Sony finally hacks $100 from 'old' PlayStation 3 price, starting today
By Darren Murph 
posted Aug 18th 2009 1:31PM
posted Aug 18th 2009 1:31PM
posted Aug 18th 2009 1:31PM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
will not buy!
why?
It's been almost 3 years since the PS3 has been released. The incentive to own is low. Fanboys have picked their sides and the Wii has gobbled up the casual gamers. Had they included PS2 back-compat, then it might be a different tune. At least, that is what the word is on the interwabs.
ps2 backwards compatibility is only an issue if you didn't sell all your ps2 games with your ps2.
@Lawyer
Actually, when they tried to strip down the PS3 for their first price drop, they took the backwards compatibility from their 40GB console, which became the only comparable console price-point wise to the 360 and Wii.
Only issue? How about the lack of any good first party games that don't end in Etal Gear Solid?
@ robpetrin :: Drop the 'no good games' argument. It just doesn't work anymore.
@ mr.blue umm... yea i think it still works...
"the incentive to own is low?" Really? I thought the lower the price, the higher the incentive gets...
@Levi: Not on a 3 yearold product that every Sony fan and fanboy owns. Had they dropped the price a year in, then they would have steam. Like I said, the Wii, and the 360 to an extent, have the casual market cornered. The PS2 as a great all-around console, the PS3 isn't. *No, I'm not saying it sucks. Everyone here knows my beef is with the Sony bobble heads and their attitude.*
Sony's big problem was trying to make the PS3 be like the PS1 and 2. It is not going to happen. Again, I'm not saying the PS3 will/is a bomb, but this isn't the price drop "savior" that all the fantards make it to be. Anyway, just play what you want and stop worrying about what plastic the other guy warships or how well it does overseas. Japan keeps all the good games to themselves, so why should we care?
Yup, I will be snagging a second PS3 for the bedroom!
...making the radio of PS3s to poon in your bedroom 2:0
@ robpetrin :: Alllllmost got him! How about, ratio?
HA! I meant to say a second PS3 in the house, which will go in the bedroom.
And I'm married, so of course there's no poon in the bedroom.
My fingers have failed me :'(
And touche, Dan, touche
NEVER. GET. MARRIED.
I think this is a step in the right direction. What Sony needs to do is follow up with a good marketing campaign, a lot more exclusives and fix Home....the thing is wack at the moment....(and i mean that in a bad way).
I don't know honestly. I will probably wait for the ps3 slim.
But It'd be a possibility when I buy my 50 inch plasma tomorrow
I could end up picking up one of current ones.
What the hell?
Backwards compatibility is retarded. Why do people care? The games aren't as good as you can play anyways on the PS3, and if you had PS2 games already, wouldn't you also have a PS2??? Thought so, or if you don't have a PS2 yet oddly have the games for one, it is only $99, which is what you are saving with this new PS3, so really for a PS3 and a PS2 it's the price of a PS3 since yesterday.
Anthony, there are only so many inputs on your receiver or TV. Why should you have to keep the PS2 (with the space involved, cables, controllers, memory cards, and all of that detrius) just so you can play your PS2 games? It's especially galling since it's clear the PS3 has every capability to perform decent backwards compatibility in software, on the existing hardware - Sony just chose to remove it (why, I have NO idea).
Meanwhile, good games are good games - it doesn't matter if they're a generation (or two) old.
What really needs to happen now is for Microsoft to drop the Pro price to $150, the Elite price to $230 and eliminate the Arcade. C'mon Microsoft, we all know you're in it for the marketshare and the leg in the living room, and not the profits. Man up. Do it. Do it.
I have both a PS3 and PS2, and in my small apartment, I would LOVE to get rid of a console and some controllers. That, and I play PS2 games less than I would if I could just throw em in my PS3, because I always have to fiddle with my wireless PS2 controller, have no good wired controllers, have to dig it out and plug it in... When we all know there is nothing stopping Sony from at least re-implementing software BC aside from money, it's a fair complaint.
@ Mark - They are replacing the Pro with the Elite, and the Arcade stays. Dropping the Elite to $299 isn't good enough? The Arcade is still the cheapest console this generation, why do they need to drop it again? To cheapen the market and grossly undercut the competition, creating unrealistic expectations from consumers, ultimately hurting the industry even more?
am i the only one that doesn't care at all about the size of the system...the price drop is great to bring in more people, but why didn't they upgrade/add features?
Cause they need money. And I agree, I like my PS3 the way it is, large, intimidating, yet surprisingly quiet.
Well, I'm sure that it has something to do with the fact that Sony is trying to minimize the impact the lowering of the price will have on their profits. I mean, sure the console has become cheaper to produce, but Sony lost a lot of money on the console from the launch and I'm sure they'd like to recover it. And adding features is going to be going in the opposite direction.
I think this is reflected in the fact that they decided to go with a 120gb HDD. I know HDDs are pretty cheap, but I'm sure there was some cost savings over the 160gb.
I would suggest waiting to buy a PS3phat. If they start offering it with 2 controllers, 2 games and a blu ray movie all at the $300 price point I can see a reason not to wait for the slim redesign, however unlikely this is.
And if you're waiting for that, you'll be waiting a long, long time. Those kinds of accessories are just going to bump it back up to $400.
Of course, then the PS3 will someday drop to $200, and you'll be griping that you can't get it for $99...
@Joshua: Whoa dude, whats up with the haten on me? I already have the 80GB Metal Gear Solid PS3 model. I just meant its stupid to buy a phat PS3 now without any sort of incentive to convince me/any new buyer to buy a phat PS3 over a slim PS3 when its pretty obvious that without the incentives the slim PS3 is the better buy.
Hmm, Am i the only one who doesn't really care about the PS3?
@dan davis Jeez i wish i could drop $299 for a console in the bedroom, or a console period. I really want the 360 for all the features coming to it. But money has been tight with the bills and all.
I would rather have a $199 xbox 360 (buy the hard drive later).
No, I don't give a rats butt about Sony or the PiS3. They blew it, as far as I'm concerned, when they said 'people will want to work extra hours to pay for this' back in '06 when the behemoth was announced. And, to this day, the ONLY game I have seen that I would want to buy Motostorm or whatever the hell it was called. Most of the games on the system do not interest me. I'd rather have a cheaper and more reliable Xbox 360 than this.
Um, more "reliable" XBOX 360? Have we forgotten the thousands of stories of the RRoD? I don't think you could argue that the PS3, in general, has been a more solid, reliable machine than the XBOX 360 as a system whole.
did u seriously just say "more reliable xbox 360"?
By 'more reliable Xbox 360', I meant more reliable than the current devices, NOT PiS3. I would only buy the 360 if it were more reliable. Who wants the headache of having to send the damn thing in for repair? No, until PS3 is better priced-and, no, 300 is not better-and Xbox is more reliable, I will stick to PC gaming, last gen games and Wii. I don't care about not being cutting edge...PC games are usually more cutting edge than console games anyway. None of three systems, to me, appear to have many truly compelling games anyway. Nintendo's offerings have been retreads of older games-fun, but retreads nonetheless. Xbox and PS3 games tend to be mindless shoot 'em ups, tired sports franchises or awful attempts at Wii-like games. None are worth what the publishers want, certainly not the fifty to eighty dollars that seem to be the norm.
Well, when you make it smaller you also limit the space for more....
More what? The only thing swapable has been the 2.5" hard drive.
I think he's trying to say that he thinks they've stripped it down to fit.
I'm thinking about it and probably not. My time is strapped as is with work, and family. My wife is due in november with our 2nd child, as well as we're trying to pay down some debt.
Frankly, adding another console in the mix would be a waste of money.
You just bummed me out with reality.
Yep buying a slim as my second unit for my second home.
ps3 slim is 120G and sells for same price ps3 phat 80G, unless there's further cut on 80G phat one, I dont see any point buying it for now.
Ok... can we all agree right here and now not to encourage adoption of the term "PS3 Phat" for the original PS3?
Well the slim uses less power, so...
Is this question even relevant?
Seriously? Freaken hell...blu-ray for everyone! I hope they have twin-packs at Costco.
Er, you know that some standalone Blu-Ray players go for less than half that price, right?
Oh look, here's one for $120: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9245514&st=blu-ray&lp=13&type=product&cp=2&id=1218067604633
And another for $129: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=10825995
If this actually sparks a jump in Blu-Ray interest, I'll be incredibly surprised.
I personally won't be purchasing it as there are not enough features that would entice me from not just using the PS3 which sits snugly in my entertainment cabinet. Am I the only one here who thinks that the new PS3 is fugly in comparison to the old-school one?
No, it its...But, but,, it's slim....
It is but Sony is finally making money now. Plus, It shouldn't matter anyway, it uses less power, and it has 40GB more space than the Phat PS3 available now for the same price.
Good deal no matter what. Who cares what it looks like. I think it looks more simple and less show-ey.
Yeah, it AND the original are butt ugly. But, then again, not many game consoles have been all that attractive anyway. The 360 and Wii look OK. The PS2 slim looked OK. The original PS was ugly as was: SNES,NES,Atari Jaguar,Nintendo 64, Gamecube, Gameboy, Atari 5200 and the original Odyssey. Fairchild Channel F in its woodgrain trim was not very pretty, but the later all black one looked like a fine early 80's piece of gear. Intellivision, original Atari VCS, Odyssey 2, Sega and the Atari 7800 are examples of better looking consoles.
For handhelds, DS Lite takes the prize and the nicest looking and least childish looking device. PSP at least looks like it is worth the higher price, even if it is not. GameGear looked cool too. The GBA flip looked nice too, but all of the other Gameboys were just ugly, including the original DS. Style was definitely not a Nintendo or Sony strength. And the original XBOX? It has an industrial appeal and looks like it would be right at home on the bridge of the Battlestar Galactica. I bet if you look closely, you might find one there.
Personally I think the new slim is fugly. I know everyone complained about the fingerprint loving shiny ps3, but the matte finish really makes this look cheap and ugly.
I'll be getting a phat refurb. for dirt cheap. I don't need something new or shiny this time around...and the fact that I have extra HDD to drop in the console and an external for even more storage, and a 360. So the cheaper the better for me.