then it somehow can also define it. That may be the case, but you really need to back it up via other means.

I forgot that you don't have to trust my observation at all - that same site has a page that specifically shows the data over time for sales rank vs. quantity on hand - for the PS3 [eproductwars.com] and also the 360 [eproductwars.com] (though I'm not sure I quite trust the quantity data for the 360 in early January).
I don't see the point of these graphs. Sales rank, for both, is basically flatlined. Quantity by itself ... is not interesting in the least. So, Sony has sold more PS3s to Amazon in the past month than they have previously. But that doesn't appear to translate to any change in sales rank, or a marginal one at best. Am I missing something here?

Possibly, like you say we'll know more for certain when the April figures come out... I am not wed to this evaluation, though I'm pretty certain it's correct. March should be better than Feburary for the PS3 though even if it doesn't quite match the 360 at that point.
I wish I knew you in real life, so we can bet on something more substantial than just Slashdot reputation. ;)

Re:I know (1)

senatorpjt (709879) | more than 7 years ago | (#18699265)

FWIW, Amazon is/was selling the PS3, sales tax free, with free shipping.

Re:I know (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#18699095)

What do you have invested in Sony that you are such a vicious defender in the face of unfavorable facts?

Re:I know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18700863)

"I know because I have been monitoring this almost daily for months. You can look at the 360 and the PS3 and see if they are in stock, or not. Why? I have no idea, it amuses me to see which way the trends turn."
I don't buy it. No one has such a pathetic life that they have to check console sales figures "almost daily for months" without any actual investment in the results.

But don't take my word... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698491)

I forgot that you don't have to trust my observation at all - that same site has a page that specifically shows the data over time for sales rank vs. quantity on hand - for the PS3 [eproductwars.com] and also the 360 [eproductwars.com] (though I'm not sure I quite trust the quantity data for the 360 in early January).

A very interesting site if you like to follow trends. Not without flaws, sometimes they drop data but overall pretty interesting.

Re:Outselling the 360 for the past few weeks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18697559)

laff, you lose it.

Makes sense to me (3, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695749)

I think that most people who would be willing to shell out $500 for a console wouldn't mind having to pony up another $100 for built-in wireless (I think that's usually about $100 to add on, at least that's what it is for the Xbox 360), an extra 40 GB of room on the HD, and some media card slots (not sure how useful these are).

Makes me wonder when Microsoft is going to axe the $300 version of the Xbox 360, which in a way is kind of crap since it doesn't come with any way to save games on it by default without shelling out at least enough for a memory card or a special HD (since you can't plug your own in as far as I know). With the new Elite version coming out in the future, why bother having this lowend version take up shelf space?

Re:Makes sense to me (1, Offtopic)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696417)

Wireless costs a total of $7 to add in. I picked up several USB, PCMCIA, and PCI based wireless cards for $7 after rebate almost a year ago... don't say it costs $100 to add when the parts are only $5-6 in cost anymore. It is probably even connected via an internal usb header.

Re:Makes sense to me (2, Informative)

Maxwell (13985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18697985)

Do the $7 cards you pick up work with XBOX360? Because Microsoft seems to think wireless alone (no extra 40Gb, no card reader)is worth...wait for it... about $100.

The cheapie @ 75USD:

http://www.provantage.com/microsoft-b4b-00009~7MSS X03M.htm [provantage.com]

The fancy ones at $99 USD

http://www.shop.com/op/~MN_740_Broadband_Networkin g_Xbox_Wireless_Adapter,_802_11g,_b-prod-23981381- 32003097?sourceid=3 [shop.com]

What do $7 mail-in-rebate junkie wireless cards for PC have to do with this discussion? Nothing.

JON

Re:Makes sense to me (1)

CowboyBob500 (580695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698699)

I just bought a regular Wireless Bridge for mine. Ethernet cable at one end, Wireless at the other. And whilst it didn't cost $7, I didn't have to pay the premium to have an X-Box logo on it either.

Bob

Re:Makes sense to me (1)

zoward (188110) | more than 7 years ago | (#18700345)

I paid $20 for a Linksys 802.11b adapter that works great with my 360:

check it out [amazon.com] .

Re:Makes sense to me (1)

amuro98 (461673) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696745)

What if you already had a wireless or ethernet solution in place? I have a wired switch behind my entertainment unit. No need for WiFi, so that's a $100 I'd rather not have to waste.

Larger HDD...eh. Maybe. But again, I could just buy a 50GB HDD from Frys for $50.

As for the lame, HDD-less 360 "Core", I think Microsoft will keep it around as a way to compete with Nintendo, even though it is $50 more. Besides, $299.99 is a lot more...friendly...to price constrained (but not necessarily educated) consumers.

ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18697527)

The Wii, PSP and freaking Nintendo-$150-DS have built in wifi... $100 for wireless is quite clearly just raping trapped consumers in a captive market.

But... but.. (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695755)

But I only want a 20 gig drive, and I liked the $100 cheaper price. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to wait longer before getting a PS3.

(yes, I actually was planning on getting one at some point. But only the 20 gig model).

Re:But... but.. (1)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695823)

> But I only want a 20 gig drive

Ebay is your friend.

Re:But... but.. (1)

Samurai Cat! (15315) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695957)

So go buy one! They're probably going to stop shipping them over here, not just ditch the ones already on the shelves.

And yeah, like the other guy said, eBay. :P

Me, I'm holding out til the price drops a bit - so hopefully, if they concentrate their efforts on one model, that model's price will drop simply due to the economic efficiency of dealing with one model over two.

Re:But... but.. (1)

IKnwThePiecesFt (693955) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698603)

Actually not true. I work at Best Buy and we've never received a 20GB system aside from the original launch shipment (which was something like 8 20GB models and 50 60GB models). In fact our inventory system has listed them as discontinued for over a month. My supervisor told me back in January that Sony had no intention of shipping 20s until they were totally caught up on 60s.

Re:But... but.. (1)

adisakp (705706) | more than 7 years ago | (#18697959)

But I only want a 20 gig drive, and I liked the $100 cheaper price.

I bought my PS3 for $480 used off Craigslist. Actually it was new, still in an unopened box. I actually broke the seal on the box and took the wrappers off everything.

AND it was the 60GB version !!

If you want to save $100, there were a lot of people who bought PS3's early for "profiteering" reasons who never intended to play them or use them. Those people are selling them because they need money for other reasons and they're pretty easy to find. If you can't find one locally, there are quite a few 60GB's on E-Bay going for the $500 range ($100 off) and with the 20GB discontinued, you should be able to find them locally or on E-Bay in the $350-400 range.

Here is hoping (5, Interesting)

Durrok (912509) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695947)

Here is hoping that everyone has learned their lesson about releasing multiple versions of consoles. Just do one console at release guys. If you want to release another lower end version a few months later by all means feel free but for the most part anyone who bought the lower end versions of these consoles would have eventually bought the "higher end" version if the lower end version was never available after the first price drop. All you do is sow discontent among the people who were gullible... err.. trying to save some money.

Re:Here is hoping (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696455)

While I generally agree with you, at least the low-end Xbox 360 was upgradeable to be identical to a high-end one at a fairly reasonable price. That's not true of the PS3, and I think that's the real problem Sony faces... if their low-end was upgradeable to a high-end, it probably would be much more popular.

Re:Here is hoping (4, Interesting)

bluk (791364) | more than 7 years ago | (#18697325)

What feature from the 20GB vs. the 60GB is not upgradable that you would want? The big 3 are bigger hard drive capacity, memory card readers, and wireless. The hard drive is user swappable and standard connections (unlike the extortion-like prices that Microsoft is charging for their hard drive). Memory card readers can be attached via USB. Wireless supposedly could have been expanded too via a USB adapter.

The Xbox 360 cannot use a HDMI connection without the Elite model. And while the Xbox 360 is upgradable, it is expensive to do so compared to standard PC parts (which the PS3 uses). That's why you can use bluetooth or USB devices on the PS3 to expand but have to pay outrageous prices for the hard drive, keyboard, etc. for the Xbox 360.

IMO, Microsoft made a bigger mistake by not including the hard drive as a standard. Developers can count on a hard drive in the PS3 which could be used in a few different ways (expansions, caching, MMORPG content, etc.). The missing wireless and memory card readers don't affect game development like a missing hard drive would.

Re:Here is hoping (1)

amuro98 (461673) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696771)

Actually, my understanding has been there was more interest in the $500 model since many didn't care about WiFi or the larger HDD, or the completely pointless CF media reader....

This is just a move by Sony to force folks to buy the larger model which has better margins. Sony will still lose money on each one, but at least they'll be losing LESS.

Next up: Sony updates the PS3 in the US to remove the PS2 hardware and replace it with the sucky emulator they inflicted on Europe.

Re:Here is hoping (1)

akarnid (591191) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696971)

If this wasn't already modded up I'd spend a point on it. The worst thing about the two next-gen consoles are the two different versions. Microsoft actually shot themselves in the foot IMO by not including the HD as standard issue in all SKU's -therefore preventing the use of the HD as a cache device and speeding up loading times like they did with first Xbox.

That's great! (4, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18695963)

Now when we make price comparisons, we don't have to account for the $500 model any more! That makes it even easier to say that you can get an Xbox 360 and a Wii for the price of a functional PS3 system, because you don't have to qualify it. Sony haters rejoice!

Re:That's great! (1)

PhoenixOne (674466) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696359)

Ah, but now you can compare it to the XBox Elite (est. $480) and the fact that to get a Wii you have to buy it second hand (starting at $379.95 on Amazon last I checked). For $859.95 you can buy a PS3 plus a game (or a laptop and a desktop machine with Linux ;)).

Re:That's great! or Comparisons (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696379)

Ah, but now you can compare it to the XBox Elite (est. $480) and the fact that to get a Wii you have to buy it second hand (starting at $379.95 on Amazon last I checked).

No, the Wii sells in retail bundles online at Costco [costco.com] and WalMart [walmart.com] that are priced far far below that - and ships within days.

Re:That's great! or Comparisons (1)

Phisbut (761268) | more than 7 years ago | (#18697665)

No, the Wii sells in retail bundles online at Costco and WalMart that are priced far far below that - and ships within days.

How ridiculous is this... on Walmart's canadian website [walmart.ca] , you search for "wii", and it returns a bunch of PS2 games [walmart.ca]

Re:That's great! or Comparisons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18697853)

WalMart has a bundle for $598, which is sold out. How is that far far below $380?

Re:That's great! or Comparisons (1)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698111)

When you can walk into any walmart and return the games you don't want you can get the price down to $249, I believe. It's true that the bundles keep selling out quickly...but they keep relisting it frequently.

Just go to http://xpbargains.com/wii_locator.php [xpbargains.com] and sign up for the RSS feed.

Overwhelming demand? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696279)

Um, more like the only ones that are selling in any quantity, if you look at shelf space.

Sadly, this won't change until Sony gets some high-quality multi-tier games out which not only fully utilize the new PS3 features, but are fun games to play and that work well on both 480p home TV sets (US) and the 720i/p and higher HDTV resolutions.

That may not be until this upcoming Xmas.

Re:Overwhelming demand? (1)

Froster (985053) | more than 7 years ago | (#18699083)

I've found the opposite. The last few times I've been shopping for video games, it seems that the 60G PS3 is the one that is always in abundant supply. Even in the fall just after the initial release, my local Best Buy was sold out of the few 20G PS3s it had, and had a skid of 60G models for some time. The skid was only cleared because they sold their mini-PS2s and that opened up some shelf space for them after Christmas.

Well color me miffed (2, Informative)

jdubois79 (227349) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696849)

I had a sinking feeling that this was coming...

When I first heard about the different PS3 models, I was all for the "why would I buy a gimped version of the PS3?!?" argument. Then I started considering the prices.

The benefits of the 60 gig are:
+40 GB drive
memory card slots
Wifi

And it costs 100 dollars more.

I have a wifi router in my house. My entertainment system is close enough to my router (for my Xbox, et al) to connect with a cable. I connect it, BAM I have WiFi access to my PS3.

A USB Memory card adapter is $10 at the Electronics store.

So I'm left paying $90 for 40Gigs of storage? I'd rather shell out the extra $30, get a 500Gig drive, and plug it in myself (standard SATAII cables, doesn't void warenty).

So, the 20 Gig was the only version I was actually looking at to buy.
That and the fact that upgraded versions of the PS3 have a good chance of being "Software backwards compatible" like in the UK, which is to say "not backwards compatible at all"

I can only hope that they won't get rid of the 20gig here as well.

This is terrible news. (3, Funny)

Garse Janacek (554329) | more than 7 years ago | (#18696959)

How am I going to conveniently categorize fanboy comments?! Seriously, did Sony ever think of that?!

Before, pro-Sony would refer to the PS3 as $500, anti- would use $600 (and sometimes $700). How am I supposed to ignore the people I disagree with?!

It's the same thing with Nintendo... back before they announced the price, people would say either $300 or $200 (or sometimes even $150!) depending on who they were rooting for... now... well, I guess they're still more than $300 on eBay, so this still works some of the time :-P

Thank goodness I can still tell how people feel about Microsoft! Especially with the new model coming out...

Sony is really in pain, isn't it? (1, Troll)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 7 years ago | (#18697057)

4 months later and they axe one of their products?

Wow, that's a short amount of shelf time.

I'd have thought the P-is-for-poverty-S3 would have been their way in.

The 20gig thing wouldnt' have been an issue for people who want to play games, but the other missing features (wifi, etc) were a burn.

Am I mistaken, or did this thing either not come with DVI cable, or it didn't have a DVI port at all?

You have to see through all this "we listened to our customers" crap (Sony never does), and realize this is all because of the Wii's seemingly runaway success.

Any plans to release any good games to make up for the exclusives they've lost?

This was obvious a few weeks back (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 7 years ago | (#18697521)

I decided to look for the 20G model since I saw the HD was user replaceable. The WiFi is nice, but I have no need.

But when I tried to buy one, none were available anywhere. I've never seen one at retail.

So it's too bad really... I figured on using the additional $100 to upgrade the HD, making the PS3 a good media extender. But it's pretty clear the 20G model was always the model for price comparison, and I believe it became a casualty of sonhy trying to get a bit rational about distributio of the PS3.

I think we'll see a reduced price PS3 by the fall in the United States, but it will not have hardware emulation for PS2. They'll do the same they did for the European release of the PS3 and use software emulation (perhaps making the early PS3's slightly more desirable?). It's going to be a tough year for Sony Games.

Re:This was obvious a few weeks back (1)

hexix (9514) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698085)

I think we'll see a reduced price PS3 by the fall in the United States, but it will not have hardware emulation for PS2.

I'm surprised. Either I missed some comments or you're the first person to point this out.

There seems to be a lot of things pointing at a price drop. Like you said, they launched in Europe with the Emotion chip removed. It seems pretty obvious if they engineered a version without this chip and started developing software backward compatability that we're going to see that here in the states. There was also just a story about them starting volume production with a company called Foxconn.

It is also interesting that I've read other reports of people who have been looking for a 20gig version and unable to find them. So there seems to be demand for the 20gig that wasn't being met. The excuse that stores weren't ordering them seems a bit odd.

It's possible that they're just trying to minimize their losses, but after this news it would be very hard to believe that they would only offer a $600 version while the 360 is $400 (or $300 if you count the core version).

Re:This was obvious a few weeks back (1)

IKnwThePiecesFt (693955) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698721)

It is also interesting that I've read other reports of people who have been looking for a 20gig version and unable to find them. So there seems to be demand for the 20gig that wasn't being met. The excuse that stores weren't ordering them seems a bit odd.

I work for Best Buy. It wasn't a matter of us not ordering them, it was a matter of them not offering them in the first place. We had requests all the time for the 20GB model.

Not surprising. (3, Interesting)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 7 years ago | (#18698079)

I've never seen the 20gb model in any store. I don't think retailers are big on giving consumers choices. Even if they carried both versions store employees would inevitably direct customers to purchase the more expensive version. I wouldn't be surprised is Sony released the lesser version simply an attempt to alleviate the shock of a $600 price tag.

Clearly, it didn't made a difference considering whenever anyone thinks of the PS3 price tag they only think of $600. The recent announcement of the Xbox360 Elite makes it easier to justify carrying only the expensive version.

Either way, I expect this to make no difference whatsoever. As I've mentioned, everyone already sees only one price tag for the console. What will make a difference is the library of games available and eventual price drops and those had better come sooner than later.

They're just dropping it? (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18699235)

How lazy. They could at least show some flair and take a blunt object to it. [youtube.com]

Probably planned. (1)

Chaffar (670874) | more than 7 years ago | (#18700011)

Decoy effect anyone? [wikipedia.org]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...