Slashdot Mirror
EU Release of Price Cut 40 GB PS3 Confirmed
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.'"
Since all the backwards compatibility stuff was done in software anyway, why remove it?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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?
-- I really need to bleed off some of this
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.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
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.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
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.
Of course, dropping the software-based PS2 emulation further shows how clueless they can still be.
The Raven
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.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
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?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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"...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
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).
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
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.
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)
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.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
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.
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).
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
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!
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...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
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.
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? :-)
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.
What the
I knew that Sony had screwed up a lot with the PS3, but now they have just jumped the shark...
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
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.
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...
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.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
I still think the PS3 is doomed, but ditching the extraneous backwards-compatibility stuff to cut costs was a smart move.
/cue the "But I just played FFVII on my PS3 the other day!" comments
They need to get the price down however they can, and NO ONE CARES about backwards-compatibility. It's something that people whine about a lot on the Internet, but the unwashed masses really don't give a shit. They aren't going to be buying a new console to play old games. I'm not saying BC is *bad*, just that it's not as important as keeping to cost of the console down (or, conversely, using the money saved by ditching BC to make the console more powerful by using a faster CPU, more RAM/bigger HD). Nintendo gets a pass with the Wii, since it's essentially a faster Gamecube. They got BC for "free". Both Sony and MS didn't get it for free. Sony especially has to jump through some serious hoops to make the PS3 run PS2 and PS1 games.
VAT: 17.5%
Import tax: 10% (right?) since the PS3 comes from outside the EU
Retailer margins higher than in USA
EU recycling fees.
Add the above together and you'll probably see that Sony is getting about the same money they get in any other territory... Maybe a bit more, but not nearly as much as just doing a currency conversion makes it seem like.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but what the heck...
A 40 GB platter probably costs significantly less the newer 60GB platters. Not only that, but HD size isn't that important on a PS3 as you can buy any 2.5" HD and put it in the PS3.
Also, just because a product is old doesn't mean it gets cheaper. Electronics starts off expensive then gets cheaper and then get more expensive. The "7-year-old" graphics chip is probably getting more expensive now that fewer and fewer PS2s are being sold.
Sony probably decided the features that were the most important to customers and kept them, while discarding everything else. People need WiFi if they want a home theater setup without a cable running to their router in another room. People need USB for the controllers. Blu-ray is necessary for compatibility - everything else was discarded.
And BC is still there - you just have to buy the premium version to get that. Doesn't seem like a bad compromise to me.
Your use of "crippled" suggests an extreme bias against the PS3, and is often heard within Microsoft fanboy circles... I've rarely heard "crippled" used against the Xbox 360 Core, even though the term suits it more.
I have heard the core referred to as the "gimped 360", and maybe that's what really should be said of the 40 gig PS3. Perhaps "Crippled" IS too harsh a term, and "gimped" would be more appropriate. How would a HDD-less 360 be crippled? When referring to the 360 Core you can always buy a HDD and get the Backwords compatibility for original X-box titles. What do you buy for BC on the 40 gig PS3? You buy a PS2! (Ironically for about the same price).
For now though ignore the X-box, let's just compare all 4 versions of the PS3. the 20 gig, the 40, the 60, and the 80... Which is the best? The discontinued 60 gig. It has the most features of any other offering available, and you can always upgrade your HDD to make it a 320 gig PS3 if you like.
Seriously, Don't buy the "Gimpy" unless you have to. The 60 gig is the way to go while they last.
Sony cut backwards compat. not because it really saved them any money, it's to add value to the higher sku.
Netcraft confirms it... the PS3 is dying.
Well, they're ahead of the curve since they are mixing in a zero BC unit now. Unless of course you refer to "down the line when PS2 becomes completely obsolete" as in "Years after technically superior Hardware is made readily available on the market"... Then that counter would have started the day the Gamecube or X-box (honestly forget which launched first that week) came to market, and they would be right on time.
Actually it doesn't cost them money since the emulation is done in software. The execs at Sony are just being assholes.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Whoa, first time I've been called a Troll.
I knew I shouldn't get into fanboy territory, I guess my post is kind of a flamebait if biased people read it, even though it was accurate.
No, I am not an MS fanboy, or Nintendo fanboy etc. As I said I don't even play games anymore.
Anyway let's see. One year ago, according to isuppli, the 60GB disk cost $54 while the 40GB cost $43. Now, a year later the 60GB costs significantly less (for $54 you can actually buy 80GB RETAIL now), yet you are claiming that a 40GB will be "significantly less" armed with just biased speculation. Oh, and where did you get that the 60GB has one platter? I would assume it is a 2x30GB platter disk (won't vouch for that though, just a hunch).
isupli then give us the price of the Emotion Engine and Graphics Synthesizer together at $27 (again November 2007 quote). No, it doesn't get more expensive as time passes, unless there is very little production. The PS3 production run is not what Sony expected, but it is certainly not small enough to increase the price of trivial components.
You just answered because I called a console "crippled". Was that too harsh for your favorite console? Sorry, but it is an perfectly fine expression, used often and nobody should get emotional over it. Yes, if that makes you happy we can say the Xbox core is crippled compared to the other Xboxes too (if I remember correctly that one is lacking the HD altogether), but why do you want to use the expression for one side only?
Who is the fanboy here?
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
By the time the hardware is cheap and profitable to produce, I expect the PS3 to be dead to the market.
You can see more here http://www.newoxxo.com/html/games/games_01.html/
All Sony has to do is remake FF7 with graphics comparable to Advent Children, like their tech demo was, and that will drive people in. People don't remember, but it was FF7 that saved the PS1's butt. No, it wasn't Tomb Raider. FF7 was actually a new dimension in RPGs in a LOT of ways. People wanted to experience it. THAT is what is needed. RPGs are perfect for selling consoles because they bring an experience, world, graphics, music, etc. Even if people barely play the first 20 minutes, as I KNOW a majority of gamers do for most of their games, that 20 minutes can make a person fall in love with a system. I hated the PS1. Then I played the FF7 demo...then I had to buy it. I think MS was hoping this with BlueDragon. I played the demo, and have interest in it, but I didn't rush out to buy it. Demo makers make a big mistake by just showing a little bit of game play. You have to have a James Bond intro, small thing turns big..fast. Leaving you wanting more..in just 10 minutes. In a demo, I don't want to just test out a little dabble of this and that. What was I saying again?
When a system is being released there's not much to think about other than the hardware. However, the PS3 has been out for a while and the issue isn't the SKUs it is the lack of games compared to the compition. They can fiddle around with SKUs all they want but they only have a handful of big exclusives, many aren't going to be out for a long time. Sony needs games ASAP, not changes to their system.
The new model doesn't even have ethernet support according to the blurb on some major UK retailers sites.
I was tempted by it and about to get one as it's on sale at some places for £279.99 (however the 360 PREMIUM (not core) is £194.99 in comparison at those places) however when I found the details of what is missing:
Backwards Compatibility with PS2 Games
Memory Stick Card Readers
SACD Playback
Ethernet
2 USB Ports instead of 4
If it was just the hard drive I could care less as I'd just fit my own for little more cost, however backwards compatibility and lack of ethernet are the biggest killers for me. Even the USB ports could be an issue potentially and none of these are issues that I can fix myself without buying the more expensive version of the console.
With them contantly changing their mind, releasing slightly modified versions for limited markets, with or without backwards compatibility, with or without rumble, new sizes for harddisks, etc, I'm definitely getting the impression of a general panic. And probably with reason.
I think they keep looking for something that works, something that makes them seem more attractive than the opposition without losing them too much money, and it's just not working.
Perhaps they should have put a bit more thought into their market strategy before release. Or maybe they should work harder to show off the few real advantages that the PS3 has: raw power and the blu-ray. So make games that really make use of that power, do more with the blu-ray than just play movies, etc.