Is the new PS3 a negative rather than a positive?

SYCO: "In the current console generation, there have been so many changes to the look and designs of each of the three major consoles from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. On Tuesday, Sony revealed at the Tokyo Game Show that they will be releasing a Super Slim version of their trademark console, the PS3."

[RivetCityGhoul]

its negative because its not cheaper. the whole point of cutting costs on a system is to make it more affordable for consumers. what the hell is the point of buying a "super slim" when the previous slim is cheaper. its dumb decisions like that is what what got sony in the red in the first place.

[Gildarts]

Its not cheaper? dafuq is the point then?

[Nitrowolf2]

probably to cut down on production cost and try to maximize profits. After all that is a company ultimate goal, to max profits.

Still I think we will see a price cut near christmas, not sue if the RRP rule applies outside of Europe.

[jeseth]

Sony really needed a PS3 at at least the $199 price point.

I'm indifferent on the new design ... at this point they should be trying to increase their imprint on the gaming community this gen to strengthen the demand for their next system.

I really thought that the entire objective of a new PS3 design would be to compete w/360 at the $199 price range. Kind of a bummer to see that is not the case.

[shoddy]

Every Sony action is negative.
I swear I see at least one negative Sony article everyday since ps3 launch.

Good thing ps3 isn't teh doom yet.

[Anon1974]

This is ridiculous. How many hardware revisions did we see with the PS2? I've seen people complain that a PS3 hardware revision makes no sense because it's getting late in the generation. The PS2 had a hardware revision AFTER the PS3's launch. That must have made their heads explode if they have an issue with the PS3 revision now.

Electronics go through hardware revisions all the time as new technology comes out and they become cheaper and more efficient to produce. I can't believe we're seeing article after article complaining because Sony dared revise their hardware. The horror!

You'd think this was the first time we'd seen anyone revise their hardware without a change in price.

"The Super Slim is something which sounds great, but would have been better suited three or four years ago"
You mean shortly after the console came out? This guy really doesn't have the slightest clue, does he? Remember all, right under the "Read Full Story" link you can vote these nonsense articles up or down. We can't stop idiots from approving this nonsense, but at least we have a chance to blacklist sites that have no business commenting on things they clearly don't understand. It's the only way we can clean this site up.

[Ak47Russia]

OMG!

PS3 is doooooooooooooomeeeddddd!

enough is enough....

[PurpHerbison]

Yeah... The PS3 really does need to be cheaper. Not that it isn't worth the current price tag... But it really would sell a hell of a lot better matched as the same price as that worthless 4GB 360 that isn't even worth it's own pricetag.

[darthv72]

looking at the official ps3 site it seems sony's prices are all pretty much the same. I'm seeing the 320 and 500 and with and without games for $299.99 MSRP. The exception is the 160 for $249.

So now with these newer ones, being priced at or maybe a little higher than the existing ones isnt that uncommon.

The entire PS3 pricing sku history has not been about lowing the price but giving the perception of getting more for that $$.

They were ramping up the hdd space but the price was staying pretty consistent. So they were basically trying to create more value for the same MSRP by way of adding other things they felt the consumer would be more interested in.

These newer units will likely get a real price drop but not until they see how well they do out of the gate. At least a good 3-6 months of sales data will help them determine what should be done.

It actually reminds me of when they released the psp go. So many changes (most notably the removal of umd but inclusion of 16gb storage) and it cost more than the psp at the time.

Sony was trying to justify the price by saying it offered a convenience in the size and simplicity of a full digital download system.

It could have worked if sony hadn't opened the digital games up to owners of previous psp units because by doing that, it pretty much negated the purchase of a go other than for the style.

This will get all figured out sooner rather than later.

[GribbleGrunger]

The PS3 no longer has a RRP. We'll see if it's not cheaper this Christmas.

[Derekvinyard13]

less parts, same price

[tiffac008]

I think Sony will let the retailers do the deals this holiday but they won't lower the price of the PS3 until next year, probably the same time as the Vita but not before.

Sony is going for profit per console instead of quantity and hoping the software sales will off set the lost. I think at this point in time the later is more riskier than the former with the down trend in software sales and all that.

[Neko_Mega]

It is cheaper if you do the math, Uncharted 3 bundle when it came out with the old slim was about $299 or alittle more. The super slim is $269.99, the problem is they aren't selling the system alone.

If it was sold alone, then it be even more cheaper. I don't get how people can say it isn't cheaper, they must of drop out of school or something.

[Psychonaughty]

And bluray discs cost how many pence to manufacture?

[josephayal]

uncharted 3 brand new $20, PS3 slim console $250 total $270 (PS3 Super slim uncharted 3 bundle $270)

[violents]

its more expensive and only by like 20 dollars because it has a hdd thats twice the size of the previous slim, 4 times the size if you buy the 500 gig. You cant expect them to stick a 50 or 100 dollar hdd into them and just eat it right. Honestly most people want to upgrade the hdd anyway so really its just saving you the hassle of buying and installing a hdd and copying all your data over, blah blah blah, you know.

[TongkatAli]

Hey at least it has a lot more space for games and looks like it takes less power to play games. You know what is a pro ? You can play games on it and no one is putting a gun to your head to buy it.

[Gridloc]

Third model, still no power brick...

[DoomeDx]

Which is a good thing..

[GamerElite]

I guess those people who disagree actually like those huge power bricks.

[kamakaz3md]

just like my comment its a NEGATIVE (cause im sure people will disagree with me cause they always do) this is a terrible idea going into the holiday season not to mention cutting so many jobs... SONY dont have anything but games going into the holiday! People dont want just games they want hardware, M$ and nintendo are delivering! Thus is why sony is trailing behind, and wont sell any new consoles, except to the very little PS fanboys!

[Insomnia_84]

"M$ and nintendo are delivering"

LMFAO!

[violents]

they want hardware, M$ and nintendo are delivering

Really what hardware is MS delivering exactly because if im correct all they are offering for the holdiay was another halo and gears games.

[GamerElite]

what hardware are you talking about?

if systems don't have any games to play on, why would people want hardware.

[level 360]

As a gamer it sits just about halfway with all the bundle deals included for now.. come December we'll know the results if they ( Sony ) have succeeded but as a marketing strategy I'm sure it was meant to take some sales away from the new kid in the block - Nintendo's Wii U.

[rainslacker]

I see this price point as Sony's way of competing directly with the Wii U this holiday. I have a feeling that Sony doesn't want to be seen as a low cost alternative, but rather a value added alternative. If the Wii U sells out this holiday, then the PS3 will be a system that people may consider...and you have to remember these are people that are already willing to spend $300 on a system.

[sandman224]

I think it's a great idea. I'm selling my 160gb slim to get me a ps3 ultra slim. I can't wait till I get to slide the disc tray over and insert my disc. It's awsome. Even though ill be buying my content through psn. I hope black ops 2 will be released on psn on release date.

[violents]

I really hope your being sarcastic, why would you replace your working ps3 model? If you want the bigger hdd, you can replace your hdd for like 50 bucks.

[sandman224]

Because my disc drive reads pretty loud when playing games like mw3 and I like the new design. Also I have the money to waste. So for me it's worth it.

[violents]

Well if you got the money, whatever i guess.

[Lvl_up_gamer]

I see this as a Negative.

Sony is banking on the uninformed consumer. A downgraded console with removed features/tech at the same price as the current slim console.

The Slim is a better console then the Super Slim and it's a cheaper price.

Yes it cost Sony less to make the Super Slim but the ONLY way they will start to see the profits come in will be if the Super Slim starts to become the #1 sold PS3 sku...and the ONLY way that is going to happen is if they phase out the current Slim model. If Sony Phases out the current slim model, I would be PISSED as a new consumer. This will be the 2nd time Sony has removed features in order to reduce the price. Sony would be putting themselves in a much worse position if they gave consumers the option to buy a Slim at it's current price and the Super Slim at it's current price. NO OTHER CONSOLE MAKER has EVER removed and downgraded their consoles with each new SKU.

The way it works is consoles become cheaper without removing features because as time moves forward, parts become cheaper to produce and parts become outdated. At least when the PS3 slim was released we saw a price drop as well so the removal of features made sense. The Super Slim is being priced HIGHER and has features removed.

The 360 with it's "outdated" disc tray is now greater tech then the PS3 Super Slim top loader....I remember all the hate the 360 got having a tray from a certain crowd on this site and now that the PS3 is getting a top loader which is older tech then the 360 tray, suddenly it's all well accepted and a great idea.

I am just happy I bought a PHAT unit when there weren't really any sku's to pick from. I got all the best features the PS3 has ever offered. Seeing how far the PS3 has been downgraded since Launch is just sad. My Phat PS3 is going strong with no issues. I love my PHAT PS3 and will never lower myself to buy a Super Slim. Total ripoff imo.

[violents]

What features did they remove from the previous slim model? It does all the same stuff as the previous slim it just doesn't have a drive that sucks in the disk. Your argument would have been much more valid when the first slim came out because they stripped backwards compatibility out of them(Supposedly because no one used it, but then they started selling all those supposedly unused games on psn as downloadables, gay) really is the type of disc drive a feature to you? It plays all the games just like the old model, the only thing missing is the BC and that was missing from the old slims anyway.

[Lvl_up_gamer]

Why should I have to pay MORE for a system with downgraded tech?

The Disc loader is a much better feature and worth the money I spend. Why would I pay more money for a top loader which is 2 gen old tech when I can pay less for Slim and have up to date tech?

So yes, the type of disc drive IS a feature to me because I am not going to spend more money on older tech when the option is available to me to pay less for current tech.

If you were in the market to buy a PS3, which would you buy? The PS3 Slim or the PS3 Super Slim when the PS3 super slim is more expensive and has older tech?

Please answer.

[PersonMan]

Tell me Lvl_up_gamer... How is a drive that sucks in your disc better than a drive without a motor?

If the motor breaks in your PS3 slim, you won't be able to insert a disc or take one out. How would you feel then?

I can't wait to start seeing mods with clear disc-drive doors with LED lights in it. That would be cool to see the game disc spinning in there.

[Lvl_up_gamer]

@ PersonMan

I see you chose not to answer the question.

I will answer yours.

IF I can >>PAY<< LESS for a SLIM that has a motorized disc drive then paying MORE for a console without one, then why would I NOT rather purchase the one that is cheaper and has better hardware? So of course I would rather have the motorized disc loader then a model without.

In the scenario that you gave sure, you are right, it would be better to have a top loader.

HOWEVER your scenario didn't seem to matter much to SONY when they first released the PHAT playstation. It also didn't matter to SONY when they released the SLIM. If it matter so much now, why didn't SONY go with a top loader to being with when the PHAT and SLIM were first released? So now all of a sudden having a top loader is a great idea? and priced HIGHER then the console that does have a motor in it?

YOU ARE PAYING MORE FOR LESS!!!

When the PS3 PHAT was announced and had a disc loader, everyone was stating how much more advanced the PS3 was then the "OLD TECH" disc tray that was in the 360. Now having 20 year old tech in the PS3 is suppose to be a good thing while charging the consumer more for it?

I mean really? Now all of a sudden a motorized disc loader is a bad idea because "IF" your PS3 breaks (which I would assume wouldn't since Sony's hardware are so reliable) then you would be stuck not being able to get your disc out...So how many times has that happened with all 70 million PS3's on the market? I am willing to bet not very often since SONY continued with the auto disc loader with the SLIM and there haven't been very much news on Disc's getting stuck in the system.

Since you are all so afraid to answer a simple question knowing that the answer would just solidify my comment, I will answer it for you.

You know very well that given the option to buy a SLIM vs. A Super Slim which would cost MORE and use older tech you would opt for the SLIM. It just makes sense as a consumer.

THIS is where the issue is and why SONY releasing this model is a bad idea. Consumers will ALWAYS buy the better sku ESPECIALLY if it's marked at a lower price.

I am SURE SONY knows this because it makes no sense for SONY to compete against itself when trying to save money. Expect the current slim model to be phased out leaving the Super Slim model the ONLY slim model on the market and remain at the current price as it is since that is where SONY will be making greater returns. A cheaper to make console sold at the price of a more expensive console.

[Jdoki]

And how about the physical power and eject buttons on the slim... I can't believe Sony replaced the touch sensitive buttons from the PS3 fat with such ancient technology... No sale!! /s!

[ceballos77mx]

Good luck trying to get your game out a 360 when the motor for the tray stops working.

[NoFanboyRequired]

Ceballos. Not hard to do when you can just take the faceplate off to reveal a little hole on the drive to stick a bobby pin or toothpick into to manually open the drive. Bet you havent thought of that, huh?

[rainslacker]

@Lvl_up_gamer

Your assuming that the older slims will still be available for the holidays and beyond. Stores will try to push these out the door before they are sent back to Sony, and then all you will see is the new SS.

Your also assuming that the average consumer, or even a large portion of them, cares about the front loader disc slot. If people are going in to buy a system now they probably don't keep up on tech, and likely won't even know or care about this. What they will see is that the new SS has a bigger hard drive, and comes bundled with a game, thus being a better value.

And no...we are not paying more for less. We are getting a fully functioning PS3, a bigger hard drive, and a bundled game. Whether those things make up for the difference in price is up to the consumer to decide, and not for you to decide for them.

[Lvl_up_gamer]

I have already stated that Sony will Phase out the Slim model leaving ONLY the Super Slim. Right now, with 2 systems on the market, only an uninformed consumer would buy a Super Slim over a Slim. The Slim is the better console at a cheaper price.

Yes you are getting a functioning PS3, but you are paying MORE for less HDD, no AUTO front loader with touch sensitive buttons. Instead you get a manual top loader. No bells, no whistles.

I also see that those who reply to me STILL won't answer a simple question. You reply with disagrees yet don't answer the question.

If you were in the market for a new PS3, which bundle would you buy?

320gb NHL13 bundle Slim - $299 http://www.ebgames.ca/ps3/c...

OR

250gb Uncharted 3 Super Slim Bundle - $269 http://www.ebgames.ca/ps3/c...

It's a $30 difference and you not only get 70gb MORE for the Slim model but you are also getting an AUTO Front Loader, touch sensitive buttons and a game worth $60 vs. a game worth $20 http://www.futureshop.ca/en...

If you REALLY think that you are getting s "FULLY" functional PS3 at the cost for a Super Slim model, then you are not a very cautious consumer and I am sure Sony thanks you for paying MORE for LESS.

I don't understand the mentality here. I AM SIMPLY POINTING OUT THAT YOU CAN SAVE MONEY AND HAVE THE BETTER FULLY FUNCTIONING PS3 SYSTEM.

I am just trying to save you money so you can tell your friends and family before they run out and uninformatively purchase a super slim instead of the better slim.

With all these disagrees, you would think I am bashing Sony. Sheesh.

[MrBeatdown]

"NO OTHER CONSOLE MAKER has EVER removed and downgraded their consoles with each new SKU."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

With that out of the way, since you are putting so much weight into N4G comments to prove your theory that everybody's gotta have a fancy disc drive, I'd gladly take a super slim over my current slim. I like the smaller size, and I don't mind a top loader. How my disc gets into a console doesn't really matter. Actually, being able to take a game out of the system without having to turn it on sounds convenient.

"Why should I have to pay MORE for a system with downgraded tech?"

Have to? Who has to? People can buy the old slim still. They're not hard to find. If a person wants the new slim, but not the bundle, they can wait until the $250 model that Sony already confirmed was coming arrives, or suck it up and suffer the agony of getting a great game, and a few other bonuses with their system for an extra $20. You've got three options.

The only people that are going to have a problem are those that put up a stink about not getting what they want, for what they want to pay, when they want, but I don't think your average person, who after six years still doesn't have a PS3, is going to be the most discerning customer, or have a cow choosing between spending $20 extra for a game, waiting a couple months, or just buying the old model.

You call it a ripoff, but I'd wager you'd have a real reason to be upset if that $600 60GB model only dropped $100-$200 in the six years you would have been waiting, like the competing consoles. I'll take that extra couple hundred dollars in savings over PS2 compatibility, some extra cable and card ports, and a fancy disc drive.

[rainslacker]

Fair enough. To answer your question, I'd get the $269 one since the other isn't available in the US. However I see your point.

That being said, these slim bundles will not be around for very long, probably be phased out after the new year completely. As to which is a better value to the consumer it's hard to say. If the bundled game isn't interesting to them then extra $30 doesn't mean much. Storage is even questionable as that may not matter to them either.

As I stated before those other options may not matter to the people buying it. Aside from people replacing their current console, the other consumers aren't likely to care about that tech your talking about. Other than that it does do what a PS3 should do, and that's play PS3 games. Which is better is subjective, as some people may just prefer the new model for whatever reason.

If I were in a position to tell my friends and family about which system to buy I would find out what they cared about, and not really worry about the tech, or lack thereof, involved. If they just wanted something to play PS3 games on then the cheaper option would be better. If they wanted something a bit more visually appealing and liked a bundled game, I'd tell them to get that.

Consumers aren't so dumb as to be blind to what they're buying. However all these options may not be available to them at time of purchase, and they may not care to look around. Does that mean Sony is banking on the uninformed consumer? No, it means they are updating their product line, and the current consumers have to decide what works best for them. If they don't like the price of the new products then they don't have to buy at all.

I'm sure they put a lot of thought into this strategy, and probably have bought up the points that your making. But for their long term they decided this was the best route. Whether or not they succeed in this, only time will tell.

[Knightofelemia]

I thought with a new design Sony would have dropped the price on the PS3 and make a great entry console for those who game on a cheaper budget and make a console that is around the $200 mark or make a console that will compete with a stripped down Xbox 360 arcade which is $200. I'm not a big fan of the new design I'll stick with the fatboy and the slim over the super slim. The build quality looks better on a slim and a fatboy.

[Jdoki]

Unfortunately Sony are struggling financially far too much to be able to do that. The Super Slim is all about lowering the production costs, so they make more money.

Not only are they saving on components and production, but they can transport more units per ship (smaller box size). It's all designed to help them return to profitability.

I assume Sony have done the calculations and figured out that the number of units sold at current price, outweighs the additional units they might sell at a lower price.

There are a few other factors as well... Sony haven't actually given an RRP, so we may see some cost cutting by the retailers. And is the Super Slim really more expensive? Or is it just because they are only selling it in bundles and installing a higher capacity HDD.

[PersonMan]

The PS3 Super Slim is NOT for people who already own a PS3. What will it take for people to understand that. Sony is simply cutting their production costs in order to make a profit (finally).

The Super Slim is NOT an upgraded model. It's the same PS3, but cheaper to manufacture. How hard is that to understand. People who are selling their current PS3 just to buy the Super Slim are idiots. What do you have to gain by doing that?

It's for first time PS3 buyers.

[GribbleGrunger]

At last a little common sense amongst all these wild and farcical comments. Bubble

[Ben_Grimm]

Why buy a Super slim and not just a reguler Slim for cheaper?

It has the bigger HDD sure but wasn't part of the appeal of the PS3 was to replace the HDD with your own and a probably cheaper version.

[rainslacker]

Because the regular slim will be pushed out of the market either during the holidays or before. Eventually the back stock will get sent back to Sony, and they'll either use them for repairs or ship them off to another territory. Eventually the SS will be the only model available new at retail.

[Hicken]

"It's not cheaper" even though it's giving you a larger hard drive and a $40 game for twenty bucks more than the previous baseline model. I'm wondering how many of you made it past elementary school math. Hmm, a 160GB for $249, or a 250GB with a $40 game for $269?

I actually like the redesign. Until I see one in person, I can't say if it looks "cheap" or not, but the style, itself, appeals to me. I like it better than the Slim, easily, not that I disliked it(though I wish it could have been glossy).

The system is a negative because there are SO MANY people out there willing to view it as such. To be honest, it wouldn't matter WHAT Sony did with the thing, there'd be complaints from the peanut gallery.

If it were cheaper: "Sony can't afford to put the price that low. They're not gonna make any money, and they're gonna fail."

If they added another game: "Sony only puts in games people already have, or they give up crap games. Nobody's gonna buy this bundle, and they're gonna fail."

If the design was different. "Sony doesn't know how to design consoles. All the PS3s look like crap, and this is the worst one yet. It's gonna fail."

If they bundled a Vita: "Sony must be crazy if they think somebody wants a Vita. Now we're gonna see a bunch of traded Vitas on the market. It won't make Sony any money, and the bundle will fail."

Now, I know that not EVERY article and not EVERY journalist has a thing against Sony, and I know "N4G isn't the world." But you'd figure a news aggregate site like this would be a pretty good gauge of how the internet, at least, feels about the various companies.

The internet's opinion?

Sony can do very little right, and even that right is wrong.

The amazing thing is that, while it's perfectly fine (apparently) for these people to attack Sony, calling those comments into question is NOT acceptable. Crazy, right?

Edit: I think there needs to be an Ignorance/Misinformation negative bubble.

[BrutallyBlunt]

Hicken writes:
"It's not cheaper" even though it's giving you a larger hard drive and a $40 game for twenty bucks more than the previous baseline model. I'm wondering how many of you made it past elementary school math. Hmm, a 160GB for $249, or a 250GB with a $40 game for $269?"

How odd, Hicken goes on the attack in a negative Sony topic. Just how personal does this guy take the daily news? Very personal as we can see.

Consumers expect things to drop in price. What they don't expect is a new system that is cheaper to make with none of the savings to be passed onto the consumer. Especially given this has never happened with the PS1 or the PS2. Those systems got more efficient while bringing down the cost now only to Sony but also to the consumer. The PSP Go tried to come out with a new design that was more limited (but smaller) and didn't save consumers money. It failed. This new system will not fail, simply because they are phasing out the older models making the choice limited. I don't expect this new model to give Sony a bump in hardware sales like the first Slim did. Then again Sony is looking for more cost measures right now than flooding the market.

All of your other comments show just how upset and personal you've taken criticisms over the years. Perhaps you'd be better off taking an extended leave from this place. Obviously it's getting to you.

Hicken also writes:
"I think there needs to be an Ignorance/Misinformation negative bubble."

No, what this place needs and is already available is its members to have the ability to not have to comment on EVERYTHING. There is also the ability not to feel the need to read every negative topic. Have some self-control.

[Ben_Grimm]

"Now, I know that not EVERY article and not EVERY journalist has a thing against Sony, and I know "N4G isn't the world.""

Yes, you are finally starting to realize this. Baby steps Hicken, baby steps.

"But you'd figure a news aggregate site like this would be a pretty good gauge of how the internet, at least, feels about the various companies."

Well if that's the case then Sony is a-ok and has nothing to worry about because judging from the comments here Sony will come out ahead and shut the haters up once and for all.

[carlocgc]

im just waiting for the VitaGo

[NYC_Gamer]

It's positive for Sony since the production cost is cheaper

[kma2k]

Come on people how can no one see the oportunity here. If sony releases now they can get the hard core pepole that have to "upgrade" then once wii u launches sony can drop the price of this new model to whatever price they need. If they launch it at a low price they dont have any room to lower it when they need to. I understand what there doing think about it people!

[YoungPlex]

I don't understand why this is even up for debate! The Super Slim is manufactured at a cheaper cost not for the benefit of the consumer, but to benefit Sony and the PlayStation brand by actually making money on the hardware. Sony has been selling PS3's at a loss way longer than they've been making a profit; isn't it about time that they actually start making money and turning the tide...?

Yes it would be super awesome to get a PS3 for $199.99, but whats the point if Sony keeps selling it at a loss and has keep laying off employees. The PlayStation brand is built for quality and their games should speak for themselves. After-all, the PlayStation brand is a video game company and needs every bit of money to keep producing high quality titles. I guarantee that almost everyone who's complaining already owns a PS3 and was looking to some type of upgrade for their current PS3. I on the other-hand still own an original 60gig-fat PS3 (upgraded 500gig-HDD), and am more than happy with it. Sure I had to manually repair it (YLOD, heat-sink overheat problem), but it's more than worth it!

[StreetsofRage]

The comments above me just prove that this is a smart move by Sony. They know that their faithful fans are suckers to pick this up. Just throw a sticker on it and they'll be like "OMG I WANT ONE!"