New PS3 Needs Slimmer, Lighter Price Tag Too

GR: Last night, during Sony's Tokyo Game Show press conference, the console manufacturer announced a new, slimmer, and lighter PlayStation 3 console with larger HDD options. That's great and all, but two things really struck me as strange, one of which I would consider downright confusing.

[dbjj12088]

So true. Sony's stubbornness has repeatedly hurt their standing this generation. $600 launch, removal of features that highly-technical consumers retaliate over, new design, same price?

All huge mistakes.

[Kanten]

I love the complaints about the launch price and then the complaints about feature removal. Those features got removed to lower the price tag, pick one or the other to complain about.

[live2play]

nice one

[Xof]

No, sorry, but most of the features removed were SOFTWARE features. Removing those didn't effect production costs one iota.

I can only think of two features that were removed that were hardware features. First, the two USB ports the original model PS3s had. Then, the PS2 backwards-compatibility... only that wasn't really a hardware issue, either, as only the earliest PS3s relied on special hardware to play PS2 games--the later models (40GB?) had PS2 emulation via software.

Not to mention Sony has had an in-house PS2 emulator working on Windows platforms for nearly a decade now.

Or that unofficial PS2 emulation on PCs is now flawless, and has been nearly flawless for several years.

Sony removed software emulation so that they could market their HD classics line, and when they proved incapable of really taking advantage of that market, rather than give us back proper b/c in the form of a system update, they launched the PS2 Classics series.

Most of the features that have been removed from the PS3 have been software features, and all of them have been removed so that Sony can (try to) rake in more money from consumers. They had nothing to do with cutting production costs.

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

lmao!

I've been saying that for the looogest. There is a reason why the price is expensive and it's not because of "arrogance." The amount of money it takes to make the system is what determines the price. If you don't see the system as worth the current amount money, you have two options: Wait for the price to drop or buy something else. If the price were to be lowered, then features that are the cause of the expensive tag need to be removed to lower the price. It's asinine to believe, expect, and demand that a company should take a loss, if not further loss, just to sell a product at your fantasy price.

The obvious reason why the new model isn't cheaper is because doing so would result in them making a loss in each unit. Stubbornness has little to nothing to do with it. It's about profit, something a lot of people tout here, but apparently being the #1 is more important?

EDIT:

@Xof

Then why does the PS3 still have PS1 B/C and yet sell PS1 games on the PS store? People haven't been able to explain this to me yet.

[brish]

Kanten, some of the features were removed on existing consoles.

Some people bought their ps3 to run linux. That feature was removed. This is an issue for people who bought a console to play games, and run linux. That is a legitimate issue for ps3 users with older consoles.

Some people got rid of their old ps2 consoles because the ps3 could play their ps2 games. Sony forced them to make a choice. They either had to upgrade their software (required for new games) or lose the ability to play ps2 games. The old ps3 has the hardware support to play ps2 games but if the operating system is upgraded the ps3 won't play them. That is a legitimate issue for ps3 users with older consoles.

My first ps3 was the ps3 slim. I had the advantage of getting the lower price on my first ps3 and I never had linux support, or ps2 games support so personally I didn't lose anything but owners of older ps3 did.

[morganfell]

Some people will complain no matter what. It's relatively easy to spot people that believe the world owes them a free ride.

Just as well they think Sony, in the midst of trying to restructure and recover, should continue to sell the best console on the market at a loss. These very people praised the Vita price at announcement and then attacked the same price when it launched.

Work hard, stay in school, get a job, earn what you need.

Here is a lesson for you when you grow up. You get what you pay for.

[Steven21]

@Brish

"The old ps3 has the hardware support to play ps2 games but if the operating system is upgraded the ps3 won't play them. That is a legitimate issue for ps3 users with older consoles."

I have a launch console that i still to this day play namco museum on and i've never had an issue with it. There was no taking away of the ability to play backwards compatible games through a software update. Also I am up to date on the current firmware as well

[BitbyDeath]

@Xof, PS3 originally had the PS2 emotion engine hardware within the system. When they took that out to cut costs the PS2 backwards compatibility stopped.

[doogiebear]

I dont see the point of a slightly smaller system that doesnt have a price cut. The top loading bay is a magnet for attracting dust into to the sensitive lens and disc motor. If sony's gonna do all that, then pass the savings on to us. If not, then I find this news to be quite uneventful at the moment.

[MrBeatdown]

@Xof

"Sony removed software emulation so that they could market their HD classics line, and when they proved incapable of really taking advantage of that market, rather than give us back proper b/c in the form of a system update, they launched the PS2 Classics series."

Really? You think Sony removed backwards compatibility (and only for PS2 games, not PS1 games) so that they could profit from the sale of a few HD collections and an extremely limited selection of PS2 Classics?

Give me a break.

It's pretty obvious that Sony would be better off if each PS3 had full backwards compatibility. Dumping thousands of PS2 games onto PSN and being able to sell them would surely rake in more revenue than the 29 relatively obscure PS2 Classics currently available on the US store. Not to mention that HD collections would still do well, as many people buy them for the fact that they are in HD and include trophies.

You can pretend that removing PS2 backwards compatibility was some evil scheme they thought up to force people to rebuy content they already owned, but if that's true, Sony basically chose to keep people from buying GTA, Socom, Burnout, Need For Speed, and thousands of other games just to sell a few emulated copies of Stuntman Ignition and Red Faction, and a handful of HD collections that lots of fans would have bought anyway.

Then of course there is the fact that all PS3s play PS1 discs, which flies right in the face of the whole "take it out so it can be sold separately" theory. Hell, that theory flies in the face of everything Sony has done with the PS3... Sony could charge you for PS3-specific HDDs. They don't. They could make you buy only the official controller-charging cables. They don't. They could make you buy the official headsets. They don't. They could charge you to play online. They don't. They could charge for a lot of things if they really wanted to milk the customer, but they don't. So why would we assume milking the customer was the motivation for Sony to remove PS2 compatibility? And why does PS1 compatibility remain?

The fact is, it doesn't make any sense.

Backwards compatibility drove up costs, and that drove up the price. All BC models in some form or another relied on specific PS2 hardware. Even the "software emulation" models relied in part on hardware. Google it. If I understand it correctly, the 60GB model had the PS2's CPU and GPU. The revised model removed the CPU but kept the GPU. Backwards compatibility went away when Sony finally removed the GPU.

That leaves us with a grand total of one thing... Linux... being removed that was entirely software based. That's not exactly "most" of the removed features now is it?

[guitarded77]

The price will drop as soon as it hits shelves. Sony isn't going to announce a price drop now. No one will buy the current stock as they'll be waiting for the new SKU with a lower price. The build quality of the new SKU says "price drop" all over it.

[Thatguy-310]

Maybe there wont be a price drop but I bet that sony if anything will bundle the hell out of this system during holiday to add more value for the price.

[AsimLeonheart]

Do you guys want Sony to be profitable or not? You want $800 worth of dollar features for $400 at the launch and now you want Sony to sacrifice whatever profit they may be able to earn from this redesign. Sony is not performing financially well and I see this redesign as a way to increase profitability for PS3. If they reduce the price as well then the redesign is meaningless. They will reduce the price once they are more stable and secure financially and when it direly needed. Price reduction is a ace in the hole and you do not use it every few months otherwise you are left with no ammo when you need it most. I do not want Sony to suffer losses and eventually lose the platform (Playstation) that has provided me with a memorable childhood and so many fun experiences, just because of my selfishness. If we truly are supporters of Playstation then we should think about this rationally and try to understand Sony's circumstances.

[DeadlyFire]

Well considering Blu-Ray was about as much and more than all the other parts in PS3 together.

I do agree with ya. Sony will keep its price until it starts seeing a decline and it will drop when it hits that point. I expect right at WiiU launch we could see a price drop even its if a temporary deal for Black Friday its likely to happen.

[Neko_Mega]

Yeah $600 was a bad launch price, just look at how many people paid that much. -_-

Their launch price maybe high, but put that next to 360's and I would say 360 was alittle overprice because it just had DVD and not something new like PS3.

Plus lets not forget the Cell, which is mainly use for Super computers.

[Allsystemgamer]

The cell is not that strong of a processor. Nice try tho

[DeadlyFire]

Well Cell is pretty decent CPU. It does 256 Gigaflops at most, but do you know how many CPUs break into 100 Gigaflops? Not many. Even today's latest CPUs don't do more than 110 Gigaflops from AMD/Intel on APUs even the CPU side only does a small bit of Gigaflops compared to the GPU. x86 vs. Risc though even with lower Gigaflops it still runs things a bit faster. Thing is a company might utilize those Gigaflops as extra graphics power. That is what Sony did for the PS3. While it does work for exclusives it caused many errors with games getting ported to it for awhile.

Power7 looks to be the redefined, and faster version of the Cell if you ask me. It does 264 Gflops at most with around the same clock speed range and all of that.

[DeadlyFire]

PS3 will sell at the price point they stated until After WiiU launch. Then they will cut it. Just wait for it.

[ftwrthtx]

Keep in mind how much money they lost on the launch ps3's. Give them a chance to make a profit. LOL

[Sev]

They made plenty of money with the PS2 :)

[KwietStorm_BLM]

Which is all gone now, isn't it?

[dbjj12088]

Despite the loss taken on units at launch, the moves Sony has been making lately are not aggressive enough for where we are in the console lifecycle. You can't expand install base (and therefore software, accessory consumers) without moving units out the door.

[3-4-5]

They've had 6 years to make a profit.

It starts at the top. If their Boss is arrogant and thinks he knows better, then it trickles down into lower management levels.

They were arrogant with the PS3 and they got what they deserved.

Hopefully they go back to being respectable like with the PS2..

I don't see the PS4 selling anything below $450.00

[StreetsofRage]

Agree. Sony came in to this gen with their noses high in the air and it cost them dearly. But who can blame them? The ps1 and ps2 dominated. They will learn from their mistakes and do much better next gen.

[violents]

Consoles are almost never sold at profit, almost every company out there sells consoles at a loss to make their money back on sales of software and perifials(ie, move controllers, cameras, cables, and what nots)

Even a new base model xbox is 200 bucks its not like their pricing is way out of line or something. Ill admit at launch it was rediculous but they are right on par with everyone else now.

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

I'm not understanding why people think the PS3 should have been cheaper at launch. You guys are expecting cutting edge technology to be dirt cheap.

It's the same that is going on with the Wii U. The Wii U is obviously more expensive to make than the PS3 or 360. Yet we have people that want/expected Nintendo to launch the Wii U at the same price as the 360/PS3 and in some cases cheaper than the two.

In the end if you can't afford the price or think the price isn't worth it, wait for the price to drop. I don't understand why people are expecting something that costs $600 to be price at $400.

[AsimLeonheart]

A product starts making profit when it reaches break even point and not since the first day of sale. What about the fixed costs like research and development costs which Sony incurred for years prior to launching the PS3? It takes at least takes several months or a year if the product is being sold at a profit to reach break-even point and actually earn profit. Sony was selling PS3 at a loss so they took even more time to reach break-even point and earn profits. The PS2 also earned most of its profits in its late years so this is the time for Sony to earn profits on PS3.

[insertcoin]

I think Sony should attempt to bundle both the Vita and PS3 for one happy price. I mean, they already have the Cross-Buy program going.

[stephmhishot]

As has been pointed out by many outlets, the strength of the yen versus the dollar is killing Sony's pricing strategies.

[NastyLeftHook0]

god

[doctorstrange]

I still love the fatty the most

[violents]

who doesnt love a good fatty?

[violents]

I bet they give a price cut before the holiday rush. Try to get the few people at normal price that just gotta have the latest model and price cut for the holidays to get all those people that have wanted one but was finacially out of reach.

[Lucretia]

its already the cheapest and strongest console on the market with the most value.....so why even more price drops when the 360 still charges for online, has no bluray yada yada and is 300 with the hard drive?

im confused

[HmongAmerican]

In my opinion this console is the worst of the two older model. It's 2012 and we still have open dis tray, look like Sony going backward in term of design. I understand they want to make it cheaper and affordable, but that is like in your face for earlier PS3 owner.

[tweet75]

$300 for a 500 gb machine as good as ps3 is not a bad deal at all

[auen1]

what would happen to the current stock of slim ps3's if they released the redesign at a lower price? they'd be sitting on the shelves until the cows come home.

[Straightupbeastly]

All of Sony products are dead or in the process of dying

[suicidalblues]

Just like your bubbles.

[Hicken]

C'mon, really? I get called out all the time, but THIS CRAP happens everywhere, and the people calling me out for comments with actual substance are NOWHERE to be found.

Yeah, the bubble system works real well...

[Ben_Grimm]

Calm down Hicken, no one cares because this guy is a one bubble troll who's only purpose is so obvious.

You get called out for other reasons that are to numerous to state over and over again, so don't try and hide that fact and play like your a victim.