DailyTech - PS3 Slim Expected August 18; Price Cut Still Unconfirmed

Submit News

Gadgets PS3 Slim Expected August 18; Price Cut Still Unconfirmed
Michael Barkoviak - August 4, 2009 10:51 PM

67 comment(s) - last by .. on Aug 30 at 9:28 AM

Not much is known about Sony's plans, except that the company wants to woo consumers to purchase the struggling console

Dozens of unconfirmed rumors regarding the Sony PlayStation 3 have been published online the past six months, and while very little is still known about the company's plans, it appears a price cut and new console launch will take place in the immediate future.

Even though specific details haven't been released by Sony, there are multiple rumors indicating the company will release its PlayStation 3 Slim unit on August 18. It will officially launch prior to the Gamescom event in Germany, but details of the console are unknown.

Sony has vehemently denied price cuts are in Sony's future, but there have been several hints that were recently noticed the past few days. Online retailer Amazon has cut the price of the 160GB PS3 Uncharted: Drake's Fortune bundle from $499 down to $449.

In Japan, the 80GB PS3 is reportedly being phased out, as the company plans to shift focus towards the 160GB unit. Specifically, 7-Eleven will no longer allow customers to pre-order the white, black and silver 80GB PS3s after August 9, with retailers expected to only have 160GB units available.

Since its launch, the Nintendo Wii is the only console that hasn't received a price cut, even though it's possible that will change this holiday season. Analysts expect Nintendo to drop the price from $249, but an exact price -- likely $20 or $30 -- hasn't been confirmed. In addition to several game console bundles, Microsoft is expected to continue phasing out the Xbox 360 Pro models in favor of the Xbox 360 Elite, while also cutting prices.

All these unconfirmed rumors come at a time when Sony's PS3 production cost has dropped 70 percent since its launch in 2006. The cost reduction for manufacturing has been described as "very substantial" by Sony executives, which gives Sony no excuse not to cut prices and attempt to attract new consumers.

Consumers interested in console gaming, or perhaps testing a different game console, will likely be able to find good deals this holiday shopping season.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Too late?

By Barfo on 8/4/2009 11:52:05 PM , Rating: 2

I'll probably get one to use as a Bluray player if the price is low enough.

But I think Sony lost this generation of console wars...move on to the PS4.

RE: Too late?

By meepstone on 8/5/09, Rating: -1

RE: Too late?

By Jaegs on 8/5/09, Rating: -1

RE: Too late?

By tedrodai on 8/5/2009 9:10:46 AM , Rating: 2

From that point of view, a 360 and PS3 are toys compared to a decent gaming PC. I bought a Wii for the price, myself, though I expected a little more quality to the games than I've experienced. As examples, people raved about Zelda and Metroid on the Wii, but I felt like the motion controls detracted from the games rather than adding a new enjoyable element. There are still some great exclusives, however, and if faced with the choice again, I'd still go with the Wii because of price. I'll fire up my PC if I want graphics.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By UppityMatt on 8/5/2009 9:39:43 AM , Rating: 4

Seems like pure gold to me...its the first "toy" or "system" that my parents who are both 52 have ever bought. You don't need the graphics because they make the experience enjoyable for all people.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By invidious on 8/5/2009 10:06:45 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
From that point of view, a 360 and PS3 are toys compared to a decent gaming PC

The first time I saw a PS3 try to run Street Fighter 4 on my 47" LCD I was disgusted. The absence of AA and AS ruined all of the visual appeal the game should have had. Of course my friends who are used to bad concole graphics thought I was crazy. Then I fired up the PC version, which I also outputted to my TV, maxed out all the details and the game actually looked like it should, awesome.

I mean what can you really expect out of a concole when a good video card for the PC costs almost as much has the entire system for a concole? Consoles just can't live up to the full potential of modern game design or modern TVs from a graphics point of view.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By The0ne on 8/5/2009 2:29:41 PM , Rating: 2

Imagine that on a 70+ 1080P screen :) Yeah, I output games to my TV and consoles really don't look that great in that size. PS2 is horrible lol.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By Belard on 8/5/09, Rating: 0

RE: Too late?

By chick0n on 8/5/09, Rating: 0

RE: Too late?

By Sdaas on 8/5/09, Rating: 0

RE: Too late?

By The0ne on 8/5/09, Rating: 0

RE: Too late?

By ET on 8/5/09, Rating: 0

RE: Too late?

By StevoLincolnite on 8/5/2009 1:49:40 AM , Rating: 2

Well if the technology is available, any company could jump from SNES-like graphics, to a PS3 relatively quickly, the "Generation" stuff is a way for people to separate a consoles graphical ability.

Personally I think of the Wii as part of this Generation of consoles, it was released in this generation, and employs new technology's. - Just because Nintendo decided that there are more important things in games other than Graphics doesn't mean that it's a "Last generation" console.

I think of the Wii for the more family/casual gamer, and the more "Hardcore" console players tend to sit on the Xbox 360 and/or PS3. - Also if a company releases a game for the Xbox and PS3, essentially they have a customer install base that is roughly equal to that of the Wii.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By gochichi on 8/5/2009 5:26:16 AM , Rating: 2

To me "hardcore" gamer definitely means a PC gamer at the very least. If not a PC gamer with a $4k gaming rig, a $50 3'x3' mousepad... you know what I'm saying? Competitions... etc.

Hardcore and console... I mean just the word "console".

I think PS3 commercials would have you think that it's hardcore, but all consoles are inexpensive devices for casual people.

As a Wii owner, I can readily say that it's a pathetic console whose days have passed. It totally is different from the full-featured consoles. I mean, the Xbox 360 is a great Media Center extender, you can rent HD movies on it. the PS3 is a great machine to have in any media room as well. The PS3 is so desirable on its own right that I could almost not care less about the games.

My hope is that Nintendo will jump the gun soon and release a serious effort. Nintendo has been piling up cash from the miserable Wii and the ackward DS, and that's great for them. But it would be nice if they did something nice for the world too, like design a decent console.

I've had every single Nintendo console they ever made, and a few Gameboys as well. I can say, that with the exception of the SNES (and the NES), every console they've released has been deliberately handicapped in some way. For the N64 it was the lack of CD-ROM, the Game Cube it was the lack of DVD player, for the Wii it's too many things to list.

I do also think that it's valid to say that the PS2 is either not yet dead, or has not been dead for long... and that the PS2 and the Wii do seem to somehow be same-gen to one another. The PS2 is a classic, I've never owned the thing, but the PS2 is a classic and the Wii being in the same grouping is really an honor for the Wii.

I think that the whole thing could be a one man show if Nintendo stopped handicapping themselves and released a reasonable technologically-appropriate console for a change. I think a Wii-2 could even be the first ever "hardcore" console, given the already bold control scheme. If you combined reasonable graphics with an even better/bolder controller it could seal the deal.

It ain't happening any time soon though. Nintendo is a profit driven company (Sony, like it or not, is not... it's principles driven)and so long as they can make money from another Pokemon game, they'll release it. They took like an extra decade than everyone else to finally put a backlight on a gameboy... so that's the company we're dealing with here.

If I were a 3rd party developer, I'd focus far more on the PS3 and the XBOX 360. Those owners buy more games I think.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By sviola on 8/5/2009 9:07:14 AM , Rating: 5

You did type a load of bs in your post... but I'll just comment on the one below?

quote:
It ain't happening any time soon though. Nintendo is a profit driven company (Sony, like it or not, is not... it's principles driven)

Well...if you believe Sony lives by principles and not profit, you're either a Sony fanboy or has been living under a rock for the last years...

Games are a BUSINESS. Nothing more than that for either Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and the game publishers. The moment it becomes non profitable, you're guaranteed they will leave the gaming line.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By The0ne on 8/5/2009 2:43:42 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
My hope is that Nintendo will jump the gun soon and release a serious effort. Nintendo has been piling up cash from the miserable Wii and the ackward DS, and that's great for them. But it would be nice if they did something nice for the world too, like design a decent console.

No kidding. I couldn't even finish reading his garbage. This is clearly a kid or an adult "trying" to sound intelligent but failed horribly. This is just as bad as the conversation I had with a fellow DT user saying his a fan of DQ while at the same time bashes it and claims they're not "fantasy" characters *roll eyes*

Parent

RE: Too late?

By tastyratz on 8/5/2009 10:26:36 AM , Rating: 2

no, nintendo handicapped YOU by making a deliberate BUSINESS decision.
They didn't put a dvd drive on the Gamecube because it made it much easier to pirate games. By using the smaller disc's it was a very inconvenient system to pirate at the time with a hump like that... the same could be said of the n64. In today's age that's a lot of $ for a game console.

The Wii is most definitely a dedicated game console who's days have NOT passed. Do I own one? no. Do I intend to own one? no - but that doesn't mean I am incapable of recognizing it as an incredible success. Whether you like it or not they have the greatest profit margin and the most sales... Nintendo is RAKING it in LIGHT YEARS ahead of sony and microsoft statistically. They do not exist to make gochichi happy, they are a business and in the business of making MONEY .
They have a winning concept and they are riding it out, good for them. While I would prefer they create a system which can compete on the same level as the 360/ps3 in other areas, I applaud them for having such undoubtable success in the face of bankruptcy. I am glad they are still around to offer a product and look forward to what they are going to think of next, regardless of whether or not it makes my shopping list.
Besides, you said it yourself... you purchased and still own one - so I guess Nintendo did something right didn't they?

Parent

RE: Too late?

By Belard on 8/5/2009 11:50:32 AM , Rating: 2

While I can relate to what you're saying...

You're not thinking like a big company. All the game companies are around to make money.

Nintendo was WAY behind compared to the PS2/Xbox. A kids console. But as proven, old people (30/40+) and casual gamers would have no issue about the graphics performance of the console.

So without the $$$ that MS & SONY to sink into a whole new console... The Wii is an updated GC... nothing more. Think of it as Gameboy > Gameboy Advanced. And because it's using older tech, it makes it that much easier to build and sell. $250 vs $400~600 from the 360/PS3 (2 years ago)... yeah, they made a killing.

The money they made is most likely being used in R&D for the next console to be a lot more powerful... but still be cheap. So I'd figure it to be more like a PS3+ for $250~300 when the new Nintendo comes out. The next gen PS4/Xbox will be $400+ again.

A thing that shows a problem with the Wii... is that most games sold are the games by Nintendo. People aren't buying many different titles.

Wii is a success... #1 selling current console. More powerful, no. Its CPU is about twice than before and the GPU is a bit better, but otherwise, its a GC which sold for $150 before the Wii came out... wow, $100 markup. :)

Parent

RE: Too late?

By adiposity on 8/5/2009 1:26:01 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Nintendo was WAY behind compared to the PS2/Xbox. A kids console. But as proven, old people (30/40+) and casual gamers would have no issue about the graphics performance of the console.

Not sure what you mean here. The games? Because the gamecube was more powerful than a PS2...

-Dan

Parent

RE: Too late?

By itzmec on 8/5/2009 4:23:56 PM , Rating: 2

where is it proven that old people (30/40+) have no issue with graphics performance?

Parent

RE: Too late?

By Creig on 8/5/2009 12:33:57 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Nintendo is a profit driven company (Sony, like it or not, is not... it's principles driven)

You mean the principles they followed when they included a hidden XCP rootkit on CDs? Or how, rather than follow industry standard flash memory designs, they continue to keep putting out their own higher cost versions under the MemoryStick brand name? Or how Sony devices with rechargeable batteries have electronics installed in them to prevent any aftermarket companies from making a cheaper equivalent?

Were those the principles you were referring to?

Parent

RE: Too late?

By Alexstarfire on 8/6/2009 2:28:27 AM , Rating: 2

OK, I can agree with your first two points, but your last one is just plain out false. I had a SE phone that wasn't using a Sony battery. I'm not saying such a device doesn't exist, but it's certainly not ALL of their products.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By Final8ty on 8/5/2009 7:30:17 AM , Rating: 2

The Wii is 95% identical to the GameCube in internal hardware.
The first wemote was demonstrated on GameCube hardware.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By themaster08 on 8/5/2009 3:12:19 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
Nintendo has like 3 more generations to catch up to playstation in graphics department of consoles

Nintendo sarcificed graphics for innovation, and it paid off.

Just because it doesn't have a 7-core processor and HD graphics that doesn't make it less of an enjoyable console, particularly for casual gamers such as myself.

It's true that the Playstation had more potential to last longer due to it's more advanced hardware, but when Microsoft and Nintendo release their new generation of consoles, I'm presuming that Sony will remain with the PS3 for a while.

I have a feeling that some PS3 owners will feel left behind.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By Spivonious on 8/5/09, Rating: 0

RE: Too late?

By Spivonious on 8/5/2009 3:17:40 PM , Rating: 2

Wow, downrated for no reason. Thanks DT readers!

Parent

RE: Too late?

By themaster08 on 8/5/2009 5:12:46 PM , Rating: 2

I wouldn't take it too personally to be honest.

Articles relative to consoles tend to be quite volatile, considering the nature of peoples' perspectives on what is best.

The best thing to do if you value your ratings is to avoid these articles completely, because they wreak fanboyism.

*prepares to get downrated*

Parent

RE: Too late?

By xti on 8/5/2009 2:48:53 PM , Rating: 1

and others are 3 generations behind to catch up on the fun department in comparison to the wii?

just cuz its not 1080p where i can see hair nostrils, doesnt mean it doesnt serve its purpose. ergo, cash in exchange for entertainment at home.

i guess if eye candy is your cup of tea and nothing else, then fine, fair enough.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By BansheeX on 8/5/2009 1:11:43 AM , Rating: 2

In order to outsell the 360, Sony would have had to:

(a) Lower the shelf price by instituting netplay fees and overpriced upgrades.
(b) Released a model a year prematurely with a 33% failure rate and no HDMI output.
(c) Used a screaming loud, but significantly cheaper low density media format for this generation's games.
(d) Never released memory stick, which everyone suspects to be a plot to take over the world.

That about sums up Sony's current 32 - 25 million defeat. Nintendo is competing in its own demographic. Few people who buy that thing have any interest in games like Call of Duty and Metal Gear Solid. You may as well be saying that Tool lost to Dave Matthews, as if either one was capable of stealing each other's marketshare.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By StevoLincolnite on 8/5/2009 1:59:41 AM , Rating: 1

(a) Lower the shelf price by instituting netplay fees and overpriced upgrades.

Sony and Microsoft was selling there consoles at a loss for a significant amount of time.

Microsoft realized with the original Xbox that one of the major cost issues was the built-in HDD, so by making that an add-on they can then mark the console lower and make a larger profit on the accessories, which places them in a situation where they can be more price competitive with Sony and Nintendo.

However, you don't need -any- addon's to enjoy the Xbox, it works out-of-the Box with Xbox Live! and all your games, you do however need to buy the accessories to enjoy some of the features however.

(b) Released a model a year prematurely with a 33% failure rate and no HDMI output.

This is yesterdays news, the Xbox's failure rate is significantly lower thanks to Jasper, and the tweaks Microsoft has done to the console in order to improve it's reliability. ~ It's not like Microsoft wanted the consoles to have a high failure rate, as every failure costs them money.

(c) Used a screaming loud, but significantly cheaper low density media format for this generation's games.

That can be fixed by installing games to the HDD, and with the coming update you will be able to buy Xbox 360 games over Xbox Live. (On-demand).

(d) Never released memory stick, which everyone suspects to be a plot to take over the world.

This is a non-issue for me, I like Open Standards, and as such, usually avoid company's which lock me into certain technology's, unless however the device has a feature I require that the competition doesn't feature.

That about sums up Sony's current 32 - 25 million defeat. Nintendo is competing in its own demographic. Few people who buy that thing have any interest in games like Call of Duty and Metal Gear Solid. You may as well be saying that Tool lost to Dave Matthews, as if either one was capable of stealing each other's marketshare.

Sony isn't defeated in my eyes, nor is Microsoft, I think all platforms have there place, the Xbox and the PS3 share some pretty awesome cross-platform games, that just wouldn't be the same experience on the Wii, Combined the Xbox and PS3 have a console install base pretty much equal to the Wii, and because of that, we still have some seriously awesome titles on the horizon.

I look at a console to play games, and if I was to choose one, I would choose the console with the exclusives that I would enjoy more. (Which happens to be the Xbox, thanks to the Halo Franchise).

I do have a PS3, and I love it, especially Little big planet, and it's the best Blue-ray player on the market.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By BansheeX on 8/5/2009 3:36:40 AM , Rating: 3

quote:
Sony and Microsoft was selling there consoles at a loss for a significant amount of time.

Totally besides the point. MS cuts were mostly borne by fees, Sony's weren't. Sony was certainly capable of lowering the shelf price further with such a method and never used it. I'm not saying they should have done it, I'm saying they could have and moved more units because consumers are poor assessors of long-term value. They're mostly fixated on the shelf price and couldn't foresee blu-ray's rapid victory and price declines. In fact, many people bought the HD-DVD add-on for $200 a pop, only to see it become useless. If MS had built it into the system, it would have at least still had relevance for games. But once again, that's a long-term value move and the 360 wasn't about that.

quote:
However, you don't need -any- addon's to enjoy the Xbox

If you plan on doing any kind of online play, any at all, you need to pay for a Live subscription. And that'll cost you $350 by itself over 7 years of ownership. The only time the 360 is a better value than the PS3 is if you have zero interest in netplay or blu-ray. Otherwise, you're just paying through the nose to get less.

quote:
This is yesterdays news, the Xbox's failure rate is significantly lower thanks to Jasper

You seem to think I'm just offering a criticism in general. I'm mostly just arguing that it was a boon for MS despite the negative criticism. It got MS a full year to get an early install base and increase the likelihood that friends of those people would get a 360 as well in order to play with them. Let's say you've got 10 gamer buddies. Two of them get a 360 the year that the PS3 isn't even out yet. What do you think the other 8 are going to choose? A console that guarantees not all of them will able to play together? One sale locks in many others. MS understood this, they knew they had to release early at any cost and it worked wonders for them.

quote:
That can be fixed by installing games to the HDD, and with the coming update you will be able to buy Xbox 360 games over Xbox Live. (On-demand).

But the HD for 360's is proprietary and costs 3x as much per GB as one for a PS3. And again, you're not actually addressing the point of my post, which is that MS succeeded not because they offer a better value, but because they released sooner and understood better how consumer's perceive value. Sony can't continue to treat consumers like intelligent creatures who want reliability and longevity above all, they will get murdered. It only works in Japan. Our market has spoken predominately in favor of a cheaply made, rushed core units with options and services sold separately at high markups. It works. It sells itself. You have people everywhere selling it to others because they would never disparage a strategy they bought into.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By StevoLincolnite on 8/5/2009 5:19:37 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
Totally besides the point. MS cuts were mostly borne by fees, Sony's weren't. Sony was certainly capable of lowering the shelf price further with such a method and never used it. I'm not saying they should have done it, I'm saying they could have and moved more units because consumers are poor assessors of long-term value. They're mostly fixated on the shelf price and couldn't foresee blu-ray's rapid victory and price declines. In fact, many people bought the HD-DVD add-on for $200 a pop, only to see it become useless. If MS had built it into the system, it would have at least still had relevance for games. But once again, that's a long-term value move and the 360 wasn't about that.

If Microsoft built the HD-DVD drive into the XBox 360 and it faltered, then I would imagine the production of the Media wouldn't come cheap.

So far I haven't seen any reason to have Media larger than the good ole' DVD for games, developers will just end up spanning the game across Multiple Discs (Like Star Ocean: The Last Hope), or use larger amount of compression (Like Halo 3).

That and because the consoles rely heavily on streaming Data from the disc for many games, the DVD drive in the Xbox is faster, so it gives it the edge in performance, however we pay for that with Noise, but again that can be rectified by installing games to the HDD.

quote:
If you plan on doing any kind of online play, any at all, you need to pay for a Live subscription. And that'll cost you $350 by itself over 7 years of ownership. The only time the 360 is a better value than the PS3 is if you have zero interest in netplay or blu-ray. Otherwise, you're just paying through the nose to get less.

And everyone who has Xbox Live! is willing to pay for it.
Xbox Live! is of higher quality (Both Bandwidth and Latency as well as features) than the PS3's online service, so really you are paying the "Extra" on the console to get an inferior online service.

quote:
You seem to think I'm just offering a criticism in general. I'm mostly just arguing that it was a boon for MS despite the negative criticism. It got MS a full year to get an early install base and increase the likelihood that friends of those people would get a 360 as well in order to play with them. Let's say you've got 10 gamer buddies. Two of them get a 360 the year that the PS3 isn't even out yet. What do you think the other 8 are going to choose? A console that guarantees not all of them will able to play together? One sale locks in many others. MS understood this, they knew they had to release early at any cost and it worked wonders for them.

There are many reasons why the Xbox was rushed as it was, some of those reasons are:

1) Nvidia stopped production of the Xbox's GPU in August 2005, which meant that Microsoft had to quickly launch the Xbox 360.

2) To get a head start on the competition.

3) To be competitive with Sony and Nintendo, the Xbox had allot of Price reductions, but the price reductions came quicker than the cost of manufacturing dropping.

All in all, Microsoft corrected allot of wrongs that were bringing down the profit and failings of the original Xbox, but also brought with it new ones to the XBox 360.

quote:
But the HD for 360's is proprietary and costs 3x as much per GB as one for a PS3. And again, you're not actually addressing the point of my post, which is that MS succeeded not because they offer a better value, but because they released sooner and understood better how consumer's perceive value. Sony can't continue to treat consumers like intelligent creatures who want reliability and longevity above all, they will get murdered. It only works in Japan. Our market has spoken predominately in favor of a cheaply made, rushed core units with options and services sold separately at high markups. It works. It sells itself. You have people everywhere selling it to others because they would never disparage a strategy they bought into.

The drives themselves are not propriety, they are a standard Notebook HDD, however the case is propriety and so is the software (And I think the File System as well, not sure).

Sure, Microsoft's accessories are expensive, sure you may get a better perceived value with the Playstation 3.

But in the end value comes down to the consumer, and every consumer has a different perception on value with everything they buy.

Here for instance if I was to get an Xbox I would go for:

1) 60gb Pro console. ~ $398 AU
2) 12 Months of Xbox Live! Gold. ~ $79.95

And the PS3:

1) 80gb Console ~ $688

So that is a price of: $477.95 for the Xbox, and 688 for the PS3, now If I threw in a Wireless Networking device for $149 for the Xbox it would bring it to $626.95.

So you still come ahead. (Australian Pricing).

Basically the point is with the Xbox if you don't need something you don't have to buy it, hence the cost margin between the Playstation and the Xbox increases, which is where the perceived value of each consumer comes into play.

I personally grabbed an Arcade Console, and before the NXE update Microsoft were offering 20gb HDD's for $20, which I jumped all over, soon though I will be buying a 120gb HDD, because of the new Games on Demand service coming to Xbox Live!

The other issue with the Xbox is that because of all the extra accessories that are sold separately, it can be hard to get a hold of something you want/need, without checking out every shop you can. (I live in a country area, so there is no dedicated games shop here, thankfully with games on Demand I wont have to hunt down games across the state anymore, but accessories I still will).

Parent

RE: Too late?

By Murst on 8/5/2009 10:52:19 AM , Rating: 2

Its funny to read these posts. Both the Xbox and PS3 have their advantages, and each have extremely good (exclusive) games. Arguing that one is better than the other is silly. For a very specific cross-plaftorm game it may be true that one console has the advantage over another, but trying to generalize that for all gaming on the console would not be very sound.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By The0ne on 8/5/2009 2:50:04 PM , Rating: 2

They are "hardcore" gamers! LMAO. Leave them to their dens! Lets us continue to enjoy the fruits of all systems in the meantime.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By joeindian1551 on 8/6/2009 2:02:43 AM , Rating: 3

LMAO?? There's no laughing in a story about consoles! This is serious bizness. ;p

Parent

RE: Too late?

By bill3 on 8/6/2009 4:08:31 AM , Rating: 1

quote:
Totally besides the point. MS cuts were mostly borne by fees, Sony's weren't. Sony was certainly capable of lowering the shelf price further with such a method and never used it. I'm not saying they should have done it, I'm saying they could have and moved more units because consumers are poor assessors of long-term value. They're mostly fixated on the shelf price and couldn't foresee blu-ray's rapid victory and price declines. In fact, many people bought the HD-DVD add-on for $200 a pop, only to see it become useless. If MS had built it into the system, it would have at least still had relevance for games. But once again, that's a long-term value move and the 360 wasn't about that.

Oh this is a bunch of baloney. You what frickken annoys me, people who act like MS not including Blu Ray/HDDVD in 360 was morally wrong. Get off your high horse. It was a business strategy, with tradeoffs like any other. DVD has proven fine as a medium for this generation of games. I believe that battle is over, do you see a lot of 360 games with marked deficiencies due to DVD format holding them back? I dont. Anyway, HDDVD was the superior ( much cheaper, and good enough) format and only lost because of Sony's anti-consumer monopoly tactics, the fact they owned a movie studio and only allowed that studio to make Blu Ray movies, and pushed the Blu Ray into PS3 and onto gamers back when it wasnt needed for games. Sony's main interest in Blu Ray had nothing to do with gaming, and everything to do with their long term profits through a ill gotten Blu Ray monopoly. Then they just sold the gamer a BS bill of goods about Blu Ray's supposed gaming benefits. Then the gamer paid $600 for PS3's to subsidize Blu Ray for the privilege of Sony making even more money in the future.

Do I really believe all the above? Not necessarily, but it's every bit as valid as the "Ms is evil Sony is good" bullshit you're spitting the only difference is I'm smart enough to see theyre both just corporations after money, whereas you actually believe your own nonsense.

quote:

If you plan on doing any kind of online play, any at all, you need to pay for a Live subscription. And that'll cost you $350 by itself over 7 years of ownership. The only time the 360 is a better value than the PS3 is if you have zero interest in netplay or blu-ray. Otherwise, you're just paying through the nose to get less.

What if you just like, say, Halo? Come on. These are supposed to be gaming machines. I'm as big a tech guy as there normally is around, and I dont care very much at all about Blu Ray. Now, I might, if I get a larger HDTV to replace this 27" I'm currently on. But even then it only really matters for certain movies (who cares if a comedy is in HD) and I mostly download movies to the PC anyway. So anyway, the point is yes, Blu Ray's value is zero to a lot of people, and a lot of casuals probably never do netplay either. Look at the best selling console, the Wii. Do you think people are netplaying on that? No. Yet it's by far the most popular console. What does that tell you? Besides, arguably PSN is far inferior to XBL, so maybe you get what you pay for. Hell, maybe you even like the 360's games (Halo, Gears of War, Fable, Forza) better than their PS3 counterparts, so you're willing to pay more for it over it's life. Imagine that! Not even to mention facts like most multiplatform games tend to look and run better on 360, a decided advantage frankly.

quote:
But the HD for 360's is proprietary and costs 3x as much per GB as one for a PS3. And again, you're not actually addressing the point of my post, which is that MS succeeded not because they offer a better value, but because they released sooner and understood better how consumer's perceive value. Sony can't continue to treat consumers like intelligent creatures who want reliability and longevity above all, they will get murdered. It only works in Japan. Our market has spoken predominately in favor of a cheaply made, rushed core units with options and services sold separately at high markups. It works. It sells itself. You have people everywhere selling it to others because they would never disparage a strategy they bought into.

Currently the baseline "pro" 360 SKU comes with a 60GB HDD. As this article itself hints and the ars rumor mole who's reliable has stated, the Elite is soon going to phase out the pro at 299. So soon the "standard" HDD will be 120GB..I think thats plenty, frankly. And lol @Japan intelligent consumer, this the country that catapulted a bunch of Wii and DS non-games to dominate the charts. The only reason Japan choses PS3 over 360 is because it's made in Japan, and theyre a bunch of racist xenophobes over there. You're just fricken hilarious ignoring that little fact that we all know is true. Fricken hilarious. Lets pretend we cant see the nose on our face either. Unbelievable.

And who even says reliability is to be treasured anyway? If I had a choice between a fun system that occasionally breaks down, and a perfectly reliable one that's boring, wouldn't choosing the former be perfectly valid? Hypothetically. Also, if reliability is so chosen by consumer, why was the PS2 so popular? That thing was notoriously unreliable, as was the PS1 frankly. The PS1 was known for having to turn it upside down to get it to read discs.

Let me tell you my experience, I've owned a 360 since Nov 2005. It worked fine for around a year+, then, yes, it RROD. MS fixed it free through a very easy process where you call a 800 number, they send you a prepaid box made to fit the 360 (the so called coffin), you mail it to them, they repair and send back. Free and took I think 12 days in my case, although 2 of the days were my fault. Since then it has worked 100% perfect the last 2.5+ years. So i've been without a 360 for 12 days in almost 4 years, and it cost me nothing. Really not that bad. But of course you want to make it some moral outrage, because of your love for a inanimate box called the PS3.

I agree with your points that MS has possibly been smarter about things by lowering the upfront costs in exchange for making some it back on accessories and Live fees. I just disagree with you casting it in moral terms, it's just business. Let me ask you this, do yo think a DS3 costs 60 bucks to make? So why is Sony immorally charging 60 for the DS3?? So wait, it's ok when Sony makes money on some of it's accessories, as is common practice, but somehow it's not okay on HDD's when MS does it? Riiiight. Why arent you skewering Sony for charging 60 for a controller, when they could raise the price of the PS3 20 and charge 40 for that controller? It's the exact same thing. But you're only going to focus on the areas MS does it and Sony doesnt because you only want to criticize MS.

Next why dont I say "my gosh, it's immoral Sony doesnt have friends invites across all games on PSN! This is a basic human right! Lets get Barack Obama in here!". That's the kind of crap I might be saying if I was acting like you. Just get off your high horse, please.

How about the fact (until recently, heh) Sony didn't include HD cables in the PS3 while MS did in the pro and Elite? Was that immoral of Sony too? Advertising a HD, Blu Ray console that isnt HD out of the box? What about the fact Sony initially advertised the PS3 as being the 1080P machine (as opposed to that low class 360, harumph), and now it turns out 95% of their games are 720P or even less just like on 360? That seems pretty immoral to me. What about the fact Sony built an entire advertising around fake CGI videos at E3 05 of games like Killzone and Motorstorm? Some Sony representatives even directly stated these CGI videos were real gameplay at the time. Then the media completely allowed them to skate on it? You can go on and on..

Parent

RE: Too late?

By bill3 on 8/6/2009 4:35:40 AM , Rating: 2

Also I forgot a couple other things..first, you state that Sony could have lowered the price earlier had they chosen to gouge on accessories and such like MS..see here's where I think youre somewhat wrong..PS3 was never going to be priced at what 360 was, theyre basically the same thing technically, but one has Blu Ray. That makes the $200 difference right there.

I think people are buying a little too much into this "70% PS3 cost reduction" comment. As I understand somebody who listened to the conference call, it was pretty vague. It also just doesnt make any sense if you run the numbers, if PS3 cost $1000 at launch, it would be 300 today, so why is it still 400? If Ps3 cost a more reasonable 800 at launch, then it's 240 today! Neither makes a lot of sense, neither the exorbitantly high launch figures or the exorbitantly low today figures this 70% thing gives you.. And how many people think the Ps3 cost 1k at launch even? As I recall all the little PS3 fanboys were arguing against a high launch cost at the time, but now theyre all willing to admit to a 1000+ PS3 launch cost? Doesn't add up. Also, there have been several comments by Sony recently, including Stringer, that PS3 still costs more than it sells for. So that's contradictory as well.

Oh also, HDDVD standard wasnt even finished in 2005. MS couldn't have included it in 360 if they wanted to.

Also, I think HDDVD would have easily beaten Blu Ray had MS included HDDVD standard in 360. After all, HDDVD nearly beat Blu Ray even without that advantage. Blu Ray used all sorts of monopoly tactics and still barely overcame HDDVD. Had the playing field been fair Blu Ray would have never had a prayer.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By Shadez on 8/5/2009 4:04:09 AM , Rating: 2

Parent

RE: Too late?

By steven975 on 8/5/2009 10:11:09 AM , Rating: 2

Well, that depends on how you define winning and losing.

If you're talking about great games and a great system they are winning.

If you're talking about making money, they are losing and losing big. Even if the PS3 starts selling like hotcakes, there are serious doubts that Sony can make money over the lifetime of the PS3. Sony makes its money selling games, and Sony is doing quite poorly in selling a high number of games to each PS3 owner. I think many if not most PS3s were bought as a Blu-Ray player...and I think BD movies have a much lower licensing fee per title (especially now that online pricing is getting pretty darn close to DVD).

Parent

RE: Too late?

By Hiawa23 on 8/5/2009 10:21:34 AM , Rating: 2

Actually Sony is doing very well; lots of exclusives coming out, cost is 70% lower, a slim version is around the corner, more developers are getting used to the architecture and are excited by its power. They are far from losing the game.

I am not sure where you are getting your info but Sony isn't doing well, by any stretch of the imagination in most of their divisions, especially the Playstation division. In terms of power, the PS3 is not so much more powerful than the X360, infact most devs are still fussing about the architecture of the PS3, but the massive storage space of Blu Ray compared to DVD is what's getting the most praise from devs, as it allows for less compression which improves the look & sound of games. At the end of the day, devs are in business to make money, & the console that gives them the best way to make the most that's what devs will flock to, & compared to the Xbox 360 or Wii, the PS3 probably comes in a distant 3rd as far as moving software. Graphics seems mostly only important to the graphics guys, but from publishers & devs standpoint, although they are important it's about moving software. If it was all about graphics the PS2 wouldn't have done as well as it did compared to the Xbox & Cube.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By Chaser on 8/5/2009 12:50:14 PM , Rating: 2

Yet another world marketing genius with free time to troll blogs tenders an "expert and objective" marketing report and forecast for a multi billion dollar company.

Boys and girls, the PS3 is doing fine. It has numerous exclusives that clearly demonstrate it's superiority above the competition.

If you decide to buy one you won't be disappointed. It has a great game library, excellent media streaming and hub capabilities, and stands above the rest for built-in features and it's very reliable. Don't believe the unqualified BS. Its a great console. I don't know about you but I'll believe Sony's marketing division over anonymous "experts" any day Thank you.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By The0ne on 8/5/2009 2:56:14 PM , Rating: 2

I don't know about your BS either but I do know from the business side that Sony isn't doing well, had and is restructuring to reduce cost and many other things to save money. The millions it's not pulling in from it's game division is a lost no matter how you view it. Even if they made a small profit from it it's a lost in their strategy. Compare this to a Wii game that sold and made millions and you, as a company, have to figure what the hell have you done wrong and what can you do to compete again. Hence you have the motion support coming soon, all thanks to Wii.

In fact, Sony hasn't been doing well over the past few years. One of the offices here, San Diego, have been struggling. I've visited the place, talked to the mangers and employees there. Trust me, their not in that good of a shape as you might have perceived and as Sony/Press have had you believe. They are not, by any means, down for the count but expectations have definitely not been meet...especially by the game division.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By Hiawa23 on 8/5/2009 9:30:23 AM , Rating: 2

I own all three of this gens consoles. I prefer the 360, especially for the LIVE online structure, I like the PS3's exclusive, & don't care for the Wii at all, but it's good to see that Sony will drop the price & or release a slimmer cheaper version. It doesn't affect me one way or the other as I already own one, but, honestly, I really am skeptical to see how a price drop will affect PS3 sales, especially if the price only drops $50 or so, & some buying PS3s for a blu ray player, I don't know as standalones are much cheaper now. With the economy the way it is, Sony may have shot themselves in the foot this gen, & a price drop or slim may not change that much, especially if we see a price drop for the Wii & 360.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By Hiawa23 on 8/5/2009 9:55:19 AM , Rating: 2

I have owned every console since the Atari 2600, & I don't get into what qualifies a gamer as a hardcore or casual, but I find it hilarious when someone says a hardcore gamer is a gamer who also games on the PC. The PC elites are funny & they always show up when talking about consoles. I have a nice PC, & I have never liked PC gaming, so the consoles are fine & always have been fine as my tastes go, & I game on all three of the consoles, 360 90%, PS3 8%, Wii 2%. Not sure what type of gamer that makes me but I do know that PC gaming is just not what appeals to me, so for alot of us consoles are fine, & how can anyone compare the consoles to PCs when PCs can always be upgraded but the tech specs for consoles are finite & can't be. Just seems like apples to oranges in most cases. Console graphics are fine for my tastes.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By steven975 on 8/5/2009 10:14:29 AM , Rating: 2

Well, I will at least say that playing an RTS on a console is downright painful.

FPS' not so much, but a mouse is still a better precision device.

Hardcore might not be the right word, but I will say PC gamers are a more devoted and saavy group as a whole. Devoted in that they spend thousands rather than hundreds on hardware. Saavy in that they have to be go get some games to even work.

Parent

RE: Too late?

By inperfectdarkness on 8/5/2009 7:32:16 PM , Rating: 2

sony gambled. they sacrificed ps3 sales for a blu-ray victory. they won that bet--but the lack of adoption of blu-ray in the numbers sony had hoped for--makes their betting a pyrrhic victory.

console generation = 5-6 years

disk format = 20+ years

simple math from the pen pushers. more lucrative royalties in format sales. that's all there is to it.

Parent

...

By san1s on 8/5/2009 12:02:09 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
which gives Sony no excuse not to cut prices

When they first released the console, it was selling at a loss. Sony was losing money making PS3s...

RE: ...

By tedrodai on 8/5/2009 8:21:37 AM , Rating: 2

The linked article states current production cost is around $265. That doesn't leave much room for excuses from a consumer's point of view, despite their needing to make up for the initial loss on the console.

Parent

RE: ...

By steven975 on 8/5/2009 10:16:28 AM , Rating: 2

That $265 is probably just materials and labor, though. I seriously doubt depreciation and amortization are included, as Sony wants to report the best amount possible.

And it is that depreciation and amortization they have to pay for before profitability is even a possibility.

Parent

7-Eleven?

By Morphine06 on 8/5/2009 10:52:01 AM , Rating: 2

Am I the only one confused why a convenience store is said to be selling PS3s in this article? I thought they just did Big Gulps and Slurppies.

RE: 7-Eleven?

By johnsonx on 8/5/2009 11:05:07 AM , Rating: 2

I did a momentary "Huh?" over that too, but from the context it's clear that it's a Japanese electronics retailer.

Parent

RE: 7-Eleven?

By monomer on 8/5/2009 2:21:34 PM , Rating: 2

7-11 does sell video games, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were into the console market as well. There was some news a couple years ago that 7-11 broke the street date for a couple of games, so they were pretty popular for awhile.

Parent

$299!!!!

By quiksilvr on 8/4/2009 11:50:53 PM , Rating: 2

Just have one 160GB PS3 slim for $299 and no more of this composite wire nonsense. Spend an extra quarter and throw in an HDMI cable.

RE: $299!!!!

By wempa on 8/5/2009 9:26:45 AM , Rating: 2

That is one thing that I was TOTALLY shocked by when I opened up the original $600 PS3. No HDMI or even component cables !!! After all of Sony's trash talking about how their console was the ONLY true HD console complete with HDMI out of the box, they couldn't even include HD cables with a $600 consumer product. I agree with you 100%. Include the damn HDMI cable !

Parent

Holy crap!

By Spartan Niner on 8/5/2009 12:00:20 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Analysts expect Nintendo to drop the price from $249, but an exact price -- likely $20 or $30

Now that would be a hell of a deal ! ;)

quote:
All these unconfirmed rumors come at a time when Sony's PS3 production has dropped 70 percent since its launch in 2006. The cost reduction...

Production cost

RE: Holy crap!

By BansheeX on 8/5/2009 2:01:53 AM , Rating: 2

Yeah, poor grammar in the article. First one, he is acting as though "drop" is the object for $20 and $30. "Price" is the object in that sentence, "drop" is the verb.

Second one he's just missing a word.

Parent

I've already got...

By BigToque on 8/5/2009 1:20:32 AM , Rating: 2

That silver PS3 looks sweet!

RE: I've already got...

By StevoLincolnite on 8/5/2009 5:20:56 AM , Rating: 2

I agree, now I have urges to buy a silver George Forman grille...

Parent

longshot?

By dome1234 on 8/5/2009 9:00:06 AM , Rating: 2

it's a bit much pulling out that august 18 date just because sony's press conference is at the same date in gamescom germany. they might announce it.

RE: longshot?

By dome1234 on 8/5/2009 9:18:52 AM , Rating: 2

hmmm... it might not be such a longshot...

http://scrawlfx.com/2009/08/sony-launching-upgrade...

Parent

2.5" Drive

By Amiga128 on 8/5/2009 9:03:05 AM , Rating: 2

Why does Sony use the 2.5" drive, surely 3.5" drives are cheaper and bigger. There is not much difference between the power for an 3.5" and 2.5" drive.

If I was Sony I would have put 2 3.5" Sata controllers in the PS3 so that you can have two hard-drives if you want.

RE: 2.5" Drive

By sviola on 8/5/2009 9:19:14 AM , Rating: 2

Probably it has to do with available size in the console and heat generation...

Parent

Don't hold your breath for the next gen systems.

By Finnkc on 8/5/2009 10:03:20 AM , Rating: 2

Yea PS4 and X720 are in the works no doubt but MS and Sony are going to milk these PS3s and 360s bone dry ... it has been a messy generation for both. RRoD or low sales, and both 2nd to a reworked game cube.

honestly the power in the PS3 has not even been close to tapped into yet and the X360 is still not running at it's full potential.

RE: Don't hold your breath for the next gen systems.

By tygrus on 8/5/2009 8:56:25 PM , Rating: 2

It would be great if they could do a half generation step like they do when increasing the HD capacity. Like buying a new PC to replace the 18m to 2yr old PC.

Aim to 1.5x to 2x CPU speed, 2x-4x RAM, 2x-4x GPU performance. Same OS, same brand CPU, same brand GPU, backwards compatible HW/SW API (eg. DirectX). Allow 1080P to replace lower resolution, AA and higher 3D quality.

An updated Cell processor 1.5x MHz and real 64b FP units instead of current virtual 64b FP (uses 32b FP hardware) would be great for folding and stream processing.

Parent

PS3 laptop

By Esquire on 8/5/2009 7:47:13 AM , Rating: 2

WHY DOESN'T SONY MAKE A PS3 LAPTOP? I would be great to have and they could get 500-600 easy for it.

Here are some hand-good shoes, clothes, bags.

By on 8/30/2009 9:16:35 AM , Rating: 2

http://www.crispstyle.com

bikini$25

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas)

nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32

lv, coach, chane bag $35

COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30

christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13

edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25

Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24

AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

http://www.crispstyle.com