Beta
×

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!

EU Release of Price Cut 40 GB PS3 Confirmed

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the no-back-compat-for-the-lose dept.

PlayStation (Games) 173

sinister rouge writes "The BBC has a story confirming a cut price PlayStation 3 with a 40GB hard drive and no backwards compatibility with previous consoles. The console is set to go on sale later this month in Europe, the Middle East, Australia, and New Zealand. No word yet on that particular SKU for the North American market. '[Ray Maguire, head of PlayStation UK,] said: "The people who want to get into new technology early are prepared to pay a premium. We want to get the console to the next level; we have re-engineered the machine to bring the price down. We have invested a lot of money in reaching this price point." Sony is still losing money on each console sold, said Mr Maguire, but would lose less money on the 40GB machine. "We are in an investment phase," he said.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why no backwards compatibility? (0)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 years ago | (#20869649)

Since all the backwards compatibility stuff was done in software anyway, why remove it?

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 7 years ago | (#20869773)

Because all backwards compatibility was not done in software. The PAL PS3 and the 80Gb US model (the so-called software BC models) still included a PS2 graphics synthesizer chip. I assume that has gone.

Anyway if you want BC, then the option is still there for the time being. Buy the 60Gb bundle. That has also had its price cut.

Or go for the cheaper version which is still a full PS3, blu-ray player and hang onto your PS2.

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 years ago | (#20869977)

No, there was software compatibility in the European PS3s. They removed the PS2 hardware and relied entirely on software, resulting in many games not working properly. Just like with the XBOX 360.

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | about 7 years ago | (#20870023)

They removed the emotion engine. They did not remove the graphics synthesizer.

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (5, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | about 7 years ago | (#20870159)

No, the EU PAL PS3s emulated the Emotion Engine, but had a hardware graphics synthesizer. There was NEVER EVER ANY VERSION THAT HAD SOFTWARE ONLY EMULATION. Sorry for the all-caps but this particular misunderstanding keeps getting repeated. I assume Sony have chopped the GS from their new mainboard so there is no PS2 circuitry at all now. As such you don't get any emulation until / if they figure how to emulate the GS in software too. People more knowledgable than I say that this would be difficult because the GS has a very low latency and wide bandwidth. Hence the reason it wasn't removed even in the PAL version.

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (1)

Bagels (676159) | about 7 years ago | (#20870585)

If third-parties can manage at least decent emulation of the GPU (PCSX2 presently plays most games, though there are of course plenty of glitches), I'd bet Sony - with access to the original specs and a team of full-time programmers - could probably manage it too.

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (1)

rbarreira (836272) | about 7 years ago | (#20871159)

But everyone tells me how the Cell's a OMGLOLOLZRAYTRACINGPOWERHOUSE!!1!! How is it possible it can't emulate the GS? ;)

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (1)

Gravatron (716477) | about 7 years ago | (#20871913)

I'd think you'd more try to emulate the GS with the RSX, instead of the cell. The Cell's already emulating the EE, running the ps3's os, and probabaly emulating sound etc.

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 7 years ago | (#20872775)

Emulators are massively inefficient, and synthesizing accurate clock rates can be a royal pain, no matter how fast the machine is. Synthesizing a hardware sound or graphics processor is another matter altogether. Go hang out at some of the boards for popular emulators for things like the Super Nintendo even and see how difficult it is to emulate them well on even MUCH faster hardware.

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (1)

PKFC (580410) | about 7 years ago | (#20871285)

If you ever get back to this story, please answer me this: with the reduction of the EE and GS to one chip and to 90 nm (iirc), how did they not just have the EE+GS chip in the PS3s? I want to assume then that the EE+GS is in the NTSC PS3s released in 06, but how did they just install the GS in the PAL PS3s? They just have a huge stock of old chips or what..?

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (3, Informative)

wamerocity (1106155) | about 7 years ago | (#20870849)

In case anyone is wondering WHY, here is the official explanation from Ray McGuire, some Sony hotshot:

"As we come to our first Christmas with the PlayStation 3 there's going to be about 65 games in the marketplace, so we feel now that there's sufficient choice in the marketplace and that we're still better off using that money that we'd put into backwards compatibility in either investing in new games or using that money to help support bringing the price down so that people can get into the franchise." (From www.qj.net)

I don't know if I'm in the place to comment on how true this could possibly be, because I have no clue how difficult it is for backwards compatibility programming, because I don't program...at all.

However, if you read the lines and in between them, they are taking engineers away from backwards compatibility, which means that people who still have the SOFTWARE versions of the still BC-enabled PS3's are going to be getting less and less updates for games that still struggle to work, because they are throwing less personnel at it. So, I can truly say that this is one of the first times in History, that the early adopters didn't get screwed (at least from the BC perspective, ignoring the original high price and lack of games for the first year part of that statement....) :)

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (1)

sanosuke76 (887630) | about 7 years ago | (#20872575)

Actually, the backwards compatibility charts are pretty complete for PS2 titles presently. Last time I looked, the only games with anything past trivial issues were games that not a lot of folks owned (or at least, played). Dark Angel: Vampire Apocalypse was the only one I spotted in my personal collection that had notable issues when I last looked at it. With things working pretty smoothly, I don't think they actually needed big backwards-compatibility efforts anymore.

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20869941)

Just like anything else that is crippled and then sold: capitalist greed.

Phone companies sell crippled phones on the low end because it lets them add new features for more money. Sure, these were features that you theoretically should have been able to receive at the low end, but by expending additional costs to disable or otherwise lock you out of those features, the cellphone company creates an artificial gap in prices to buy the next level of phone up... the exact same thing, except with fewer features disabled.

At least this fervor hasn't hit the healthcare industry yet. Nothing like paying $1500 to have your baby delivered and then its limbs amputated. You can upgrade to higher levels of service at $750 per limb not removed.

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (0)

LrdDimwit (1133419) | about 7 years ago | (#20870519)

Memory card ports are hardware. Since the PS3 has a hard drive as standard equipment, the memory card ports' only real use is to let people use old PS1/2 game saves. They are essentially a required component for backwards compatibility only.

So the new model got rid of them. They're a superfluous cost.

Besides, it lets them engage in price discrimination. They have to have enough differences in the product to make it a real choice, otherwise everyone will go for the cheaper model, and there's only so many features that are optional available to be cut.

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (1)

Jimbot256 (1006531) | about 7 years ago | (#20870771)

Actually, I want to correct you on something. The article is misleading in that respect. When the guy says "memory card ports" he means the Compact Flash and SD card readers that come with the Playstation 3. To use Playstation 1/2 memory cards you have to buy an adaptor [ebgames.com] . It's really a must-have if you use your PS3 for backwards compatibility as well as playing PS3 games.

No Memory Cards required for BC. (1)

trdrstv (986999) | about 7 years ago | (#20871585)

Actually, I want to correct you on something. The article is misleading in that respect. When the guy says "memory card ports" he means the Compact Flash and SD card readers that come with the Playstation 3. To use Playstation 1/2 memory cards you have to buy an adaptor [ebgames.com]. It's really a must-have if you use your PS3 for backwards compatibility as well as playing PS3 games.

If you have a bunch of save game files from the PS2, sure it's useful as hell, but must have? Nope. The PS2 Memory card adapter is only needed if you want to upload your prior PS1/2 saves to the HDD, but if you want to simply create new save files, then you just create a "virtual memory card" within the PS3 without having to buy anything else.

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 7 years ago | (#20870803)

Also, 40gb? Still seems too high. My 360 has a 120gb hard drive and after a year, I'm only using 4gb of it (for demos). My PS3 is 60gb and is in about the same shape. What on earth would I possibly need all that drive space for? I'm not going to be wasting my money on crappy downloadable movies and television shows that can only be watched on the console and I don't have any of the console makers' stupid proprietary "media servers" setup so I can stream stuff from my network to my consoles (and even if I did, it would be STREAMING; not stored on the console).

They could drop the drive down to 20gb and cut the price by another $100 and make even more people happy. Why buy what you don't and never will need?

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 years ago | (#20870955)

Do you have any idea how much HDDs cost? $100 could buy you a 500GB hard drive. You probably can't even buy 20GB drives now.

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (1)

OK PC (857190) | about 7 years ago | (#20871019)

I believe it's not actually any cheaper for them to reduce the size of the hard disk. They would have to have 20Gb drives specially made and would cost more. Why the 360 is still 20Gb I don't know. Plus it's probably the same drive as the 80Gb but with less platters so saves on cost. And also, it one up the 360 in a way, even if it is trivial. (this is Sony after all)

Re:Why no backwards compatibility? (1)

king-manic (409855) | about 7 years ago | (#20871229)

Also, 40gb? Still seems too high. My 360 has a 120gb hard drive and after a year, I'm only using 4gb of it (for demos). My PS3 is 60gb and is in about the same shape. What on earth would I possibly need all that drive space for? I'm not going to be wasting my money on crappy downloadable movies and television shows that can only be watched on the console and I don't have any of the console makers' stupid proprietary "media servers" setup so I can stream stuff from my network to my consoles (and even if I did, it would be STREAMING; not stored on the console).

They are using the HD size as a marketing differentiator. Since the PS3 can swap drives without voiding the warranty it means the HD size is actually meanignless but it's easier to sell a "20g PS3" anda "60g PS3" then a "no memcard slotted, no wifi PS3" and a "memcard slotted, wifi PS3". The size boost actually helps. I'm utilizing 45/60 gb on my Ps3. 10g for the linux partition and the in downloaded games. I've been meaning to swap in a 120gb drive but hesitate to re-download all of that content.

Sony just jumped the shark with the PS3! (1)

rbarreira (836272) | about 7 years ago | (#20872015)

http://kotaku.com/gaming/ps3/scee-ps3-60gb-nixed-for-uk-too-307651.php [kotaku.com]

The 60GB Starter pack will remain on sale until stocks run out (a number of months, depending on territory.) Thereafter, the 40GB model will be the only SKU in the SCEE region.

What the ......? Now they're telling their customers "Buy a PS3 now or lose backwards compatibility forever". And then they'll probably pull a 80 GB unit as they did in USA if things don't go well, I'd guess! Way to disrespect your customers, Sony...

I knew that Sony had screwed up a lot with the PS3, but now they have just jumped the shark...

Doesn't Make Sense... (1)

Dr Kool, PhD (173800) | about 7 years ago | (#20869715)

I don't understand why this machine doesn't have backward compatibility. Ever since the Emotion Engine was removed the PS1/PS2 emulation was done in software. Now they took software emulation out too?!?

Something doesn't make sense here.

North American Market Apparently Dead? (1)

VoxMagis (1036530) | about 7 years ago | (#20869737)

I'm finding it interesting, as a PSP (not a PS3) owner, that Sony appears to be giving up on the US and Canada as a market.

There are so many new things and announcements for both game systems - all of them targeted at Europe and Asia. Is the PS3 (and by extension the PSP) that much of a failure in North America that would cause them to just bail out?

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (0)

DrXym (126579) | about 7 years ago | (#20869837)

The 40Gb model is coming to the US at the end of October for $399. That's really a bargain when you're getting blu-ray + plus a kickass games console with free online gaming.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20870215)

I think you appended an extra s to game.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 7 years ago | (#20870297)

There are lots of games for the PS3 with 40-50 more due between now and January. It would be interesting to compare how many games the 360 had 11 months into its life.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20870899)

Who cares how many games the 360 had or how many the PS3 might eventually have? I don't play games in the past or future - I play them now.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (1)

MintMMs (909563) | about 7 years ago | (#20870993)

From the wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_360_games [wikipedia.org] , it shows that 76 games came out from November 5, 2005 to September 30, 2006.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (4, Interesting)

kosanovich (678657) | about 7 years ago | (#20871091)

"It would be interesting to compare how many games the 360 had 11 months into its life."

Most people don't actually find it that interesting. Most people just want to trash on whatever console they don't have. If you actually align the launches of the consoles from the data of a site like vgchartz then all you see is that the PS3 is selling on par with what the 360 did over the same time span (of course the wii is killing them both) http://vgchartz.com/hwcomps.php?cons1=Wii&reg1=All&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=X360&reg3=All&align=1 [vgchartz.com] . It will be interesting to see what the PS3s christmas upswing looks like compared to the 360s.

As far as games. Well you can look at metacritic and see how many games were rated in green and what year they came out. Unfortunately they don't have a handy flash graph to show it nice and pretty but if you sit down and count the titles from the first year of each launch the 360 had 19 in 2005 and the PS3 had 12 in 2006. Next year we can compare titles from the first full year of each console (the 360 had 48 in 2006, and the PS3 currently has 31 for 2007 and will most likely hit at least 40 by the end of the year, though that's very conservative, i see at least 16 games being released by the end of the year that i would be surprised and disappointed if they were below 70 on metacritic.)

So my point is if you align the launches there's not much difference in performance of the 360 and PS3, but that's not nearly as newsworthy as a zealous mob screaming about the demise of one or the other.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (1)

Diginosis (1132933) | about 7 years ago | (#20871949)

Thank you for this info, it's good to see the "neutral" parties providing good realistic information. It's amazing how everyone jumps the gun in comparing the two consoles based on the current status of the consoles. It's like comparing how many units the xbox 360 sold compared to the ps2 1 year after the launch, quite ridiculous. Truth is they're all going to be just fine, Sony was a bit ambitious with the blu-ray. The ps3 isn't going to ruin them because its a very solid piece of hardware with a plethora of features, and most of really great titles this holiday season will be out for both consoles.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (1)

jokell82 (536447) | about 7 years ago | (#20872821)

"So my point is if you align the launches there's not much difference in performance of the 360 and PS3, but that's not nearly as newsworthy as a zealous mob screaming about the demise of one or the other."

Only if you look at total worldwide sales. But if you look at specifics, the PS3 is lagging behind every other console except in Japan. It's getting KILLED in American sales and is behind in the "All Other" category as well. And while both are still dominated by the Wii in Japan, since there are almost no 360 sales the PS3 is ahead of the 360 quite easily.

But outside of Japan the PS3 is lagging behind.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (3, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | about 7 years ago | (#20870287)

The 40Gb model is coming to the US at the end of October for $399. That's really a bargain when you're getting blu-ray + plus a kickass games console with free online gaming.


Sure...if there were any games worth buying for it. I've had my PS3 since four days after launch...you know how many PS3-exclusive games I have for it?

Two.

Why only two? BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY GAMES FOR IT. I don't care how much a "bargain" it is when there isn't shit out there for it. I (and many other PS3 owners, I would imagine) am quite pissed that stuff that was supposed to already be released now has a release date of mid-2008 or even simply TBA.

What a fuckin' waste.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (0)

DrXym (126579) | about 7 years ago | (#20870805)

Sure...if there were any games worth buying for it. I've had my PS3 since four days after launch...you know how many PS3-exclusive games I have for it?

You buy a console at launch and then are surprised there are no games for it??? Tell me any console that gets more than handful of worthwhile games in the first 9 months of its life at least. The moral of what you are saying is that you shouldn't buy at launch unless you're prepared to wait for titles. That rules holds for any console.

Anyway I think of lots of excellent PS3 titles, some of which are exclusive, some of which are not - Resistance, Heavenly Sword, Oblivion, R6: Vegas, Super Stardust HD, Locoroco, Warhawk, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Virtual Fighter are all very good games. And there are something like 40-50 new titles coming between now and January.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | about 7 years ago | (#20870919)

Within 7 months of buying my 360, I had 5 exclusives for it. I now have 12.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (0)

DrXym (126579) | about 7 years ago | (#20870985)

And what titles would those be?

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | about 7 years ago | (#20871049)

Kameo, PGR 3, DOA 4, Over G, and Rockstar Table Tennis (which, at the time, was considered an exclusive)

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | about 7 years ago | (#20871163)

And if you were curious about the other 7:

Dead Rising, Saints Row, Tenchu Z, Halo 3, PGR 4, Blue Dragon, and Crackdown.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (1)

Chosen Reject (842143) | about 7 years ago | (#20871311)

Within 7 months of the Xbox's release, any games you had for it were probably exclusive.

Just sayin'.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (1)

LKM (227954) | about 7 years ago | (#20871671)

For my Wii, I have Mario Strikers, Wario Ware, Eledees, Excite Truck, Zelda, Mario Party, Second Opinion, Metroid 3, Sonic, Rayman, Super Monkey Ball, Super Paper Mario and a bunch more. For the PS3, I have Motorstorm, Resistance, Warhawk (counting it as a real game instead of a downloadable), Ridge Racer 7, and Tony Hawk's. And let's not even compare downloadables.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (1)

king-manic (409855) | about 7 years ago | (#20871263)

BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY GAMES FOR IT.

Remember the Ps2? Tell me how many quality titles there were in the first year.. now reflect on how inane your bitching sounds.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | about 7 years ago | (#20871495)

And your point?

I wasn't comparing any other console. I was talking about the PS3 and the 360. That's it. I was very happy with the exclusives that came out in the first year for the 360...within the first year, I already got my gaming money worth from the purchase price of my 360. The same can most definately not be said for my PS3.

Will good exclusives eventually come out for it? Sure, of course they will. That doesn't change the fact that I spent 600 dollars on a gaming console that in it's first year has had more 6th generation games played on it than 7th generation games.

Now reflect on how inane THAT sounds.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (1)

king-manic (409855) | about 7 years ago | (#20871795)

The 360's first year releases were similarly anemic 9 mo in. 3/4 of the list you gave of 360 exclusives you own and enjoy were released after oct 2006.

And yeah you're still inane.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | about 7 years ago | (#20872029)

OK, and I said that 5 of them were released no later than 7 months after release. I then said that I now have a total of 12. Lets look at those first 5, shall we?

Kameo - November 9th, 2005
PGR 3 - November 22nd, 2005
DOA 4 - December 29th, 2005
Rockstar Table Tennis - May 23rd, 2006
Over G - June 27th, 2006

You caught me. Over G came out 7 months and a few days after launch. I feel horrible.

Regardless, none of those are even remotely close to your October 2006 date.

PS3 will be good at some point in the future maybe (1)

trdrstv (986999) | about 7 years ago | (#20871827)

Sure...if there were any games worth buying for it. I've had my PS3 since four days after launch...you know how many PS3-exclusive games I have for it?

Two.

Why only two? BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ANY GAMES FOR IT. I don't care how much a "bargain" it is when there isn't shit out there for it. I (and many other PS3 owners, I would imagine) am quite pissed that stuff that was supposed to already be released now has a release date of mid-2008 or even simply TBA.

What a fuckin' waste.

Ok, I didn't have my PS3 since launch, but I'm in the same boat. Currently I have a "PS2 that upscales, and plays BluRay movies" while I spend my gaming time $ dollars on the Wii60.

Your "Two" wouldn't happen to be Motorstorm and Warhawk? :-)

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (4, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | about 7 years ago | (#20869929)

The thing to keep in mind is that North America is the 360's strongest territory. Comparatively its less dominant in Europe, and pretty weak in Japan. If Sony can gain some market share in those two areas, they can come back at NA from a stronger position. Their current method of selling a more expensive system with fewer games in Microsoft's backyard sure isn't working.

Also, Europe didn't really get a price cut like NA did, they got annoying bundles instead. This move will help them there, for sure.

I don't think they've given up on the NA market at all, but their strategy has been so poorly executed thus far that going back and focusing on easier markets for a while is probably a good idea. They can come back at NA later with a lower price, more games, and rumble included.

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20870887)

Disclaimer: I don't own any of the current generation consoles, I've been following this in a business case study kind of way...

I'd say that they *have* given up on North America. Not in the sense of packing up and leaving, of course, but it's pretty clear they won't own that market the way the did with the PS2.

Ignoring for a moment the all-conquering Wii...

The 360 has a strong install base and mind share in NA. Sony can't catch up with it.
Comparatively, the 360 is pretty weak in Europe (except in the UK) and the rest of the world (and very weak in Japan). If Sony can get ahead there, they can win (probably in terms of being second, but anyway) worldwide. Sony's strategy up until now has been to push in the US and do the minimum in Europe (like dodgy bundles instead of price cuts). Obviously that hasn't worked very well, so they're defocussing their strategy off the US. I've been saying they should do that for months.
Now what will Microsoft will? I remember thinking "they can't mean it" when they announced their price cuts, which I read as "consolidate in the US, limit the financial damage everywhere else". This left Sony with the possibility of winning Europe, and thus, with Japan, worldwide, when they could have closed that option, seemingly for the rather dubious goal of trying to come ahead of the Wii in NA after Christmas. I think they should make a big push in Europe now, but will they?

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (2, Funny)

aztektum (170569) | about 7 years ago | (#20872081)

...and rumble included
sounds like you started believing [penny-arcade.com]

Re:North American Market Apparently Dead? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | about 7 years ago | (#20872587)

No, Europe didn't get the PS3 pricecut or 80GB model. This pretty much evens the count.

No back-compat? (1, Interesting)

steveo777 (183629) | about 7 years ago | (#20869789)

Yet another bullet in the foot? That's the only real reason I would be tempted to get a PS3 besides the prospect of Gran Turismo 5. The idea of playing some PS2 games with the full-screen AA and possibly faster loads would be rather nice. Sony should really have held off on this model until after they had a bigger library. There are some descent games on the PS3 right now, but not enough exclusive content for a non-back-compat version to be feasible. Wait for MGS4, GT5, and at least GTA4 (exclusive or not, it'll help). But that's just my opinion.

Re:No back-compat? (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | about 7 years ago | (#20870303)

Given Sony's current "fix it in firmware!" style (they've added a metric assload of features), I'm willing to bet that they took out all the PS2 hardware to make a cheap console available now but couldn't get full software compatibility out in time. It's in their best interest to develop this, since then they can cut costs without cutting features along with making existing customers happy.

Re:No back-compat? (1)

steveo777 (183629) | about 7 years ago | (#20870651)

Their software-emulated back compat 60GB versions in the US are software back-compat. So if they're saying these are specifically not, it's either a PR move to keep people from complaining when it doesn't work 100% of the time, or they're just not implementing it at all.

Re:No back-compat? (1)

LKM (227954) | about 7 years ago | (#20872023)

Just to avoid confusion: No shipping PS3 has pure software backwards compatibility. Not all PS3s ship with the Emotion Engine, but all PS3s have some PS2 hardware to play PS2 games.

Re:No back-compat? (1)

Elise DiPace (1153487) | about 7 years ago | (#20872207)

You had me really excited for a moment; I thought they'd released some Descent games for the ps3, not some 'decent' ones.

It's still over $600 here! (3, Interesting)

Andy_R (114137) | about 7 years ago | (#20869877)

The new 40Gb no compatibility, half the USB connectors, no memory card slot model is going to be £299 here in Britain, which is 610.61 US dollars at today's exchange rate. The 60Gb model is cut to 'just' £349, or $712.72 US.

Yes, these prices do include sales tax, but it's still way, waaaay too much for me or anyone I know to consider picking one up, especially as the only PS3 game that really interests me (Gran Turismo) slipped from being a launch title and has now vanished into development hell, with no sign of a firm believable release date.

Re:It's still over $600 here! (1)

Applekid (993327) | about 7 years ago | (#20870179)

If you look from a price drop perspectivel, though, it's a £50 difference, or over $100 US.

Would I buy a PS3 if it was $100 cheaper without backwards compatibility, keeping in mind that I've already got a PS2, new PS2s are expected to get a price cut to $99 (with full PS2 and most PSX compatibility), and that PS3 backwards compatibility was never that great to begin with?

IMHO, nah, it's still too expensive without enough unique and fun games on it. But the scales on "buy"/"don't buy" wouldn't be pegged so far in the "don't buy" incline. But I could definitely see people pulling the trigger on it.

Or... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 7 years ago | (#20870541)

You could get a PS2 for under $100 (Probably less than the fare on the train from London to Heathrow heh heh) and you'd have EXACTLY THE SAME number of GOOD games as the old backward-compatible PS3. Unless you're a masochist and want to play "Lair"...

Re:It's still over $600 here! (1)

TheBoll (300428) | about 7 years ago | (#20870729)

Well... The PS3 costs around R$3000 here in Brazil - something like US$1500.
Sony thinks that Latin America is not a market for videogames at all. Not even the PS1 was officially released here... So, we have to pay regular taxes + currency conversion + import taxes to have a PS3.

I wouldn't buy a PS3, anyway. I prefer my X360.

Still not tempting.. (1)

Sh00tingstar (872530) | about 7 years ago | (#20869967)

For a cut down version of the console this is still far too expensive - I suspect it will appeal to people who already own a PS2 and will just hang on to their old box for backwards compatibility. This does cut out a huge number of people though, and the PS3 is lacking the titles it needs to make it a must have. It would have been nice to have seen a smaller box - I wonder how long 40gigs will last.

Re:Still not tempting.. (1)

Aladrin (926209) | about 7 years ago | (#20870173)

It depends on what you want to do with it. I have a 20gb 360 that has about 15gb used with all the games and save games I've got... Without the downloaded games, I'd guess it'd be more like 5gb used, since the system uses it as well for stuff. Plenty of room for all my saves forever.

I've also got a 20gb PS3 with half the HD partitioned for Linux. The other 10gb is about half used with demos, downloadable games, and gave saves. I've got more than enough to last me forever with the saves, but I do expect to buy more downloadable games later.

I don't save video on either one, but instead stream it from my Windows PC via TVersity to the PS3.

I will probably end up upgrading the PS3's hard drive if I don't decide to give this to my nephews and buy a shiny new one with more capacity and memory card slots. (I bought this one used and quite cheap.)

Re:Still not tempting.. (3, Interesting)

DrXym (126579) | about 7 years ago | (#20870263)

For a cut down version of the console this is still far too expensive - I suspect it will appeal to people who already own a PS2 and will just hang on to their old box for backwards compatibility.

It's about the same price as an XBox 360 Elite and in some ways still superior to it, such as having wifi, bluetooth, gigabit ethernet, HDMI 1.3, blu-ray etc. The HDD is less, and it might be missing an HDMI cable but otherwise what's to separate them. Of course too network play is free on the PS3 and things like the HDD, headsets etc. use industry standards so those are potential savings too. Lack of BC sucks but then you can always buy the 60Gb model if you want.

I'd say the PS3 is getting pretty close to the 360 price wise and has enough to easily justify it.

Re:Still not tempting.. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | about 7 years ago | (#20872865)

Lack of BC sucks but then you can always buy the 60Gb model if you want.

Not always, only during the next few months.

As for the features, those aren't what I buy a console for. I bought a PS2 after all (and still use it) and it's probably one of the worst pieces of hardware I had the misfortune to encounter.

Re:Still not tempting.. (1)

jokell82 (536447) | about 7 years ago | (#20872869)

The HDD is less, and it might be missing an HDMI cable but otherwise what's to separate them
Games.

Re:Still not tempting.. (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 7 years ago | (#20872897)

I love 360 proponents forgetting the cost of XBox Live in their price comparisons too. I haven't paid a cent to play online since purchasing my PS3. I've already saved the price difference between it and a 360 in Live costs alone. Over a couple more years, my PS3 will have been downright cheap in comparison.

Too little, too late (4, Insightful)

vlad_petric (94134) | about 7 years ago | (#20869971)

What they really needed is a console seller like Halo 3 for the holiday season.

Of course, dropping the software-based PS2 emulation further shows how clueless they can still be.

Re:Too little, too late (1)

shoptroll (544006) | about 7 years ago | (#20870251)

Seriously. Seeing as how most of the late 2007 offerings have been pushed back to 2008, what the hell are people going to play once they're done with Resistence, Lair, etc?

Also, this is suicidal for them as well. $400 is pretty hefty and honestly if I could get rid of my PS2 for $50 I would to help pay for it, but if that invalidates the majority of library, what's the point?

Re:Too little, too late (2, Informative)

Gravatron (716477) | about 7 years ago | (#20871751)

We still have most of the 3rd party games that did't use UT3 engine, as well as all the first and second party stuff. This month alone brings Rachet and Clank, Folklore, Eye of Judgement, and Guitar Hero 3. Rachet should be awesome, Folklore has mixed reviews (obviously some are from the import, and dodge the story elements) Eye looks interesting and GH 3 should well, rock. I'm sure there are others comming this month, but those are my main buys.

Re:Too little, too late (1)

king-manic (409855) | about 7 years ago | (#20871435)

What they really needed is a console seller like Halo 3 for the holiday season.

Of course, dropping the software-based PS2 emulation further shows how clueless they can still be.


They won't get one till next year. It takes time to do AAA titles like Halo 3, MGS4, GOW etc..

The PS3 emu wasn't 100% software. Many complained that they wanted a game machine not a PS2 blue ray player. They obliged and got criticism the other way.

Re:Too little, too late (1)

gamer4Life (803857) | about 7 years ago | (#20872651)

It's amazing how fanboy-drivel like this gets modded insightful.

The first posts are usually just that - fanboy comments - because it takes no time nor thinking to come up with something to say, just rehash previous fanboy comments.

I don't understand the tiny hard drives... (1)

JMZero (449047) | about 7 years ago | (#20870195)

If we look at the PC space, increasing hard disk size isn't terribly expensive. The difference between a 100GB drive and a 400GB drive might only be $10-$20 over a $60-$70 base price. Not insignificant, but not terribly large either.

Are the economics significantly different on the console side? If not, wouldn't it be a bit of a coup for Sony (or, conversely, MS) to trumpet a 300GB or 500GB drive? At least as an option? It's a very visible number - and making it 20 times as big as your competitor's "20GB" would be quite the snub. And a future sales boon when - like MS - you're selling media downloads.

Anyways, I've just always been curious why the console HD numbers seem so small.

Re:I don't understand the tiny hard drives... (2, Informative)

Carnildo (712617) | about 7 years ago | (#20870973)

The consoles are using laptop hard drives. It also doesn't help that the specs were set two to three years ago: three years ago, a 80GB laptop hard drive was fairly expensive, and there's still no such thing as a 500GB one.

Retail prices for OEM laptop hard drives from Newegg:
250GB: $180
80GB: $55
40GB: $50

Even if you assume the manufacturers are able to get the drives for half of what we pay for them, that's still a difference of $65 between the production cost of a high-end model and a low-end model.

Thanks - that makes sense. (1)

JMZero (449047) | about 7 years ago | (#20871167)

I guess I should have realized the PS3 would be a little cramped inside with a regular size HD (and I didn't realize laptop HD prices/sizes were so different).

Re:I don't understand the tiny hard drives... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20871139)

Maybe the consoles are not capable of breaking the 137GB boundary?
I know the PS2 is not. Anyone happen to know if the 360 or PS3 are?

Re:I don't understand the tiny hard drives... (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 7 years ago | (#20871183)

The PS3 uses a 2.5" SATA drive. Realistically that means you're unlikely to see them install anything more than 120Gb any time soon. I expect once the existing 60Gb drives are cleared out that there will be an 80 or 120Gb drive to replace it on the upper end model. Why they've chosen to go 40Gb in this new model probably has something to do with giving people one more reason to buy the more expensive one.

You can also replace the drive for yourself. Unlike the 360, the drive is not housed in some proprietary shell for 2x the markup. A 2.5" SATA 160Gb drive can be had from NewEgg.com for $90.

Re:I don't understand the tiny hard drives... (1)

king-manic (409855) | about 7 years ago | (#20871351)

If we look at the PC space, increasing hard disk size isn't terribly expensive. The difference between a 100GB drive and a 400GB drive might only be $10-$20 over a $60-$70 base price. Not insignificant, but not terribly large either.

Are the economics significantly different on the console side? If not, wouldn't it be a bit of a coup for Sony (or, conversely, MS) to trumpet a 300GB or 500GB drive? At least as an option? It's a very visible number - and making it 20 times as big as your competitor's "20GB" would be quite the snub. And a future sales boon when - like MS - you're selling media downloads.

Anyways, I've just always been curious why the console HD numbers seem so small


They are 2.5" laptop hard drives. So it's not exactly the same price wise. 2.5" top out at 320 GB. On the flip side you can change the HD without voiding the warranty on PS3. They use HD size more or less as a marketing title. They could just include the biggest one possible but the price is not linear. So 20's and 40's are old stock from the HD makers bought at a discount while 120-320 are much more expensive.

Inaccurate title (-1, Flamebait)

Ecuador (740021) | about 7 years ago | (#20870323)

Releasing a crippled device at a lower price is not a "price cut" in any dictionary.
Also, it should be obvious to anyone familiar with the current market, that going down to a 40GB HD right now is not very cost effective. What is more, the compatibility was just a software emulator in the European consoles anyway!
So, Europeans were already paying a premium for a worse (no hardware PS2) device. Now they get the extra option of lowering that premium for an even worse device (that doesn't actually cost much less to manufacture). At the same time their competitors, who have dominated the marketplace, just carry on selling at their original super low price by the truckload (Nintendo), or continue on releasing upgraded (instead of downgraded) versions - as it is usual with electronics & computers - while lowering the prices across the board (Microsoft).
Anybody sees something wrong with this picture?
I am not a gamer anymore myself (If you ask me I will tell you the best game is Day Of The Tentacle), so I cannot comment on how each console "plays", but from a marketing point of view, Sony continues to baffle me.

Re:Inaccurate title (4, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | about 7 years ago | (#20870551)

Releasing a crippled device at a lower price is not a "price cut" in any dictionary.

Isn't it? Whereas the PS3 cost 599 at launch, you can now buy it for 399. If BC means so much to you, buy the 60Gb bundle or hang onto your PS2.

What is more, the compatibility was just a software emulator in the European consoles anyway!

No it wasn't. It was software assisted since it still contained a GS chip. And the BC was very good indeed.

but from a marketing point of view, Sony continues to baffle me.

I expect their reasoning is that for the sake of a few periphery features they can deliver a console at a price that makes it very attractive to a great number of people in time for Christmas. If lack of BC bothers you or any other consumer, then buy the 60Gb bundle which is also 100 cheaper.

Re:Inaccurate title (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20870799)

No, it isn't a price cut. A price cut is the same product offered at a lower price. If one product has backwards compatibility, and the other doesn't, it's not the same product. So it's not a price cut, it's a different product.

Whether the feature differences are important to the buyer does not change whether or not it's a price cut.

Re:Inaccurate title (1)

Ecuador (740021) | about 7 years ago | (#20871223)

You didn't really expect me to RTFA, did you? I mean, this is Slashdot!
In any case, the title is still wrong. Upon RTFA, they are indeed cutting prices of existing consoles (still at a "good" premium over the US of course) and IN ADDITION they are releasing the crippled version. So there was a price cut AND a new lower priced model. The price cut part is great for consumers, but the 40GB version, like Chewbacca living on planet Endor, still does not make sens.
The point is that a 40GB HD right now does not really save you over a 60GB HD, since manufacturing is shifting to larger sizes. I will have to remind you that the manufacturing cost between the 20GB version and the 60GB version was reported at less than $30, and I am sure the WiFi and flash readers that were missing from the 20GB version cost more than the 7 year old graphics chip that the 40GB version ommits. The minor difference in manufacturing costs was the main reason the 20GB version was discontinued, how can I not be baffled by this new release, that seems to have an even smaller manufacturing cost difference?
And you might talk about "periphery features" but Blue-Ray and PS2 compatibility were the two unique features of the PS3. Of course I don't care about them (as I said, I was a gamer until the late 90's, not anymore), but I have read in fora how important they were claimed to be by Sony fanboys. I guess they'll have to "change their song" now...

Re:Inaccurate title (1)

ShadowsHawk (916454) | about 7 years ago | (#20872093)

Even with a $100 price drop on the PS3, it's still too expensive. I'm tempted to pick one up since I have always been a PC gamer. I bought a gamecube for the party games when it hit $100. I could justify spending around $250, maybe $300 for a console. $500-600 is rediculous.

Just two things... (0, Flamebait)

KGIII (973947) | about 7 years ago | (#20870355)

They spent money (re-engineering) to make a model that probably isn't that much cheaper to build and may well require a whole secondary assembly line to sell a product that likely isn't going to sell very well.

And the second is... People still buy stuff from Sony?

Re:Just two things... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20870531)

People still buy stuff from Microsoft too. Just because a corporation is evil, doesn't mean people won't spend money on the shiny pretty things they sell.

Re:Just two things... (0, Flamebait)

ShadowsHawk (916454) | about 7 years ago | (#20872129)

My neighbors just purchased a $2600 Sony Bravia. I recommended a Samsung for half the price, but they trust the Sony name. Both are in their 60's and grew up with Sony stereos, tvs, etc. There is still a large portion of the population that has no clue how bad Sony has gotten.

Sony keeps changing its mind (4, Informative)

rbarreira (836272) | about 7 years ago | (#20870719)

Sony keeps changing its mind... I'm paraphrasing from memory but Sony has said something similar to all the following quotes:

1: Sony: It sucks that the 360 doesn't have full BC

Now Sony releases this model

2: Sony: Rumble is last-gen

Rumble controllers will be launched soon in Japan, and in Spring 2008 in the rest of the world

3: Sony: 360 has too many models, it's ridiculous!

So far I count 4 Playstation models: 60 GB (discontinued in America but still being sold everywhere), 20 GB (discontinued), 80 GB, 40 GB. Also, notice that these models are not necessarily better as disc space increases. For example, the best one is the 60 GB (with full hardware PS2 compatibility)...

Maybe there are more, but at least these three show how unstable the Playstation brand is lately. I'm counting on a big flop (and it's already happening).

Re:Sony keeps changing its mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20871481)

4. Nobody would ever want (Xbox) achievements 5. Motion sensing controller is a gimmick

Re:Sony keeps changing its mind (1)

captain_cthulhu (996356) | about 7 years ago | (#20872183)

I couldn't agree more... Sony comes off as a scrambling and desperate...

it makes me want to wait until they figure out what the hell they are doing.

Re:Sony keeps changing its mind (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 7 years ago | (#20872747)

To be fair, the backward compatibility thing is usually a big deal at the start of the system's existence and not so much so later down the road. It was obvious from the start that Sony threw in the hardware chip for better PS2 compatibility because they believed in what they said. However, as time goes on, its less and less valuable and costs them money, so it goes out the door. The PS2 shipped with a Firewire port too, remember (something I wish the PS3 had).

At any rate, at least Sony evolves their hardware over time -- look at the current PS2 and the original. The PS3 will keep evolving and becoming more and more cost effective with time, whereas I doubt the same will be true to much of a degree with the 360, to Microsoft's detriment.

Yes, sales matter even more, if they don't sell, per unit profits hardly matter, so that's another issue altogether.

Re:Sony keeps changing its mind (2, Informative)

gamer4Life (803857) | about 7 years ago | (#20872877)

1. Sony needed to cut costs. They still have BC, but you need to buy the premium model. With the 360 you have no such option.

2. What did you expect them to say? It's called marketing. It's not like Microsoft (or any other corporation for that matter) has never tried to turn a negative into a positive). I don't think for a second that they once felt that rumble was last gen, but they had to say something other than "Microsoft is making it hard for Immersion to license us Rumble technology cheaply".

3. They only have 2 models at a time, except when one is being discontinued. Microsoft has the Arcade, Premium, Elite, Halo version out, with the Core being phased out. At least they didn't leave out a hard drive in one of them and all work more or less the same with current PS3 games.

If people would engage their heads a bit more, none of this should get anyone riled up about.

I've got a huge library of PS2 games. (1)

Viewsonic (584922) | about 7 years ago | (#20870727)

Just waiting to be played. I've been actively buying the newer games as they come out and stashing them for when I own a PS3. Why? Because I want to play them all upscaled with AA on my HDTV. I was planning on buying this new PS3 because it was *finally* in my price range, but now that it has no backwards compatibility it is entirely useless to me. The PS3 library is too small and doesn't appeal to me at all, so there is no real reason to buy the thing yet.

Perhaps the real reason the PS3 is doing so miserably is because people like me are still showing that there is demand for PS2 games. Why bother developing for the PS3 is they'll sell on the PS2 still?

Sigh. I just want my PS2 games on my HDTV with some nice AA and upscaling. For an "affordable" price. Blargh.

Re:I've got a huge library of PS2 games. (1)

pokerdad (1124121) | about 7 years ago | (#20871401)

Why bother developing for the PS3 is they'll sell on the PS2 still?

I was originally going to agree with you, pointing out that for a game company there are six platforms I would look at before choosing to invest in make a game for the PS3(PS2, DS, PSP, Wii, Xbox360, PC). However, then I stopped and looked at this from another angle.

If you are Sony, the last thing you want is for game companys to be weighing making a game for the PS2 vs the PS3; its cheaper to make a game for the PS2, and prior to this announcement when you developed a game for the PS2, you had all PS3 owners as potential buyers of your game; its entirely possible that part of the problem with the PS3 library has been caused by continued development for the PS2.

Sony may well be breaking BC in hopes that developers will shift from making PS2 games to PS3, thus stengthening the PS3 library.

Re:I've got a huge library of PS2 games. (1)

vonPoonBurGer (680105) | about 7 years ago | (#20871485)

Sorry man, but you're experiencing the old good-fast-cheap problem. You can have upscaled quality (good), and you can have it now (fast), but you'll have to pay through the nose for it (!cheap). Or, you can have the old PS2 quality (!good), you can have it now (fast), and it won't cost too much (cheap). Or, you can have what you want, high quality (good) and low price (cheap), but not for a couple years (!fast). Good, fast, cheap. Pick two.

Complete removal of PS2 backwards compat (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | about 7 years ago | (#20870745)

I find this a little disapointing, I was under the impression that backwards compatibility was all in software for the PS3 now anyhow.

I saw a post on shacknews.com mentioning the PS2 60gb original had the full PS2 guts in it, including some kind of video scaler chip or some such, the PS3 80gb (and European 60gb) has the video scaler but no CPU / guts.
This third model has neither chip, without the 2 other chips it's apparently impossible, assuming of course that's true.
I do understand them needing to remove something to justify the value of the higher ones but I don't think this is the thing to remove.

Some may claim backwards compatibility is useless or unwarranted etc but well I simply disagree, there's many uses for it.
The least Sony could have done is at least lie, like Microsoft about the effort to constantly improve backwards compatibility for the benefit of the customer (haha)

idiots, (1)

joe 155 (937621) | about 7 years ago | (#20870747)

So they take out back compatibility, and cut the market for the PS2 games that they are still producing? Are they just sick of the fact that PS2 sales keep being bigger than PS3 sales? Maybe they feel that reducing PS2 sales might, as a % of their total sales, make their crap-tacular PS3 sales look better...

Not to mention that software seem to be the only element of that "business" which actually makes money.

Good job Sony! (1)

jamie(really) (678877) | about 7 years ago | (#20871205)

I haven't bought a PS3 yet. My PS2 sits under my TV and I hardly play it. I don't need backwards compat. Lowering the price is much more important for me. I already have a blue-ray player (and an HD-DVD player), so that's not a big factor. Price price price. Keep working on it Sony!

Not as crippled as the XBox 360 (1)

Sturmtruppe (1168169) | about 7 years ago | (#20871839)

This isn't as bad as removing the hard drive. All XBox 360 games have to assume you might not have a HD because of that Core model, so they can't use it to preload data.

Re:Not as crippled as the XBox 360 (1)

captain_cthulhu (996356) | about 7 years ago | (#20872049)

it's a bad comparision. you can go buy an HDD for the 360 - there's nothing you can buy to make the 40gb PS3 be backwards compat.

also, there's nothing stopping a developer from using the HDD to preload data when one exists.

this is just another desperate (and frankly dumbfounding) attempt by Sony especially when they threw 'limited backwards compat' in the xbox360's face because the PS3 was 'fully backwards compat'. the hubris exuding from Sony is amazing!

I wonder how Sony benefits more - either from milking PS2 sales or by trying to sell you PS2 games as downloads on the new crippled PS3? I really want a PS3 but Sony seems to be doing everything they can to discourage me. meh.

Re:Not as crippled as the XBox 360 (0)

ProppaT (557551) | about 7 years ago | (#20872285)

What are you talking about? The PS3 is still backwards compatible the same way as the 360 is...through software emulation.

Re:Not as crippled as the XBox 360 (1)

captain_cthulhu (996356) | about 7 years ago | (#20872443)

um, this FA is about a new 40Gb PS3 that has NO backwards compatability... at. all.
now that you are up to speed, join the fray!

Re:Not as crippled as the XBox 360 (1)

Sturmtruppe (1168169) | about 7 years ago | (#20872309)

My bad for my last comment, a little research shows the 360 uses the HDD as a cache if it's there. And I agree, even if Sony were to take away BC eventually, they should do it years down the line when PS2 becomes completely obsolete (which I doubt it will happen within the lifetime of the PS3) and they'd be better off losing massive amounts money now than pulling this.

Microsoft fanboys should cheer for the PS3 (1)

gamer4Life (803857) | about 7 years ago | (#20872925)

Microsoft rarely initiates anything beneficial for their customers unless there is competition, and without Sony, Microsoft would not have cut the price of the XBox. (And vice versa). If Sony does well enough, expect lower prices on consoles, games, and possibly free online play.

I'm not sure why Microsoft fanboys are cheering for the XBox 360 to dominate. We all know full well what happens when Microsoft has a monopoly...

My thoughts on no BC (2, Insightful)

FatherOfONe (515801) | about 7 years ago | (#20872937)

While I think this was a mistake, and have posted on it before. Here is my take on what "might" have happened.

Capcom, EA and others development shops came to Sony and told them (some out loud), that the price of the PS3 is too high and that because the sales are not picking up they will focus all tier one development on the Wii and then the 360, then the PS2 then the PS3. I know second hand that EA basically said this to Sony. The PS3 was dead last on their "New" development and they would do crappy ports of 360 games over to it.

So Sony probably had a gun held to their head and had to do whatever it took to get the cost down to below $400 this year in the U.S.A. (guessing on price), without pulling an Apple and pissing off all their early adopters. They knew that they would catch a bunch of heat over the backward compatibility but at the end of the day they could line up this new PS3 next to a 360 and show that you get more for your money with the PS3 on the hardware side and all the early adopters know they have backward compatibility on their older systems. Those early adopters are happy, new buyers can still get the 80GB version if they "demand" BC, and the vast majority of people that don't care don't have to pay for it.

"If" they would have left out the wireless and kept in the BC, then that would make them look bad on the spec sheet when compared to the 360 Elite ($450). Now it is painfully obvious that the PS3 is better and actually cheaper, thus probably forcing Microsoft to lower the price of the elite down to $400 as well. At the worst case it makes potential customers of the elite this year look long and hard at the PS3 without some EB guy saying "Yeah, it is nice, but it cost $600".

So, the only remaining large issues for Sony are:
1080i issue
Home Beta out ASAP.
Little Big Planet out ASAP.
Better development tools.
More exclusives if at all possible.
Pray that MGS4, HOME, GT5 and Ratchet and Clank are great games.

Lastly, Sony is definitely different than Microsoft and Nintendo in the gaming space. Nintendo focuses totally on the "kids" games and Microsoft appears stuck in the FPS teenager to 30 year old males demographic. There doesn't appear to be a "typical" Sony buyer. You will have some that say MGS, others GT, others Resistance, others Uncharted, others FF, and a bunch like games like Ratchet and Clank and Ape Escape and Kingdom Hearts. Then there are the dance dance revolution types and the puzzle game fans. Nintendo is trying hard to get in to a broader market but the way they treat 3rd party developers makes me and others wonder if Nintendo will ever be a company that really wants 3rd party support.

At the end of the day though, a $400 PS3 is better than a $600 PS3 if you are an average customer buying a console this Christmas.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?