backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by bozilla.. on Mar 23 at 8:53 PM


Sony's 20GB PlayStation 3
Best Buy puts 20GB PS3 on the chopping block

A change is in sight when it comes to Sony's PlayStation 3 at Best Buy stores. Sony's PS3 currently comes in two flavors: the $599 USD 60GB version and the $499 USD 20GB version. Both consoles feature a Blu-ray optical drive, but the 60GB version adds 802.11b/g wireless networking and a MemoryStick/Secure Digital/CompactFlash reader for digital camera media.

According to internal Best Buy documents obtained by Joystiq, it looks as though the retailer is no longer going to stock Sony's 20GB PlayStation 3 console. The document lists the 20GB PS3's status as "discontinued."

The writing has been on the wall for the 20GB PS3 for quite some time now. It was revealed back in November that Sony is losing roughly $307 USD for every 20GB PS3 that it sells versus a smaller $241 USD hit for the more expensive 60GB version.

SCEA communications director Dave Karraker also told Joystiq last week that retailers have been overwhelming placing orders for the more expensive 60GB PS3. "Retailers have been requesting the 60GB model, the mix has been about 80 percent 60GB, 20 percent 20GB retailer orders. So, the reason you might not be seeing the 20 GB is simply that retailers have been ordering more of the 60 GB unit," said Karraker.

Sony still plans to make its 20GB PS3 available to retailers who want to sell it, but the number of retailers willing to stock the device may soon be dwindling. If that happens, the price disparity between the 60GB PS3 and the Xbox 360/Nintendo Wii will only grow further.



Comments     Threshold


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

Don't see why
By FITCamaro on 3/18/2007 6:39:07 PM , Rating: 4
Personally, I'd buy the 20GB over the 60GB one. I don't care about wireless or the memory stick reader. And since you can swap the hard drive yourself, whats the point in paying a $100 premium for 40GB more space.




RE: Don't see why
By cochy on 3/18/2007 6:45:48 PM , Rating: 5
For the silver trim of course!!

:P


RE: Don't see why
By agent2099 on 3/18/2007 8:21:46 PM , Rating: 3
agreed, I think the 20gb version provides the better value.

Also, this entire story is a little fishy. Amazon.com has been sold out of the 20gb model consistently, while the 60gb model is readily avilable.

I simply don't beleive that 80% of consumer demand is for the 60gb model.


RE: Don't see why
By nerdye on 3/18/2007 8:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
I agree as well that the 20gb version seems to provide a better value than that of the 60gb model. Wireless? I don't want to use wireless for my gaming, an ethernet chord is the only logical gaming connectivity solution for me, and sure some people will argue, yet I'll get a head shot on y'all while you look pretty with no wires and less bandwidth!

On the other hand, having a sony memory stick port on a ps3 will likely interface with the psp, which holds potential in their future collaborations, yet is in no shape or form materialized at the current point in time. This could be a bonus for the 60gb model, but that is yet to be seen and proven as only time and software can answer that question.


RE: Don't see why
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/18/2007 8:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wireless? I don't want to use wireless for my gaming, an ethernet chord is the only logical gaming connectivity solution for me, and sure some people will argue, yet I'll get a head shot on y'all while you look pretty with no wires and less bandwidth!

Think about it this way. Most people have their Xbox 360/PS3 in their living room hooked up to the largest TV in the house. I don't know about you, but my router is not in my living room and my house (like many) is not hard wired for Ethernet.

In my case, the router (Linksys Vonage unit) is in the room that has the most computer equipment in it (cable modem, network laser printer, network AIW, central phone system that plugs into the Vonage router, etc.). Everything else in the house is connected wirelessly including my gaming console.


RE: Don't see why
By leexgx on 3/18/2007 9:23:21 PM , Rating: 1
its intresting why users would even get the 20gb model and intresting why user are not considering the 60gb model in here you get 40gb more disk space so that means once you filled that 20gb space up you do need to start removeing stuff of it

you get wireless as well i bet thay probly charge £40($50 in the UK thay probly match it to US price thay make more money out of us) for the wireless addon and the hdd probly be same ish price to the Xbox hhd price

its only $100 or £80 more for that model saves you haveing to mess about getting the wireless later on and an bigger hdd, not that i am buying one any way, maybe an yr or 2


RE: Don't see why
By Farfignewton on 3/19/2007 1:58:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
its only $100 or £80 more for that model saves you haveing to mess about getting the wireless later on and an bigger hdd


Believe it or not, some people (even with broadband!) have no interest in online gaming whatsoever, let alone doing it without wires. Didn't Microsoft just announce reaching 6 million subscribers to their online service? While that is quite a few people, how does that compare to the number of consoles they have sold? I suspect it isn't a very high ratio, though I can't be sure since total x-box sales seem to be one of the few things I haven't been able to dig up on google.

As for hard drives, I have yet to be convinced a console requires one, let alone a "bigger" one, though the $40 memory card for the the 360 does make it less appalling.

I for one, have been waiting for my local Best Buy to stock one of those 20GB unicorns.:(


RE: Don't see why
By ShapeGSX on 3/18/2007 10:35:08 PM , Rating: 3
My cable modem is right under the TV. Why? Because it needs cable, just like the TV does. My Media PC is right there, too. So is my XBox 360. And so is my Vonage box. And all of that is hooked up to my router. My other PC is across the room, and hooked up via ethernet through the floor to the basement.

The only time I ever use wireless is when I use my laptop, because I need wireless for the mobility. Wired is just so much more reliable and so much faster. Screw wireless. It especially sucks when you have more than one wireless device competing for your router's bandwidth. Bleah.


RE: Don't see why
By otispunkmeyer on 3/19/2007 4:24:35 AM , Rating: 2
wireless for me, isnt terribly reliable, so i always stick with wired where i can. the walls are too thick in my house to make WiFi that useful.

those plug socket things that route t'interweb through your houses wiring are a good bet too, though they are quite expensive.

in my room my 360 is hooked up with ethernet, and my PC, which i only use for web+email is hooked up with a USB wifi adapter that came with my router. its not the best, but it does the job.


RE: Don't see why
By aos007 on 3/19/2007 11:39:16 AM , Rating: 2
What do you mean your router is not in your living room? My ADSL modem, router and separate wireless router for my laptop (simultaneous wireless+wired is a recipe for instability on any consumer router) are all behind my TV, just a few feet from HTPC, Xbox360 and PS3. A separate gigabit switch and all other computer equipment are in my den. With 15+ wireless networks in range, as everyone and their dog is using wireless now, not to mention Bluetooth, relying on wireless for your connectivity is going to make your life miserable. I have my drawers full of various wireless cards and I went through several wireless routers as well... It's slow and unreliable and it only gets rid of a few wires. Not to mention that not all OSes I use support WPA2.


RE: Don't see why
By slashbinslashbash on 3/19/2007 9:40:56 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I'll get a head shot on y'all while you look pretty with no wires and less bandwidth!


Uh huh. Because 11 or 54Mbps is SO slow compared to your DSL or cable connection. :rolleyes;

Furthermore, you seem not to understand the difference between latency and bandwidth. While there might be a tiny latency difference between wired and wireless, it pales in comparison to the overall latency of your internet connection as a whole.

*Mileage may vary for some people; if your WiFi setup is poor or over a long distance, then you may have some trouble. Get a better router, one with more power and multiple antennae.


RE: Don't see why
By tring on 3/19/2007 11:10:25 AM , Rating: 2
You have internet faster than 54mps! wow, that's impressive. If not, then wired or wireless doesn't make a difference for gaming bandwidth.


RE: Don't see why
By Spivonious on 3/19/2007 12:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
Bandwidth, huh? Let's see...

Standard cable modem: 6-8Mbps
Standard 802.11g: 54Mbps
Standard RJ45: 100Mbps

I don't think bandwidth is a problem at all.


RE: Don't see why
By static1117 on 3/19/2007 9:31:19 AM , Rating: 2
Uh.....think about it then.

If they buy 100 Units (80 being the 60 gig and 20 being the 20 gig), and sell 50 units (all the 20 and only 30 of the 60) then they still have 50 60gig units left.

This would be a condition in which the 20 gig were always sold out and the 60 gig versions were in stock.

Summary-
THEY BOUGHT MORE 60 GIG UNITS.


RE: Don't see why
By slacker57 on 3/19/2007 12:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I simply don't beleive that 80% of consumer demand is for the 60gb model.


You're misreading. It's not consumer demand, it's what the stores want to sell is an 80/20 split.

quote:
"Retailers have been requesting the 60GB model, the mix has been about 80 percent 60GB, 20 percent 20GB retailer orders.


Given the comments I glazed over, I'd imagine consumer demand is more of a 50/50 split, but the retailers want to make more money, so they're not supplying a 50/50 split.


RE: Don't see why
By ViperROhb34 on 3/19/2007 7:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
Best Buy Carries ALOT OF Sony products.
Maybe Sony doesnt want BestBuy to say its Sony's best interest to do this. I mean the loss is purely Sony's loss on either consoles.. but the Income BestBuy gets on either console is like alot of consoles - worhtless-- I think when I worked at Compusa yrs ago.. they made 5-10 dollars per console of almost anykind/ brand.


RE: Don't see why
By Samus on 3/19/2007 10:42:48 AM , Rating: 1
This is VERY fishy. I'm sure you know where I'm comin' from. It's no secret that PS3 isn't selling well. Every store I go to have many of the 20GB and 60GB models in stock.


RE: Don't see why
By phil verhey on 3/19/2007 3:01:30 PM , Rating: 1
personally i dont know why anyone would ever buy a PS3..
lets see.. i can walk into futurshop today and buy:

PS3 ............$699
2x games... $140
----------------------
total =.........$839

Xbox360 20gb premium 2months gold COD3 and NHL 2k7 (which can be exchanged for any two games after purchase)
..................................$499
Wii with wii sports.....$279
Wii or 360 game......... $59
---------------------------------
grand total................$837

wow i can get a 360 and a Wii, plus 3 games for two dollars cheaper than a PS3... that's a hard choice.
.. i used the 60gb version of the PS3 in this example even though a better choice would have been the 20gb, but futureshop doesn't sell it.. and neither do most retailers. (all prices are canadian$)


RE: Don't see why
By Visual on 3/20/2007 6:22:27 AM , Rating: 2
well that is because you've already decided to be anti-ps3.
ps3 has bluray playback which is enough of a reason to buy it, even if you never play a game on it.
it supports running linux, and that's a good reason for me too. i can't wait to try how cell works as a pc.
as a reason for gamers that don't care for the more geeky aspects of it, there are the ps-exclusive titles. think whatever you want, but there are people that will buy a ps3 for these games even if they already own a 360 and a wii.

then, there is the point of the whole nonsensical nature of your calculations. the fact that you priced ps3 games each $10 above the xbox/wii variant for no obvious reason aside, you only consider 2-3 games, and if someone buys a console for just that i'd call them crazy no matter if it was xbox or wii or ps3. over time most people will have dozens or games, at a total cost way above any price difference in the consoles themselves. that's why such a price difference isn't really important.

what is important is the quality of the games, and not just the launch titles but the future potential too. ps3 has the other consoles beat at least in some aspects here. namely the large capacity optical drive, but some minor differences too - integrated bluetooth, integrated wifi instead of separate adapter, 7 controllers instead of 4, 6 usb ports instead of 3, larger by default standard (and user-replaceable) 2.5" hdd instead of the one with customized connectors of xbox. these are all pretty insignificant by each other, but they add up.

i don't know if it has 2 hdmi outputs as it was hyped at first... if so, thats a great feature too, even if current games don't make good use of it.

oh, and you have the LIVE subscription vs sony's free service.

if you still "dont know why anyone would ever buy a PS3", you are beyond help....


RE: Don't see why
By ViperROhb34 on 3/20/2007 9:58:13 AM , Rating: 2
Theres nothin wrong with being anti- Sony, but if someone doesnt want BLuray and wont pay the extra money because they want games only that doesn't exactly mkae them Anti Sony.

Case and point.. I have many Sony products a camera.. DVD player..Tv.. and a PS2.. but I'm not a PS3 fan.. and I dont want one.


im just curious
By andrewrocks on 3/19/2007 4:00:05 AM , Rating: 1
how much does the 360 wireless adapter cost?

hddvd drive?

how much does a 60GB ps3 cost?




RE: im just curious
By jdmackes on 3/19/2007 7:35:22 AM , Rating: 4
Here's the real question:
How much does a 360 cost if you just want to play games?
How much does a ps3 cost if you just want to play games?
Many people, including me, do not care about bluray or hd-dvd, and I have a 1080p display. Yes, if you want bluray then the ps3 is a cheap bluray player, but a ton of people don't care about bluray. It makes me wonder why Jack trenton, when asked why they didn't include high def cables or an hdmi cable with the ps3 said sony didn't feel it was necessary to include cables that only about 20% of the consumers would use, yet they force bluray upon everyone? And the argument that it's necessary for games to be on bluray because of space restraints makes no sense, one of the most beloved games of all time, Final Fantasy VII, was on 3 discs and no 360 game has been on more then one disc. The reason I went with the 360 was the choices it gave me, more games, better price for what I wanted, and better online functionality. And for the people talking about the 20 gig ps3 not having enough hard drive space, you can put whatever hard drive you want to into a ps3 and format it to work with the system. I wish MS would come up with something like that.


RE: im just curious
By Goty on 3/19/2007 2:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
This is exactly the argument everyone needs to consider (at least the first part). If you want a console and nothing else, then the 360 is the machine for you. If you want a console that will fit into a home theater setup and actually function very well as both a console and a Blu-Ray player, then the PS3 is the better choice.


RE: im just curious
By Hawkido on 3/23/2007 6:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
Here's one more argument...

You want a game system to play Final Fantasy XIII.
Every game system that has a Final Fantasy (Pick-a-Number game, not the crappy off shoot games) was successful. Period, end of argument. If you like Sports and FPS only then the XBox 360 is a great machine, full of all the goodness you could want. FFXIII won't be released till 2008 i hear but I will wait, by then the console should be cheaper.

But of the Loads of people that you say don't care about HD right now, well they just sealed the deal on who wins the HD Video Format war. Blu-Ray will win.

Here's why, all in all the PS3 is cheaper/easier to be a HD Video player. The XBox requires an attachment (at what $300-$400). Game Consoles are notoriously unforgiving of add-on components. If you want to add components to your game system then a PC is what you want.

So when people do decide to care about HD Video the PS3 owners will already be set and may even have a title or two under their belt. The Xbox owners will still have to buy the Add-On or buy a seperate box. Remember, no one cared about DVD for years. But once they decided to care, Everyone was playing DVD's on their game platforms.
THE PS3 IS VERY LATE to the table. But as was stated, no one cares about the HD Video Format yet. So they did make it to the table in time. Plus they actually were first to the table as a Game system with HD Video, and it is integrated, so no need to buy an add-on (which almost no one ever will)
If you turn around and say "'Course they will!" then you are contradicting the statements that no one wants to play HD Movies on their game platforms. Sony is stupid for over reaching their goals, delaying launch, and over pricing their system. However as much as Blu-Ray is to blame for all of the above, it was the smartest thing they could have done. It is the one true redeming value to the game system.

As to Storage capacity not being fully used on the BRD. Find me a game developer who wants to go backwards in storage? Find me anyone who says "Oh, that's too much storage/RAM/Monitor size/Bandwidth!" There isn't anyone who will honestly say that. Unless they are blind to the future. Now, most of us may say the above followed immediatly by "for the insane money it will cost me!" But all of us will agree more is better, and we will dream about it even if we cannot afford it.


RE: im just curious
By somegeek on 3/19/2007 5:18:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
the argument that it's necessary for games to be on bluray because of space restraints makes no sense


You're wrong, Blu-ray is necessary for games.

DVDs are about 6 times the size of CDs.
Blu-ray discs are about 5 times the size of DVDs.

PS3 games use the increased space provided by Blu-ray discs just as PS2 games use the increased space provided by DVDs. Saying the PS3 should use DVDs is the same as saying the PS2 should have used CDs.

Xbox 360/Wii DVDs are last generation, SD technology. The PS3 is the only true HD game system.


RE: im just curious
By ViperROhb34 on 3/19/2007 7:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but if it came to me switching to another DVD ( takes a whole 5 seconds ) and it loading a game wayyyy faster then Bluray does its gaming - even while it caches some to the HD .. I'll stick with DVD. A relative has a PS3 AND Xbox 360.. one thing he says is the BLurays load times stink because of the "Size" of the disk and it having to read over it..

For the next few yrs the only games that would require more space are RPG's.. who cares.. I'll take more then one DVD !
Better then what Sony did with Resistance.. putting all Zones on one Disc.. and putting Filler ( Empty data ) on the inner part of the disc so the game could be on the outside of the disc and load faster ! That wasn't so bad.. it was the fact they played it off like resistance couldnt have fit on DVD. If they had shippied it with one Region it could've. Look at GEARS OF WAR ! It's graphics take up alot of space and the disc STILL HAS TWO to THREE Gigs free on the DVD !!!


RE: im just curious
By somegeek on 3/19/07, Rating: 0
RE: im just curious
By ViperROhb34 on 3/19/2007 10:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
I seriously doubt this !

Oblivion Elder Scrolls like 5Ggigs.. NO-WHERE near the entire 9.6 GB DVD on a 360..that game is huge.. As Said before Gears of War somewhere around 7Gigs.. the next version is said to take up more, but still one DVD...Gears use of space is obviously graphics. So this brings us to Game Content, which actually takes up alot less space. The update that adds another 75+ WHOPPING Hours of play to OBLIVION( that you download on Xbox Live ) uses the textures already on the DVD, but adds those 75+ hours in dugeons, towns and content like talking, quest.. and that download is only a FEW HUNDRED Megabytes... yes thats right.. a whopping 10-20 percent of One Gigabyte (1,020 MB=1Gig).

The resistance disc uses a 25 gig disc a I beleive..with all regions, and being nice and subtracting junk data.. it uses about 12-15gigs ( but this is all regions ).. meaning you have around 10 Gigs free on that one Bluray disc. Lets now take into consideration 50 gig and 75 gig BLuray disc.. So Why would you need multiple Bluray disc ? Graphically ( not processor-wise, but memory speed subsystem ) the PS3 could barely handle graphically textures much bigger then what they are using now on Xbox 360.. You'll find most games as being close and thats not just because programming PS3 is harder.

Now lets get to the last reason.. If PS3 continues to sell 3rd place as it has.. It'll be like Nintendo Last generation Game Cube was. Guess what ? No developers are going to spend that much money making a game that has so much content it'll use that much space because it could only be an PS3 Exclusive and a company wont take that risk on a 3rd place console. Game development hasnt been slow because PS3 was out a year later. People seem to have forgotten developers had their PS3 kits more then a year before release just like 360..


RE: im just curious
By ViperROhb34 on 3/19/2007 10:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
One more thing.. by the time MS AND Nintendo come out with their NEXT Gen consoles in just 5yrs.. Sony will be whistling an entirely different tune ! They market it as something to last 10yrs only so they can hook some people in and not blow all investors away now !

Trus tme in 5yrs Sony will be forced to say they have a PS3 replacement. It'll probably never be 1st place like PS2.. and it'll never stand another 5yrs against MS and Nintendo's Next gen consoles. If Bluray survives you could see that format on other competing consoles as Sony doesnt solely own it.. and anyone who pays a Lisc fee can make/use a Bluray player.. but thats also a long shot..

I think its more likely someone will have a better, cheaper format to replace BLuray,HD-DVD in 5-7 yrs.. when people are really itching for storage.. right now not enough people are ready for that.


RE: im just curious
By Goty on 3/19/2007 2:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
Using prices from EB:

Pro/Premium XBOX 360 (console only): $399.99
XBOX 360 HD-DVD Drive: $199.99
XBOX 360 Media Remote (maybe required): $19.99
Xbox 360 Wireless Network Adapter: $99.99
Total Price: $719.96

60GB PS3: $599.99

So, there's a $100 price differential there in favor of the PS3. If you decide to drop the wireless altogether (if you don't want/need it), the price difference remains the same.

Basically, the whole price argument never really existed at all.

*prepares to get flamed*


RE: im just curious
By Goty on 3/19/2007 2:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
Just noticed a mistake, when I say the price difference remains the same when dropping the wireless, I'm assuming you drop to the 20GB PS3, too, which brings the HDD capacity down to the same level as the 360, but the price difference is still $100.


Seriously.
By RMSistight on 3/18/2007 5:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
Simply put: Go big or go home.




RE: Seriously.
By outsider on 3/18/2007 5:53:38 PM , Rating: 2
Thats a little too simple for my tastes.


RE: Seriously.
By BladeVenom on 3/18/2007 6:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
Put more simply, "Go Wii."


RE: Seriously.
By AlexWade on 3/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Seriously.
By Chaser on 3/18/2007 9:14:21 PM , Rating: 3
Once again we have yet another global marketing genius reading the Eulogy on the PS3. Why? because surely if he can't afford one then everyone else can't so its bound to fail?

"Best Buy is now just resorting to stocking the machine just because they have to?"

I didn't know Sony had control over Best Buy's floor space.

By the way. Get a clue.


RE: Seriously.
By themadmilkman on 3/18/2007 10:24:59 PM , Rating: 3
Sony CAN have complete control over Best Buy's floor space, if they choose to pay for it.


RE: Seriously.
By Chaser on 3/19/2007 8:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
If this article has any truth to it then its pretty obvious they aren't genius.


RE: Seriously.
By someguy123 on 3/18/2007 9:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
i think sony went TOO "long term" with the ps3. they tried to create a system that would last as long as the ps2 but it just isn't possible with microsoft and nintendo's current competition. the only reason the ps2 lasted so long was because better (technology wise) systems like the gcube and xbox lacked in software and had nothing like they have now. now sony has to compete with microsoft's amazing online setup and nintendo's free roaming (and cheap) controller system.

there is no way microsoft and nintendo will allow sony to ease into finally being able to make a profit off their system AND stay in with large market share.


RE: Seriously.
By ViperROhb34 on 3/19/2007 10:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
You're one of the few thinking here.

You're right. When MS AND Nintendo release new Next Gen consoles in 5yrs.. I wonder how many deep thinking people who understand what processors will exist in just 3-4yrs ( could be even tmr - but Im also talking at a much lower price point for wide spread console use ) will be around to kick so much ass.. there is no way Sony could afford to try and make PS3 last 10yrs.. lol..


Makes you wonder.
By Harkonnen on 3/18/2007 5:56:49 PM , Rating: 1
Makes you wonder why they even put the castrated 20GB version out on the market in the first place.




RE: Makes you wonder.
By BladeVenom on 3/18/2007 6:04:00 PM , Rating: 5
To advertise the lower priced one, and then sell the higher priced model.


RE: Makes you wonder.
By Sureshot324 on 3/18/2007 8:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the only reason they even released to 20gb version is to break the psychological barrier that the ps3 is $200 more expensive than the xbox 360. They didn't want anyone to actually buy the 20gb version, and I suspect the actually percentage of 20gb ps3s is even lower than the claimed 20%.


RE: Makes you wonder.
By Goty on 3/19/2007 2:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
The same thing goes for the "core" 360. The whole idea of releasing two versions of the same system is pretty much stupid. The core 360 is crippled to dramatically in the eyes of MS's own market strategy (that being using Live as a big part of the experience) that it should never have been a consideration.


RE: Makes you wonder.
By darkpaw on 3/20/2007 5:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
The core 360 was a completely gimped joke, the 20gb PS3 is actually the better value for most people.

A lot of people don't need the extras that come with the 60gb PS3, the core 360 was actually missing critical components *ie HDD*.


By whippersnappper on 3/18/2007 5:16:39 PM , Rating: 4
As of 6:00PM March 18th. Don't know how long it will be up.

Here's a link.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8008...




By MonkeyPaw on 3/18/2007 6:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well, they still have to sell their remaining inventory.


By clockhar on 3/18/2007 7:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
As of 8 PM March 18, site says: Store Pickup: Not Available


Can't find 20GB anywhere.
By Wolfpup on 3/19/2007 8:51:54 AM , Rating: 2
I've only ever seen 1 20GB PS3 in the entire time I've been looking for one. (And it got bought before I got to it.)

I've been able to buy a 60GB unit for months, but I'm not throwing $100 down the drain.

I've been wondering for a long time whether it's selling much better, or if it's just not as readily available-maybe a mix of both.

I would have bought one months ago if I could actually get my hands on one though.




RE: Can't find 20GB anywhere.
By OxBow on 3/19/2007 10:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. Although I have a 60 gig PS3, I think I'd prefer the 20gig model. Everything about my PS3 has worked well, and I even tried the memory card slot. However, I already have a Cat5e cable run to my entertainment center, so the wifi, although it works seamlessly, is pretty useless for me.

Whether or not sales are supporting this, I'm sure that Sony is correct in that RETAILERS are ordering an 80/20 mix. The better value in my mind is the 20 gig model.

As for so many people who say they don't care about blue ray, I do. I've really enjoyed the blue ray movies I've ordered from Netflix and find it a great value.

As for annectdotal reports, when I was in Gamestop Saturday evening there were three stacks of consoles by the door. A large stack of Wii's, a large stack of 20gig 360s, and a large stack of 60gig PS3's. The store was crowded, and the 360 & Wii displays were ignored as 5-6 people were vying to try out Motorstorm on the PS3 kiosk.


RE: Can't find 20GB anywhere.
By darkpaw on 3/19/2007 4:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
Where is this cause my wife tried to find me a retail Wii for a month for my birthday. My birthday was yesterday, but still no Wii cause no place in Northern VA that my wife has tried ever has them in stock.

Were they actual Wiis or just the crappy empty boxes gamestops always leave piled around?

I could get a PS3, but right now the game selection for it sucks and I personally don't feel like spending $600 for a glorified dvd player.


How Much does BB make on each unit?
By DFranch on 3/18/2007 9:55:39 PM , Rating: 3
My guess is that Best Buy makes a larger profit on each 60gb unit than each 20gb unit. That is why they are ordering more. Sony is losing much more per unit on the 20gb model, So I'm guessing they charge Best Buy more making their profit lower. For instance if Best buy makes $30 for each 60gb model and $15 for the 20gb model, they will order more of the 60gb model.




By Aikouka on 3/19/2007 12:43:36 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I was thinking, Franch, the profit margin must be lower enough to warrant Best Buy to force any PS3-purchasing consumer to buy the 60GB model instead. You could also go on conspiracy theories and say that Sony's trying to do it... but I think I'd put my money on the profit margins =P.


It's just low demand
By encryptkeeper on 3/19/2007 10:44:37 AM , Rating: 3
This really isn't a big deal. There's been plenty of other negative news about Sony in the last few months. A rep from Best Buy and a rep from Sony probably just got together and agreed that the 60gb is selling better, which is an advantage for Best Buy, and the 60gb is at a lower loss, which is an advantage for Sony. So they just agreed it'd be in both of their interests for BB to stop carrying the 20. Now, if they stopped carrying it altogether, then THAT would be news. All of you Sony fans out there better hope Sony can at least start making money off the console, or SERIOUS money off software (which probably won't happen either) if you don't want to see your precious PS3 go the way of the Dreamcast.




USE PS3 FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN GAMING
By crystal clear on 3/19/07, Rating: 0
By crystal clear on 3/19/2007 4:38:51 AM , Rating: 2
Ultimately the success or failure of PS3 is decided NOT by guys sitting in IT depts surrounded my servers/computers etc BUT
the PEOPLE AT LARGE (BUYERS)-WHO BY THE WAY ARE NOT STUPID/FOOLS.

THEY ARE DECIDE THE FUTURE.


More lies...
By bozilla on 3/23/2007 8:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
SCEA communications director Dave Karraker also told Joystiq last week that retailers have been overwhelming placing orders for the more expensive 60GB PS3. "Retailers have been requesting the 60GB model, the mix has been about 80 percent 60GB, 20 percent 20GB retailer orders. So, the reason you might not be seeing the 20 GB is simply that retailers have been ordering more of the 60 GB unit," said Karraker.


What a blantant lie. It's not that everyone is ordering more expensive units, it's exactly because they are losing $307 per unit it doesn't make sense for them to ship it out as they are buying themselves.

That's exactly what I'm talking about every time. These guys just can't be straightforward and do anything to give the consumer what they want. How exactly is not cheaper version selling good? Out of every single person I know who bought or wanted to buy a pS3 wanted to get a cheaper version as they wanted a gaming machine and BD player for the cheapest possible price.

Wow, I just can't stop hatin' this company I really can't. They need to fire every single management and PR person and start fresh. What a hell happened to Sony. It was a solid and not so bad company 10-15 years ago.




This is NO NEWS ! ! ! !
By crystal clear on 3/19/2007 1:58:58 AM , Rating: 1
Quote-
"According to internal Best Buy documents obtained by Joystiq, it looks as though the retailer is no longer going to stock Sony's 20GB PlayStation 3 console. The document lists the 20GB PS3's status as "discontinued."

Unquote-

Those guys at Joystiq dont read D.T.-so for them its BIG NEWS.
Brandon Hill in one of his previous articles wrote this-

"With Sony taking a smaller loss on the higher-end model, it's not a surprise the company is steering customers to the 60Gbyte version," said iSuppli. For the United States, 20GB PS3s will account for 20% of the sales mix while the 60GB versions will take the remaining 80%.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4981

"what we already knew about-others are JUST getting the wind of it now"




"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki