Slashdot Mirror
$600 PS3 Ships Without HDMI Cable
Eurogamer reports that the $600 PS3, which comes available with an HDMI port, will not ship with the necessary cable to actually hook the machine up. From the article: "According to the specs page on the official US PS3 website, which notes: 'HDMI cable not included. Additional equipment may be required to use the HDMI connector.' Sony has long promoted the 60GB PS3's HDMI output as a key feature of the machine. The 20GB model, however, doesn't feature HDMI - and nor does the Xbox 360, as it goes, despite occasional rumours of a hardware revision in the offing." The machine will, of course, come with a composite cable.
It seems a cheap trick, but I understand why they'd choose not to ship with cable. Depending on whose numbers you believe, the sale of peripherals like this may significantly cut the money lost selling the console itself. I'm assuming that the peripherals are not sold at a loss.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
If you have $600 to drop on a PS3, you have another $20 for cables, true. But if they're advertising this as some sort of luxury sports car of the gaming world, and charging a huge amount for HD and Blu-ray, why assume by default that people won't be able to use them? If you're correct that such a "tiny percentage of homes have HDMI-ready TVs" that it is a negligible issue for prospective PS3 owners, then where's the damn $300 version of the console that doesn't include HDMI/Blu-ray support?
I am the man with no sig!
But if so few people have HDMI capable TV's ... er, why support it in the first place?
For the same reason the PS1 and PS2 supported s-video.
And btw, the PS1, PS2 and Xbox didn't come with s-video cables either, even though they supported it. The point is you put the cable in the box that's basically the lowest common denominator supported by all TV's, and then if someone wants to upgrade it, they can.
There's also the obvious question of if you're going to pay $600 for a console, would you rather Sony put $600 worth of actual machine into the box, or $600 worth of add-on junk that a lot of people aren't even going to be able to use?
But this is really nothing new, and I have no idea why it's become such a story the past couple days (it was on Joystiq too, and probably other sites) other than the fact that it's become de rigeur to bash the PS3 lately. Consoles never come with the best cable; they come with the cable supported by the most TV's.
The bigger, more important thing to note is that the PS3 has a standard HDMI port, meaning you can buy any HDMI cable for it. Why no bashing of the Xbox 360 for requiring a proprietary, MS-licensed cable at an inflated price?
btw, the PS3 will come with component cables, not just composite. Another sign of bias on the part of the submitter here...
Tell me again why people are getting bent out of shape here - it's a cheap $20 cable that 5% of PS3 owners are going to want/need
But that's my entire point -- Sony's fundamental premise for this entire console is that most serious gamers will want/need HDMI and blu-ray support. If this is not true, and the percentage is closer to the 5% that you claim, then Sony's entire strategy for this generation is invalidated, and they should have made a $300-400 console instead. If you're already assuming that the vast majority even of the self-selected population that is actually willing to spend $600 on a PS3 is still not going to be able to use the most expensive part of the system, then what is that most expensive part for?
I am the man with no sig!