New PS3 SKU practically confirmed by GameStop

According to a report, the next iteration of PS3 packages has been all but confirmed during a GameStop conference call recently. Apparently, the 80GB version of the console is dead, and is due to be replaced by a 120GB model bundled with the Dual Shock 3 controller -- just like we mentioned a few days go. There's no set price or release date, though speculation is that it will turn up by GDC. Instead of a denial, Sony has gone for a "no comment" in regards to this news, though it certainly looks like this is the direction they're heading in, regardless of what they say.

[Thanks, Khattab]

[Zak @ Feb 1st 2008 11:42AM]

I'd still like PS2 backwards compatibility, even though Sony seems to think nobody wants it. The fact is, the PS3 game library is just not that good, and there are so damn many excellent games on the PS2 that it would make a lot of sense to support them all like the original 60 GB PS3 that you can't buy any more.

[Lou Gambino @ May 17th 2008 6:07AM]

Hey bro...I totally agree...This way Sony forces you to buy both PS2 and PS3 systems...Maybe they'll set it up so we can download older games like the Nintendo WII, but that would'nt be right paying for a game again that I already have...Backwards compatibility is where the value's at for the consumer...It looks like Sony just doesn't care anymore...I've been a long time Sony fan (my PS1 and PS2 game library is currently at 783) but not anymore...
And the Xbox doesn't have great quality either...
So maybe we should save up some money while we wait a few more years to see what happens next...Ciao dude

[steve @ Feb 1st 2008 11:48AM]

Someone at sony really needs a good slap in the face.

Situation:
we can now produce the ps3 for less money

Action:
Instead of dropping the price, lets throw more crap in the box to keep the price sky high, while still removing useful features like backwards compatibility. Genius!

You know, the whole overpriced console thing is really working for them and all. Oh, and I really doubt there to be any price drop.

[fortunado @ Feb 1st 2008 11:50AM]

When I buy my trippppple I'm going straight to ebay to grab a 60gb model so I can catch up on all the ps2 games I missed the past 7 years.

[Flashpoint @ Feb 1st 2008 11:53AM]

As far as Hardware is concerned, the PS3 offered way more bang for the buck at its launch than XBOX 360 ever did (and apparently, ever will). The Blu Ray drive ensured Blu Ray would win the format war in much the same way the PS2's DVD player allowed it to sell well in stores that never traditionaly carried gaming systems.

PS3 came with WiFi, Xbox 360's adapter STILL costs $100
PS3 came with memory slots to read media cards... it was to me, an unnescessary feature, but nice anyway.
PS3 also had the HDMI port out the box...a great machine for Audio/Video enthusiasts.

The only problem with it until recently has been games selection but currently CoD4 is the #1 online game and PS3 offers it. Assassin's Creed, Warhawk, and a bucnh of other RPG's can be had too so I'm not dissapointed with the game selection as I was when I bought the system.

I'm waiting for the Dual Shock 3.

[Robert Aitchison @ Feb 1st 2008 12:55PM]

At launch the PS3 cost $500 and $600, that's so far from the definition of "value" it's not even funny. Today the $400 40Gb model is arguably a good value but only if you don't have a large investment in PS2 games (as I do) or have plenty of available inputs on your TV and plenty of available space in your entertainment center (I have neither).

Blu-Ray & included WiFi are features that the majority of consumers don't need and certianly don't want to pay extra for. For those people who need to use WiFi this can be solved with a $40 router configured in bridged mode, for those who want to watch "HD" movies they can buy an HD-DVD drive today and will undoubtedly be able to buy a Blu-Ray drive sometime in 2009 if not sooner.

Also, having Blu-Ray in the PS3 probably had a minor impact on the success of Blu-Ray compared to the exclusivity deals that Sony made with film studios.

[John @ Feb 1st 2008 11:53AM]

What's the point of introducing new models with more harddrive space? It's USER REPLACEABLE.

[Ves @ Feb 1st 2008 11:56AM]

So there using the 40 GB specs but fitting it with a 120/160 GB harddrive?

[Jeff @ Feb 1st 2008 12:00PM]

This is getting really old. I honestly get the feeling that Sony somehow forgot everything that it learned about the console industry with the PSX and PS2 and is now just scrambling for some sort of quick fix (though that's impossible, because they refuse to bring back backwards compatibility).

Or, Sony really hates early adopters.

[Brennan @ Feb 1st 2008 12:00PM]

agree, the 60GB version was the best one n u didnt even have to switch systems to play PS2 games. Plus, with the upscaling/upconverting PS1/PS2 games, my bros PS2 games actually look a little better then native 480p. Idk if the 80GB PS3 did this or not, havent seen it in action yet.

my family's 60GB PS3 broke, so we sent it n got it exchanged with another 60GB PS3. We were lucky because i lost faith that we wouldnt get another 60GB PS3 again lol. Plus, with the removable HDD, u can just upgrade to a 120GB SATA 7200 rpm just like that no problem. Of course, u need to backup ur stuff first before u do that but u know what i mean.

all n all, the 60GB was the best version n if u find one, buy it, dont ignore it buy it, then sell it on ebay for big bucks.

[Pete @ Feb 1st 2008 12:05PM]

DS and a bigger HD aren't what's keeping me back from getting a PS3. It's the lack of games and price. Lower the price of the 'basic' model or start pumping out a deeper catalog of games if you want my $$.

[Ignatius @ Feb 1st 2008 12:08PM]

Yay, more SKUs. Way to confuse the consumer, Sony! ;D

[mylo @ Feb 1st 2008 12:15PM]

That's like the 526th version.

[KC @ Feb 1st 2008 12:26PM]

DS3 is a definite plus, I got one a few months back and it is a must have for any PS3 owner. Glad Sony is finally releasing it officially in North America and putting it in the box (better also be available separately to as I need a couple more and I don't want to pay customs fees).

As far as 120GB is concerned, who cares. I can upgrade my hard drive anyway.

If they brought back the Emotion Engine chip that would be better.

Make the new one feature exactly the same specs as the single greatest PS3 SKU ever (the 60GB) but replace a couple parts. Put in the new cheaper blue laser diode and the new cheaper 45nm Cell chip to cut production costs. Release it at $349

Also, release a new 40GB model with the aforementioned cheaper parts and at the absolute very least some software backwards compatibility. lower it's price down to $249.

Next step, release more good games.

Next step, phase out PS2 support. I mean really, there's as many games coming out for PS2 these days as there is for PS3 and the PS2 is still outselling the PS3. Give those people a reason to upgrade.

I don't see any new X-BOX or Game Gube Games being released or for that matter new systems on store shelves.

The PS3 can't be the next PS2 until the PS2 stops competing with it.

[nick @ Feb 28th 2008 6:21AM]

That is just stupid the main thing that makes me love sony even during rough times is there staying power and 10 year system cycles with microsoft or nintendo the older systems are worthless once the next genaration comes out and don't say i'm just complaining beacuse i only have a ps2. i have a ps3
but i was a late adopter i only got it at christmas this year same way i got a ps2 really late cause i was able to survive on my ps1.Right now a xbox is worthless cause of no new games but people will still pay good money for a ps2

[Doug @ Feb 1st 2008 12:26PM]

This would be the what... 5th model since its release? In just over a year? That seems like a little much. Kind of gives the feeling that they're not really sure what they're doing.

[Student Driver @ Feb 1st 2008 12:36PM]

I'm lost on the claims of no backward compatibility; it's in software mode. If one is lamenting the lost of an entire PS2 in the PS3, that's fine. But, the Xbox 360 does have software BC and it works OK for the most part.

The problem that I have is not only the loss of a large library with the PS2, but that new games are being launched for the old platform. This is a bit annoying, as it seems to show a lack of faith in (or knowledge of) the new platform. Still, I am considering the PS3 as a Blu-Ray and media player, but I really, really want the backward compatibility for kid's games that were on the PS2. According to the compatibility app on the Sony website, every game I looked at had issues resolved by 2.10, if not earlier. Since that work has been done, it would seem a bit stupid to not include this behavior, along with support for future PS2 games, on at least one version of the PS3.

[nathan.wong @ Feb 1st 2008 12:40PM]

Last time I looked Sony was a business and not a charity. Of course a new model is going to come out to keep consumer interest and demand. Leaving the PS2 compatibility hurts the development of newer PS3 games as resources are being taken on PS2 development that could have gone towards the PS3. It's a catch 22 with you folks. First in one breath you say leave the compatibility in and then in the other breath you say that there aren't any games. Well, Sony's focus is on the future and the PS3 and not the PS2. The PS2 compatibility originally was so that people would have games to play while PS3 games were being developed. Now that PS3 games have finally trickled in backward compatibility is no longer needed.

Personally, and I'm sure I'll get flak for this, I think Sony should have gone the Microsoft way and left out backward compatibility altogether when the PS3 was introduced. I remember people crying rivers with Microsoft when the 360 was released but do you hear them crying now? Heck no. All the resources for game development switched to the 360. Sony keeping the PS2 alive, be it with BC or with their $125 game console, is just funneling money away from the PS3 development which, again, is causing people to complain there aren't any games for the unit. Can't have your cake and eat it too. It's already the most capable multimedia machine in the living room.

[Student Driver @ Feb 1st 2008 12:45PM]

Oh, and the comments about "why add a new, bigger drive when it's user upgradeable," well there's a good reason: cost. Think about it; how many sources will there be for 80GB drives? And, do you think those sources are going to charge a much lower amount for the 80GB vs. a 120GB that would actually be noticeable (much less passed along) to the consumer? Differences like this would probably be like $10 or $20 at most in retail, and probably a fair amount smaller at the volumes they are working. At that point, you might as well keep a drive of similar cost in the console and let it keep getting upgraded over time.

The 40GB drive size might be different, as it's possible there's so much volume for that spec across different markets that it's worth producing. I bet 120GB is more common than 80GB, and might be cheaper over time than the 80GB if other devices are using it.

[shiryu @ Feb 1st 2008 12:49PM]

Darn it... i just bought the 80G 3 days ago

[blade417 @ Feb 6th 2008 8:23AM]

hit it with a hammer, return it to the store and say it was destroyed when you took it out of the box.... and tell them to ignore the 38 hours you have logged onto cod4 online....

[Flashpoint @ Feb 2nd 2008 10:12AM]

PS3 = $500 / $600 at launch.

360 = $399 + $100 for wifi + $200 for HDDVD drive + $30 for multi-card reader.

The PS3 cost more because it INCLUDED MORE. This is obvious.

[farfisa @ Feb 1st 2008 12:56PM]

Maybe stop calling them the "40 GB" and "80 GB" models, Sony--just have a "base" and a "premium" model and you can change the HD size all you want without having to wake the guys up at BestBuy every time.

I have the 60 GB model and I use pretty much every feature it has--PS2 compatibility, WiFi, card slots, Blu-Ray, remote play, bluetooth, media server connectivity etc. I'm sure there's room for a model that doesn't strip away those features, whatever the HD size.

[Justin @ Feb 1st 2008 1:06PM]

@ John since my 'reply' features is broken...

Users upgrading the HDD themselves isn't going to be done by regular joe.

I replaced mine to a 160GB no problem, but I also LOVE technology, and STAY on the internet...reading gaming news. I have a friend however, who bought a 60GB PS3, and wouldn't know how NOR dare to change his HDD by himself.

I'm pretty sure he's not the only one...Mom and Dad probably won't research what kind of drive it uses and go out and buy one, then go through the steps of upgrading it for their children.

I think Sony made an excellent choice to have the HDD's replaceable but for the technophobic, they have to keep doing like they're doing...and put a big HDD number on the box.

[Robert Aitchison @ Feb 1st 2008 2:31PM]

The reply function is broken?

[diamond @ Feb 1st 2008 1:09PM]

shiryu,


return that sh!!t. unless you got it from gamestop who wont take anything back without making you sell it back for %75 off the original price. best buy or any other big electronic store like that will take it back no problem. wait a month or so and get the new one!

[CosterMonger @ Feb 1st 2008 1:11PM]

3.5" HDD?

[John @ Feb 1st 2008 1:24PM]

@Justin, since the reply function is broken

It's 5 screws, and piece of plastic (that pops off, and is meant to) to replace the harddrive. Considering the high price tag of the machine in the first place, I doubt anyone too young to understand what and how to do that would be buying it, and given it being a game console, no one too old either.

[Boudu @ Feb 1st 2008 1:26PM]

>>Darn it... i just bought the 80G 3 days ago

If they don't have PS2 backwards-compatibility in the new 120GB, consider your 80GB superior. The 60GB PS3 in many ways is still the best version out there (but each have their unique strengths; the 40GB is quieter for instance). HDD size is a non-issue on the PS3 being that you can upgrade with off the shelf hardrives. You can get a 250GB 2.5" SATA HDD that fits in a PS3 for around a $100 now, and a 120GB for around $60; you can upgrade at your leisure.

[Corey @ Feb 1st 2008 1:28PM]

@ Nathan
How does the hardware BC available in the 60gb model hurt development of PS3 games? They put the chip in the unit and never have to do anything with it again.
I don't want BC for the PS2 games Sony may release tomorrow, I want it for the games I've already got.

Look at the posts here, the majority of which are urging/demanding BC. Sony could score big by going back to their original product. I didn't buy a 60gb at launch, because there weren't any must-have PS3 games available, and I wanted the price to drop. Had I known that they were going to change the product and remove hardware BC, I would've purchased it then.
So now it'll come down to one of two scenarios:
1. Sony puts hardware BC back into production, and I buy a new unit, increasing Sony's console sales.
2. Sony continues without hardware BC, and I buy a unit on eBay.

People complaining about others wanting BC seems a bit ridiculous to me, especially when they claim it's an issue of cost. If it was all about PS3 games, and only about PS3 games, they could remove Blu-ray, DS controllers, and could put it all in a cheap plastic case and charge $200 for it. And people would probably buy it. Doesn't mean it'd be what people want.

I realize I'll probably have to buy one on eBay to get the features I want, and I'm ok with that. I'd just be a whole lot happier if they'd make the perfect version - which would look a whole lot like the 60gb model.

[Steve Noh @ Feb 1st 2008 1:38PM]

The PS3 didn't have an impact on the format war? Whoever posted that, what in God's name are you thinking? The PS3 singlehandedly drove Blu-ray sales of HD content over HD DVD. There was no other "player" that penetrated the market. HD DVD won in the way of stand-alone players, but because of the PS3, more content was sold in Blu-ray.

Secondly, The $400 PS3 is by far, the better value right now (except for those with PS2 game libraries). As someone mentioned, the WiFi (which I require since I don't use my router anywhere near my TV or PS3) and built-in Blu-ray player are very useful.

[Robert Aitchison @ Feb 1st 2008 2:24PM]

The PS3 including Blu-Ray definitely ad an impact, just not as big of an impact as the studio exclusivity deals that Sony (as well as Toshiba) made.

They had a study last year where almost half of PS3 owners polled weren't even aware that the PS3 included Blu-Ray, and that was before the price break so those people were paying $500 or $600, obviously Blu-Ray didn't matter one iota to them when they were buying their console. (http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2007/08/09/60-of-playstation-3-owners-are-oblivious-of-blu-ray/)

[kyoko @ Feb 1st 2008 1:48PM]

i think this is what is happening.

For those who want the backward capability, get the 80 gig because they're the gamers.
--------
For the gamers who wanted just to play the PS3, and to promote the PS3 itself, get the 40 gig. Save money. - If you have PS2, keep it.
--------

Bottom line, sony and all the game makers need to make profit somehow, so choices were made in the very beginning.

Realizing that many people still have (not just the US, but the whole world) the PS2, the backward compatibility is not as necessary.


When the time comes, the chip goes cheaper, the blu-ray production can be reduced, sony will continue upgrading their hardware as well as softwares. It does take time, but this is how they can survive.

To take losses all the time is just plain bad business. Sony got to think how to make profit somehow and they're planning this very carefully. We all want the best thing for cheap (including sony) but, as for now, they're going against 360 and also wii. They need to make it competitive somehow.

If the price is too low, sony will just keep losing profit, sony's stock goes down, ultimately, closing the "playstation" brand. -- I really hate to see that.

I think, they've find a happy medium where it is somewhat competitive and yet making profit here and there.

while trying to keep everything (wifi, bluray, backward compatibility, etc..) they had to keep the pricing somewhat competitive and profitable.

as far as bluray goes, without PS3 users, I don't see how "bluray" can live on like today. This is a great strategy from sony, but not just that, they're aiming for the future media, bigger content, better delivery.

as far as "backward compatibility" goes, I can see in the future, emulations can also be a solution. They may say it is not backward compatible. But, it has been done in the past and I just don't see why it cannot be done now.

there are too many questions for the future. But so far, I think they're doing the best they can with what they are working with.



price too high? dislike sony?
there's always 360 / wii

in the end, many of gamers who make their own money (enough money) can get 2 or maybe all 3 next-gen consoles anyways. no biggie.

[RMC2010 @ Feb 1st 2008 2:06PM]

Sony employee 1: "We've developed a console that costs us $600 to produce but we have to sell it dor $400 or no one buys it!"
Sony employee 2: "So how can we make money on this?"
Sony employee 1: "Let's create games that cost $70 each and let's put a bluray player with every movie at $25 - with those margins, big money!"
Sony employee 2: "But costumers want backwards compatibility and other features!"
Sony employee 1: "And why should we care? If people have ps2 games to play and Dvd movies to see with no bluray, we make no money!"
Sony employee 2: "Ok. Than let's can ps2 compatibility."

It's that simple. They want YOU to buy PS3 games and Bluray movies. Everything else goes...

[what @ Feb 1st 2008 2:13PM]

@steve and many others.

I really don't get why soo many keep complaining about the $400 price tag being overpriced. I've seen it at least 5 times this morning on Engadget.

Do people so quickly forget that the 360 stayed at $400 for almost 2 years? In addition the 360 didn't have WiFi, free online play, bluetooth, built in HD player, built in HDMI upon launch, and well, that's all I can think of at the top of my head. I know someone will say something meaningless like the online play sucks compared to the Live subscription, but that's not the point. Online is fine for me and I'd rather have a non-proprietary HDD.

The 360 console was profitable for quite awhile before they dropped the price $50 (woopty doo). PS3 consoles may now be profitable but keeping in mind how it was hemorrhaging cash in the first year, they are justified in keeping it at $400, a price I see as more then fair, as I have certainly gotten my money's worth, especially with Netflix.

[Robert Aitchison @ Feb 1st 2008 2:30PM]

At $400 the 40Gb PS3 would be a value and I'd probably own one, if it could replace my PS2, there is exactly one PS3 exclusive game out now that anybody in my family has any interest in (Ratchet & Clank) but we still regularly play several PS2 games. We also have a 360 and a Wii and I'm not going to add the PS3 as a FOURTH console so my son can play one game.

[Flashpoint @ Feb 2nd 2008 10:10AM]

If they had no idea that PS3 had Blu Ray then those muther****** better go back to school and learn to read.

Besides the huge BLU RAY logo on the bottom of the box, and the huge BLU RAY logo on the console...how could they miss this?

Unless the people poled were the mothers that bought the system for their kids.

[Jamar @ Feb 1st 2008 2:42PM]

I totally concur with the above, the backwards compatible is an issue, people like me have just under 100 games of PS1/PS2 games, you think I am going to get rid of them, no, my old plastation 2 broke, so I am not going to dish out another 100 bucks to get another one. So I have the 60GB, and I love it, the game selection is still horrible, especially when games conitually keep getting pushed back, I have a gampro magazine from 2004 talking about Metal Gear 4 for the PS3, and today is 2008, and Metal Gear 4 still isn't out, I am a diehard Resident Evil fan, and now the games are being released on every other platform instead of PS3. The developers switch to where the money is.

[Corey @ Feb 1st 2008 2:53PM]

Engadget should have a poll:
What do you want in a PS3?
1. As they are now (80/120 gb w/software BC, DS, etc)
2. As they were at launch (60gb w/hardware BC, DS, etc)
3. Other

and

Do you own a PS3?
1. Yes
2. No, because I have a Wii
3. No, because I have an XBOX 360
4. No, because Sony hasn't got it quite right yet
5. No, I just don't want one


And why is Robert the only one who seems to be able to reply to posts?

[mattclarkie @ Feb 1st 2008 3:18PM]

I have just had a brainwave.

The HDD in the PS3 basically just slots in, unlike a PC where you have to plug in 2 cables, all the connectors are in the PS3 and it pushes into place. The problem at the moment is that you have to unscrew it and slide it to the side to remove it.

What they could to is design a little caddy for the drives, and have it slot-into the bottom of the PS3 just by pushing. That way they could sell the PS3 without the HDD, and when you buy it you get the HDD in a seperate blister pack in the size of your choosing. That would enable one SKU to be available in many different HDD sizes, and also enable easier ugrading of the HDD for people without any knowledge.

Also to maintain compatability the little caddy, more of a pair of rails, could be removed from the HDD so it could be put in an older PS3, if you don't want to just pick-up a standard HDD from a shop.

This would be similar to the way the Xbox 360 works, only it doesn't come in a huge add-on, it still slides into the bottom of the PS3 and is concealed, but the caddy means it is held in place without any screws. And every PS3 would come with this thing free depending on the price you pay at store. A base price which includes the smallest HDD size available, and for $£20 you move up a size which would be 20Gb/40Gb increase.

[KC @ Feb 1st 2008 3:34PM]

Hey Nathan.wong, if Sony is so darn 'focused on the future' as you put it, why then are there still more games released every month for the PlayStation 2 then for the Playstation 3? Why was God of War II not a PS3 exclusive launch title? Why does Sony keep making and selling more PS2s every month then they do PS3s?

Sony does not seem focussed on the PS3 in any other way then getting their Blu-Ray format over with the general public.

Don't get me wrong here, I am not a Sony hater and I have a 60GB PS3 and I love it, but there are definitely some steps Sony needs to take to get the PS3 to a point where it's really competitive in the console market

120GB HDD probably is not going to do a damn thing towards getting PS3 to be a competitive platform.

[nathan @ Feb 1st 2008 4:35PM]

KC,
What you wrote is exactly why I said they should have just bit the bullet and dumped the PS2. As I stated, resources being spent on an older system than a newer one. One thing you need to keep in mind is that game development is a years (plural) long process. God of War 2 (to use your example) was probably in development for quite a few years before the the PS3 came out. I think in the coming year or two the PS2 games will start to dwindle dramatically.

Corey,
Offering BC with a system may not cost money to install or impliment, but in the long run it can cost money to the company because, as one of our friends commented above, they're not making any money on the new system if mom and dad say "if we can play our old games why bother upgrading or paying $70 for a game?" Sony, competing with itself, is in an odd position because they lose money on one system, but gain money on the other end. However, I think they'd rather make money on the PS3 than the PS2.

Personally I have a 80GB system and though I'm able to play our PS2 games I rarely, if ever, do. If I were able to install the Guitar Hero controllers onto the PS3, though, it'll be an entirely different story. As it stands, I don't mind keeping my PS2 hooked up to play those games. We have a lot of games for our original, year one PS2. Like many of you I'd hate to see all that past money go down the drain once we stop playing them, but I have numerous game systems with numerous games so I'm used to it. We bought our games at the time, used it for our entertainment and now it's done. It's kind of like going to a concert or a movie or a date. They may even be more expensive than a game, but once you're done with the experience it's over and all you have are memories. So look at it that way instead of looking at it like it's an heirloom. I'm sure you're not crying over losing your 8088, you Commie 64, your '286, '386, '486, Pentium, II, III.

[Corey @ Feb 1st 2008 4:54PM]

@ Nathan
I understand what you're saying, I just don't really see things going down that way. The thought that: "they're not making any money on the new system if mom and dad say "if we can play our old games why bother upgrading or paying $70 for a game?" makes me think: If they have that mindset, why would they buy a PS3 in the first place? Even at $249, people aren't going to buy one just for kicks. They'll buy it if the games are there, and if it has the features they find attractive. With hardware BC, Sony wouldn't be wasting resources, they'd be expanding the library of games the machine can play. Having BC capability allows them to say: "Hey, you can play all of your old games, hundreds of them, as well as our NEW games". Seems pretty attractive. And then, a year from now, when there are games that the people find attractive, they can buy them and support the new system.
Like me: I'm in a position that I have dozens of PS2 games, some of which I have yet to play, but my PS2 is dead. So my options are to either buy a new PS2 and play those games, buy a 60gb PS3 to do the same, or discard my old PS2 games and just go with the newer PS3 models. Well, I don't want to throw the old games away, and I don't want to pay an extra $120+ to keep them around. So I'm limited to a system from eBay.
As for your statement about 286/386/Pentium/etc, I'll say this: Everything you do on a 286 could be done on every system after it - provided there weren't driver issues, which is something else entirely.

I'd be perfectly fine with Sony going to a base model and premium model strategy: If my options were a 40gb w/no BC @ $249 and a 250gb w/hardware BC @ $500 - they'd have my $500 on day 1.

I'll admit, I missed the bus on the 60gb, and I'm upset about it. I'm just hoping that if I whine enough, Sony will shut me up with some good old hardware BC!

[nathan @ Feb 1st 2008 6:10PM]

Corey,
I know what you mean about the 60GB model and it's hardware BC. I was actually a bit miffed by the fact that the 80GB had software BC and that some games weren't compatible. I remember seeing the 60GB boxes sitting at the Playstation store not more than a few months ago and thinking "I better pick one up before it disappears." Well, I never picked one up and then I got the 80GB for Xmas so who am I to complain? I do wish the 80GB had hardware BC, but at this point I have what I have. I found that I don't really play PS2 games so hardware/software BC really doesn't affect me. I can see and understand why you would need it though. I'm sure others are in the same boat.

Unfortunately, as I stated in my original message, Sony is in business to make money and their thinking is that focusing on the future games instead of BC is more important to them. It will be interesting to see if the new model they bring out does have BC or not. However, if the news that we heard is correct it probably won't.

[KC @ Feb 1st 2008 9:53PM]

@ Nathan

Still, Sony is NOT focusing on the future as long as they refuse to kill off the PS2 platform.

Do you hear anyone whining about missing their original X-BOX or Game Cube? Sure the PS2 was a better platform then either, but the point is, it's time to lay it to rest and actually focus on the PS3.

I know Games take years to develop, but GoW II came out right around the launch of PS3 and the development cycle on hardware is even longer then the one for software so there was without any shadow of a doubt early PS3 Dev kits around when GoW II production began. Hell, even if it started production on PS2 it would not have cause much delay to re-master the early builds and port it over to PS3. There was NO big ticket system mover games for PS3 for almost it's entire first year of existence. That was Sony not focusing on the future. That was Sony hanging on to the past.

This new SKU (probably two new SKUs as 40GB is rumoured to be replaced soon as well with updated 40GB bundle) may be a great, but a more capacious HDD is the last thing that's likely to get people to jump on board the PS3 as their gaming platform of choice. Though the Dualshock 3 controllers are fantastic and it's really great that they are finally making their way into the box with North American systems.

But I at least hope to see some clearout sales on the existing 40GB and 80GB SKUs because price seems to be a sticking point for allot of people who'd like to pick up a PS3.

Sony really needs to focus on the future and the PS3. They need to make damn good and sure all those people still buying PS2s today are going to be buying PS3s down the road, and they need to answer the concerns of the people responding to this post who are still sitting on the fence to get them to buy a PS3 today.

Get the install base up, get the developers to come around and bring more great games.

[Corey @ Feb 1st 2008 10:32PM]

Missing my point:

Hardware BC would be a way for Sony to bridge people from PS2 into PS3.
Right now, I don't want a PS3, as there aren't any games that appeal to me. And I want to replace my busted PS2. So, if there's a PS3 available with what I need, I'd buy.
Sony can stop making PS2 games tomorrow for all I care. And they can stop making PS2 consoles as well - just give me a way to play my game.
I realize YOU may not want to ever play a PS2 game again, but I do. And many other people do as well. Why not take advantage of that. I bought a Wii so I could download old games on Virtual Console. There's a market for it, Sony should be playing to it.

[JBDragon @ Feb 2nd 2008 1:06AM]

Sony can keep changing the PS3 however many times they want, it's not going to change the fact that I still have ZERO interest in buying one. It has nothing at all to do with money, I could go out and buy a dozen right now if I wanted. I could care less about Blu-Ray as I want nothing at all do with with the DRM infested format, and sorry to say the games I'm interested in just aren't there to make me want to throw money at the system. 1 or 2 games just doesn't cut it. The 360 may have the RROD problems, but even as BAD as that's been for many people, it's still the system to buy for lots and lots of great games. Who knows how well the 360 would have sold without this problem, though my 2+ year old 360 has works just fine.

A larger HDD in the PS3 doesn't nothing for me. If anything I'd buy the cheapest system for the smallest HDD and put my own much larger HDD in it myself. I wish I could have for the 360. To me, the PS2 seems to be the game Console and the PS3 is the Blu-Ray movie player! All those PS2 being sold since the PS3 launch just means those users don't have any plans to buy a PS3 any time soon. If your a gamer, WHY would you buy a PS3? Your going to go where the games are, and if you can get a console cheap, with a whole lot of great games, and the games themselves are cheaper then on the PS3, that's a bonus.

So again, I could care less about the PS3. I also haven't heard much about HOME lately, not that I care about it as I think it's pretty lame, but where is it? It seems like Sony RUSHED the PS3 out a couple years before they were ready. I guess they really figured the PS2 could hang on for a couple more years, but MS blew that up and rushed the 360 out, and so the Xbox had a shorter life span then Sony expected.

[TorontoGuy @ Feb 2nd 2008 8:44AM]

I think backwards compatibility IS a selling point for the 80 Gig PS3. (It was the reason that I went for it over the 40.) However, the harddrive in a PS3 is so ridiculously easy to upgrade that I wonder why anyone would bother buying a 120 Gb model that has no backwards compatibility. If that was my only choice I would get the 40 gig model...pop in a 250Gb SATA 2.5" and probably be paying less money in the long run for double the storage. And if I put the original 40 gig drive in a USB enclosure, I'd still have access to it as well.
Support for the Dual Shock 3 came with the last system update so all I need is the actual controllers...if I really wanted them.
But, (I work for a major big box electronics retailer which shall be nameless) Blu-Ray compatibility has become a major selling point for us as far as the PS3 is concerned. Now that the format wars are all but done, all of those people with PS3s don't have to fork out for a Blu-Ray player. We have sold PS3's to complete non-gamers strictly as a Blu-Ray player (with games as an added feature) and done very well. Add the Bluetooth remote and it is as good as any other Blu-ray player out there.
While the browser in the PS3 isn't much to jump up and down about, it is functional. I'm writing this comment on the PS3...using a cheap USB keyboard.
We are stocking up on the 80Gb PS3s because I think that (for people who want some degree of backwards compatibility) they will become as sought after as the 60Gb models. Especially if the 120Gb model is higher priced than the 80. So, if everything else remains the same... I would advise people to buy the 40 and upgrade the HD themselves.

[J-B94 @ Feb 2nd 2008 3:24PM]

Simple!!! Why don't sony or any other company that make HDD put a BC chip into the HDD, everyones happy, or better! Why don't sony make another SKU that hasn't got too space much or to little; we shall call it the 50 gb! Which should include these:
1x HDMI
4x USB Ports
1 or 2x LAN Ports
THE BACKWARD Compatibility for PS2 games (Please. Emotion Engine or Emulation which ever works best)
Be about £50-$100 more than a 40 gb.
Have WI-FI!
And outsell its predescessor and please keep the system simple.
If this system is released which I doubt it will and it sells a dozen, then sony don't kill the system and release another one which will be missing a feature or two.

[J-B94 @ Feb 2nd 2008 3:38PM]

There's gonna be a slim-line PS3. I know there is gonna be one cos they have done this with every SCE product except the PSX. If you do not believe me they did that to the PLAYSTATION, PLAYSTATION 2, PLAYSTATION PORTABLE. If they gonna do that on the PS3 Thats gonna be very hard. Well some company did make the world's smallest laptop. But the world's smallest Playstation is gonna be a challenge.