The PS3 Super Slim Puts Sony Back On Track

After 6 years of being out-of-touch, a refocused Sony starts to finally get it right.

Maybe the 360 pushed the development of the original PS3 into an early release, either way, the PS3 Phat was just too expensive.

[GribbleGrunger]

One thing I can never understand about the attitude towards the PS3 is this whole idea that they priced themselves out of the market. If we're going to look at it that way, then what does that say about a console that was cheaper and released 12 - 16 months earlier and now sits 1.8 million ahead?

Surely if you are going to say that the PS3 priced itself out of the market then the only conclusion you can draw from that is that the 360 has been an even bigger failure. I'm not 'personally' saying it is, but with this logic, there is no other conclusion

[PS-Analog]

£425 $600 for a console was extremely high. It's fair to say it stumbled out the blocks and the 360 was quickly eating up the market share. Sony would of liked to have had less price cuts but had to have price cuts and lose a lot of money so the PS3 wasn't a complete failure and get left in the Xbox 360s dust.

The average gamer wouldnt pay more than about £300/$400 for a console so it was priced way to high and relied on brand name to sell.

The slim and especially the super slim has put sony back on track.

[MaxXAttaxX]

When the PS3 launched, the 360 had about 8 million units sold already from the year head-start.

If both consoles sold equally, then that 8 million gap would remain the same.
If the 360 sold more/faster than PS3, then that 8 million gap would be much bigger.

But the fact that the PS3 managed to cut that 8 millioin down to less than 2 mil, means it has sold more and faster than 360 within the same time.

And if they both had been released at the same time, the PS3 would be ahead by about 7 million.
___

A price drop wasn't exactly needed right now since the PS3 is still selling well.
What Sony needed to do is make more profit from the PS3. And that's what they're doing with the Super Slim.

[PS-Analog]

How did both companies do financially? Sales is a factor but its a little more complex than just sales

[BitbyDeath]

@DK286K, you forget that a lot of people bought a 360 cause there was nothing else on the market.

I don't think we can draw an accurate conclusion of sales due to this.

[BattleAxe]

"After 6 years of being out-of-touch, a refocused Sony starts to finally get it right"

Is this dude f**k'n serious? LMFAO

[Tallpaul77]

1000 bucks at launch in Australia :O

[skrug]

@DK286K

I believe the PS3 would have been the same price. It was suppose to launch spring of 2006, but shortages of the laser diode for the blu-ray pushed the release date back until winter

[PS-Analog]

To clarify, the article isn't about hardware sales or software because Sony have produced great games. It's more about the cost of hatdware and how the exchange rate hit sonys profits. The super slim in some ways gives them a fresh start with a console that gives them profit and room in the future to price cut when they need.its taken them til now to get themselves into such a great position.

We in no way are talking about the quality of software hence we dont talk about software in the article and no we also don't call the ps3 a failure

[mewhy32]

I just don't understand why someone would buy a new slim if they already have a perfectly working old slim????? A fool and their money are soon parted.

[ajax17]

@DK286K "If PS3 had launched a year earlier, it would have certainly cost more than $499-$599."

Counter point: The 360's numbers wouldn't be as high either if it wasn't for the RRoD and people having to repurchase.

[shutUpAndTakeMyMoney]

But I am sure everyone wants ps3 to had launch $100 - 200 cheaper but the same power right?

[BISHOP-BRASIL]

@mewhy32

The people trading in their perfectly working Slim to get a super Slim are the same people who get a new Iphone every other year or the people who get a new car every year... Of course they don't need, chances are they know they don't need it, but as you said, a fool and their money.

But most people aren't going to do that. Sure, some current PS3 owner may get one for luxury of having the newer model, but I believe most current owners getting a new Super Slim are either getting an extra PS3 or to replace a Slim/Fat that's been giving signs of dieing anytime.

The rest of the people are just those who didn't had a PS3 earlier.

And for people discussing price, it will fall soon... The new super slim is bundled with some games and a month of PS+, priced at 270USD, above the current slim stand alone priced at 250USD. That wouldn't exactly be classified as keeping the price and lowering the costs to be profitable, but more likely to raising the price... So if that's to happen, the stand-alone price would be 250, hard to believe when the bundle costs only 20 more coming with 2 games and one month od PS+, so I'd say expect a little less than 250USD for the super slim stand alone package.

Also every other PS3 bundle before was either priced the same as the stand alone or around 50USD above, so expect the stand alone super slim to go down as much as 50 bucks when released, or 220USD (I believe they're saving it for next month, so to compete with WiiU and take advantage of holidays shopping).

Sony just doesn't have a track record of holding much profit in consoles sales, they always priced their consoles as low as possible (although I don't know if actually loosing money per unit sold before this gen) so they could sell more games (and had always profitted way more like this).

[ChunkyLover53]

You are looking at it all wrong. From a standpoint of what each console maker sold last generation to this generation, Microsoft and Nintendo increased their sales, Sony was the only company to go in the other direction.

Sony did a great job of catering to every type of gamer with the PS1/PS2. The price of the PS3 was too steep for the casual gamer or the family oriented gamer. Since those types of gamer's have no idea of brand loyalty, they didn't follow blindly to the expensive PS3. This is something Sony didn't really plan for, they thought they had a hold on 100+ million consumers, sort of like what Apple does now.

The family and casual gamer went to Nintendo instead, because they didn't really care about fancy tech, they wanted to have fun. The Wii offered something new and that is why they won this generation. Was the PS3 worth the initial launch price? in terms of tech it was, but realistically it didn't have much in the way of games for the first year or two to justify its purchase.

At the end of the cycle they did a good job with it, but I'm afraid there late attempt to garner a market that Nintendo has had all generation probably wont pay off.

[nukeitall]

Exactly!

Sony went from dominating to last place!

Imagine MS with essentially a monopoly in Operating System went to last place in one generation. There aren't many business cases of that happening in general.

Late in this console cycle, Sony went for market share while MS went for profitability. That is clear when you look at the pricing.

[miyamoto]

" The family and casual gamer went to Nintendo instead, because they didn't really care about fancy tech, they wanted to have fun. The Wii offered something new and that is why they won this generation."

I disagree with that statement, bro.

People bought the Nintendo Wii
1) because it is cheap in a time where the world in in economic recession &
2) they cared about that "fancy tech" the Wii Remote technology & motion gaming (in video games you can not separate technology & gameplay they are integral to each other)
3) and the promise of the Wii as a "fitness machine" to consumers.

Unit sales alone is not the only important criteria for judging who won & who lost over all.

We'll talk about sales or "best selling" consoles when they stop selling Wiis, PS3 & 360, shall we. Not just because the 360 sold 8 million units ahead the Wii & PS3 automatically made it the winner. There is a time element that must be considered.
Don't jump into conclusions.

" At the end of the cycle they did a good job with it, but I'm afraid there late attempt to garner a market that Nintendo has had all generation probably wont pay off."

What market? the Kidtendos? Dream on.
Where did you learn that?
No matter what happens no one can arse Sony to care for Nintendo's market. They would rather go bankrupt than stoop down that level.

Why don't you try? I hope you succeed.

They have aimed for the big brother entertainment since the original PlayStation in 1994 & there is no changing that.

It took so many years of hard work for Sony to remove & break down that notion (that Nintendo established) that videogames are children's play thing then transformed it into a full blown form of not only young but also adult entertainment. and now your are saying Sony wants to go kiddie, that is a lot of nonsense.

If Nintendo really won this generation of gaming convincingly, they should have won the hearts of the millions of gamers who play the HD consoles who is greatly out numbers Wii's installed base.

Infact Nintendo lost many core gamers to Sony & Microsoft when they went for the casual market and now Nintendo is the one who is trying to convince their lost market back with the Wii U.
We'll see if that pays off...

[Kurt Russell]

^ I'm laughing at this guy ^

As someone who has games since Pong I can safely say you are chatting shit son.

[greenpowerz]

MSFT's only goal this gen was to help 3rd party developers flourish adopting what MSFT thought helped PS2 become the go to platform due to dominating market and mindshare.

MSFT beat Sony's brand recognition and established it's own, beyond novelty and nostalgia with MSFT creating a *setting the standard reputation*

The only thing the PS3 super slim will do is help stop the bleeding from Sony.

You are right It's like some written off competitor reversing Apple's market and mindshare in less than two generations of hardware.

And why no real Wii factor in this discussion?

[Jockamo]

Sony was coming off of the most successful console in history, the PS2. They wanted to maintain that dominance by increasing the risks. They completely overshot with the price point so instead of riding the momentum of their brand name recognition, they alienated a huge portion of their demographic. It was just too much for the normal consumer to handle. Instead they went to the 360 or PC, and some even went to the Wii. Loyalists stayed, but don't deny that a high percentage of ex-PS2 players went to the 360 than Xbox owners to the PS3. Although the slim is a nice addition, again the price point is ridiculous when you can just get the latest thing, the WiiU. Again, loyalists to Sony will stay. If you wanna see a blind trust in name recognition, just take a look at the iPhone. relatively same price point year over year with a much more loyal following.

[elpresador]

@axlestone Really dude? Sony would rather go bankrupt then "stoop"to Nntendo? I amguessing you were under a rock 2 christmases ago when they released the MOVE.

[cee773]

@DK286K

the 40gb ps3 launched a year after ps3 launch not 8 months later maybe in europe and even then it was still 100 and 200 more than the 360

sony just dropped the ball on ps3's manufacturing the moral of this story is he who launches last should add more ram to the system they cut the ps3 specs it was first rumored to have a gig of ram but sony cut it which even upset kojima because he has to dumb down mgs4 a little bit it ps3 had atleast lil more ram like 256mb more or hell 128mb there would be no debate whatsoever live only wins because of party chat features when it comes ps3 should have never had 4 usb ports or memory card reader it just needed to usb ports hell even one ill do lol and add extra ram with the savings from usb ports and memory card reader

[jerethdagryphon]

right dont know if youve ever been inside a phat ps3 but those touch buttons are very simple and i doubt there expensive to buy in bulk

usb ports pennies littlery to add 2-4 costs next to nothing as a single chip can handle 4 memory card reader mayby 10£ retail.

those luxuries are laughable in cost

[princejb134]

ps3 was way to expensive
i should know i bought it a year later when it was priced at $500

even though i dont regret getting my ps3 i love the phat but thats something i would never do again since it really hurt my pockets

next gen i would not pay more than $350 for a console

[dark-hollow]

its pretty amazing how much they sold in it first years even with the high price tag, you have to admit, if the ps3 costed as much as a 360 or less back then, microsoft wouldnt have a chance this gen.

i think its safe to assume that most 360 owners were ps2 owners who bought the 360 instead because the ps3 at launch was expensive and didnt offer that library to justify the price (talking about prior 2008, after that they have done a tremendous job with their library) that, and the most valuable ps third party exclusives went to the 360 like FFXIII, RE5, DMC 4 and etc.

sony lost market share, and ms got more. so no, outselling the most famous, best selling brand at that time even by one million or so is by no means a "failure"

do you realize how big the ps1/2 were? they totally ANNIHILATED the competition, so outselling their successor is quite the feat.

[JamieL]

I agree with you. I never even considered the 360 until I heard $599.00 usd. I got a 360 that weekend. It was only $100 less, but it was enough to get me to wait. I'm glad it happen though, because I've really enjoyed my 360, and if it wasn't for the arrogant attitude Sony had at the start of this gen(that they learned from and came back stronger than ever) I would have missed out on the 360 all together, probably. I like games though, and as soon as I could own all platforms I did.

[GribbleGrunger]

2006: 1.5 million
2007: 8 million
2008: 10 million
2009: 13 million
2010: 14 million
2011: 14 million

Yep, this new slim is sure gonna turn it round for Sony. Now how about we stop this myth right here, right now.

[Boody-Bandit]

^Debate is over. Article is just more nonsense. Thanks for clarifying GribbleGrunger

If 2006 were 2011 this article would hold water. If I had wings I could fly. But both are more realistic an option than this article making sense. It doesn't. Just another LOOK @ me nonsensical rambling of someone that knows not which they speak. Yes I'm looking at you gamingcapacity

[miyamoto]

Its really a very hard thing to be a defending champion.
You have so many challengers.
Many want to beat you down.
No console manufacturer has ever managed to make a three feat grand slam for home consoles.
Nintendo was a contender with NES & SNES until Sony stopped them.
Now the PlayStation team is this close to achieving this with PS3 but Ninty & M$ are hell bent to stop them.
Now that software piracy, which greatly influenced hardware sales in the past is out of the equation for Sony,will PlayStation still achieve that grand slam?

[Anon1974]

People like to look at the PS3 sales and say "Oooh. What a disappointment. The PS2 sold so much better. The PS3 must suck."

What they forget is that, like the Wii, price was a major factor with the PS2. You can't tell me that the PS2 dropping below $200 early wasn't a major reason for it's success. And the PS2 wasn't competing during the worst economic situation in a generation. The PS3 has received it's share of price cuts as we know but has yet to see a price cut below the magic $200 marker. The PS2 saw that within 3 years.

PS2 Sales as of March 31 each year
00: 1.4 million
01: 9.2 million
02: 18 million <-- Price drops $100 to $199
03: 22.5 million <-- Price drops to $179
04: 20 million <-- Price drops to $149
05: 16 million
06: 16 million <-- Price drops to $129
07: 14 million <-- PS3 now on market
08: 13.7 million
09: 7.9 million

When the PS2 was six years old, it was already selling under $149 and was selling 16 million a year. The PS3 is moving 14 million a year and hasn't even broke the $200 mark in price, all while being the most expensive console on the market and even in 2012 when the competition is seeing sales drop by almost half for the first 6 months of the year, PS3 sales have been down but only slightly.

Kinda offers a bit of perspective, doesn't it?

[GribbleGrunger]

nice comparison there, darkride66. I think we're going to see those prices pretty soon for the PS3. Not this Christmas because many will buy it anyway, but certainly next year with the AAA titles to help drive those sales. People think it's out of the question for the PS3 to emulate the PS2, but they overlook the fact that the PS3 will be on the market 'longer' than the PS2 (as the PS2 has been on the market longer than the PS1)

[XabiDaChosenOne]

LOL Damn! GribbleGrunger and Darkride drove the kiddies to school personally today lol. Don't forget your lunch children!

[Oner]

Excellent posts/factual info Gribble & Darkride.

[jerethdagryphon]

is that ps3 sales per year

[Horny]

@Dk286k

Ps3 was still 500$ for 60gig model a year after release And the 20 gig was 400. When the 40 gig came out that is when the sales started to pick up. They sold around 15-20k by then.

[Jazz4108]

What you seem to forget is sony had all the momentun going into this gen. The xbox was deemed a failure and sony is the onw who ended up loosing a lot of business to the 360 so thats why its deemed a failure.

[AlucardFury]

No Gribble, the 360 is not a failure, far from it. You see the first Xbox sold 25 million while PS2 crushed it with over 120 million. The 360 is approaching 70 million units. Even if you subtract all the RRODs the 360 has doubled what its predecessor did. Meanwhile the PS3 is a few million behind 70 mills, a little bit over half of what PS2. So who is the bigger failure if you can call it that?

[moparful99]

There are 3 consoles competing in the same market space. Nobody failed this generation not even sony.. They still managaed to sell over 60 million.. It just shows there is parity in the gaming market now.. The fanbases are split.. Nothing more..

[AlucardFury]

They were 3 consoles when PS2 achieved the numbers I mentioned so I don't see your point. The fact is being first did wonders for MS even though they launched a faulty system. People were ready for soemthing new and went ahead and bought a 360. Its pointless for the PS3 surpass the 360 after six years.

[insomnium2]

"Its pointless for the PS3 surpass the 360 after six years."

Ofcourse it is. There I agreed with you so now you can sleep better right?

[AlucardFury]

Ummm, I don't lose sleep for anything gaming related..... What do I care if you want to agree with me or not? I'm actually being objective here. I'm not a fanboy to any particular company because I'm just a big $$$ sign to them, so screw'em. I'm just being objective here whether the people here want to believe or not.

[showtimefolks]

from what i read with ps3 super slim they will be making a profit and that's great for sony. Something that launched at $599 has outsold the xbox360 by a big number about 6-7 million to be exact and people consider it a failure.

Right now ps3 nor xbox360 needs a price cut because both are doing just fine and both companies can cut the price anytime if wii-u is kicking their butts which won't happen. Both systems have a huge Library of games and many parents will buy xbopx360 or ps3 for holidays because they can get a lot more bang for their buck. Not against nintendo but the game library has to be much bigger and over time it will be.

ps3 has been really successful but many blind fanboys are just hating on it because they can. IF xbox360 is considered to be a success than ps3 is a bigger success because it has outsold the xbox360 since launch.

give credit where credit is due

wii sold well when no one expected it
original xbox came to late into last gen
xbox360 has been a pleasant surprise but the way MS has focused on kinect and casual market has me really disappointed

people expected ps3 to do what ps2 did sales wise and that's just unrealistic. Not many systems in history of gaming will end up selling 150 million units. But overall life time sales of ps3 should be over 100 million. And that's amazing to have 3 straight home console sell over 100 million units if and when ps3 does cross that number

don't hate appreciate

[Edward75]

It's not a failure? people need to stop focusing on console sales. Look at profit. Look at how much trouble Sony is in (this from a common stock holder).

The biggest reason isn't sales, or even profit. Here is the big reason why it's not close to the money/ success .

LESS MARKET SHARE THEN PREVIOUS CONSOLE.

When you are number 1by as a big a margin as Sony was last gen, then lose sooooo much ground that is considered a failure.

Over confidence , bad choices, bad leadership. That is why it's a failure. Not the games, but less people playing them. Not the console, but LESS people thinking it is the best.

[insomnium2]

Ummm and the economic crisis sure has NOTHING to do with any of this right edward?

[showtimefolks]

Edward75

Well from what I have read xbox360 hasn't been profitable either till just now, xblive is a different story since ts a digital service.

I am sure dollar going way down while yen climbing doesn't have anything to do with it? Market share really wii kicked ass so what now people expect wiiu to sell 90 plus million too?

Sony has made crappy moves I agree and they been way over confidence and very arrogant but over the last 1-2 years I feel like they are trying to get their acts together and now with this slim beng profitable I am sure they will make good money from this

[DOMination-]

Its all about market share. MS doubled their install base and Sony lost half of theirs.

[Aceman18]

if people thought $600 was too much, then what do they say about the 3D0, and Neo Geo launching at $700 each back in the day?

also out of the three consoles that launched at the $600+ which is the only system of the three to still be selling?

i'd say releasing great quality games in a variety of genres was getting it right all along.

[JamieL]

They both say "I have sh%# for sales, no body bought me!!!", I like the PS3, but I thought it was too much at launch. I'll say again Sony’s attitude is the ONLY reason I bought an Xbox 360. It was worth it as far as what you got, but just not worth dropping that much at one time as far as I was concerned.

[jerethdagryphon]

saturn launched at an for then very high US$399

[elpresador]

I bought a 3DO but not at the new $699, I paid I think $499. Sad it was not supported cause that was an awesome console.

[otherZinc]

People continue to make excuses for the PS3.

Super Slim is over priced with 2 usb ports & no backwards compatibility. A cheaply made system & it costs the same as a more durable machine. Whatever, PS3 is in trouble this holiday season.

Whats going to kill the PS3 more is those 2 weak games for the Holiday Season: PS3 All Stars & LBP Cart Racing.

PS3 will get destroyed this holiday season.

[KingMe42]

I can't see why? Since a new tech on market will sell to those who like shiny things and since xbox doesn't really have much to offer on ether side. Well if they do lose this holiday they will make up for the next years start up.

[Raoh]

@Gribble

It should also be taken into consideration a gamers (complainers) economic status and age.

Age because of what one wants. College and younger may have just wanted a pure gaming console like an NES. An older gamer may have a house/apartment, expenses and already owned an hdtv with hdmi ports.

I thought the ps3 was about $100 too much for me, but I was still playing socom/ffxi on the ps2 along with a huge library of ps2 games.

PS3 ($499 when I bought it) had an hdmi port (which the 360 did not have) for my hdtv.

Built in wifi (which the 360 did not have) to eliminate network cables, I have a home where I don't want to run wires like I did in the early ps2.

Built in HD media player, blu ray (which the 360 did not have, you had to buy an external attachment, more devices to your living room)

BC via full ps2 emotion chip (which the 360 did not have, emulation but only with the use of a hard drive, sorry arcade model owners).

Bluetooth, using you own devices (which the 360 did not have).

A browser (which the 360 did not have) to access and many sites like youtube way before the 360 got its first media app.

linux (which the 360 did not have).

Ability to swap out your own hard drive of any size with no limitation (which the 360 did not have)

Free online (which the 360 did not have) If you add the life of ones 360 and add the yearly cost of live vs the ps3. The debate isn't that xbox live is better than psn, its that pc gamers told ms to go pizz off and ms did and dropped the fee. Console gamers could had done the same.

Memory card slots. If you also had a camera and took lots of pictures. (which the 360 did not have) Important because Sony was thinking about the living room before the xbox. Take your memory card out of your camera/video and put in your ps3 to display on your tv.

A video camera for 6 person video chat and motion gaming (which the 360 did not have).

sixaxis for motion gaming (which the 360 did not have but will add to kinect next gen I promise you. shift controller to the left, action performed, just like the wiiU pad has gyro motion for zombiU, only now its acceptable)

high def audio (which the 360 did not have)

Free video editing software for making your own movies.

Free photo album software etc etc etc etc...

All in one device so its not an eyesore in your living room (those of us who take pride in our living rooms/man caves find this important)

All those features and people expected the 360 and ps3 to be evenly priced?

I question the common sense of most people that complained about the ps3 price for the wrong reasons. One could complain that they could not afford it or see the value (hint, ms added most of the features people hated the ps3 for) or complain that it was over priced for doing exactly the same thing the 360 did, which it did not.

As for how well they dit sales wise. Sony did not have to pay for an extended warranty, R&D for a new motherboard every year to combat rrod, 50 million for access to grand theft auto, more millions including going against its own online policy to allow ffxi on the 360 and get the ff series, 500 million to promote kinect (ms's second camera while sony is still on its first current gen motion camera [current gen, sony already entered motion gaming last gen])

I think 360 owners had every right to be happy with their purchase but their hate for the ps3 was bullcrap and pure fanboy hate.

[Christopher]

Just two items, not that I'm disagreeing with you as a whole.

***Free video editing software for making your own movies.

Free photo album software etc etc etc etc... ***

Neither of those existed at the start of the PS3 lifetime. They came about two years ago, IIRC. But, they weren't there to start with, which is what your response seems to be tailored towards.

The rest of what you said I'd mostly agree with, though. I would amend it to say this, though:

I think 360 and PS3 owners have every right to be happy with their purchase, but their hate for another console is bullcrap and pure fanboy hate.

[Knight_Crawler]

@GribbleGinger - No one was saying that they PS3 was not worth the price becuase the tech that it had inside was more than worth it at the time - hardcore PS2 gamers were complaining becuase they could not afford a $600 console.

Can you imagine being a diehard Sony fan and playing awesome games on the PS2 only for Sony to bring out the PS3 and tell you to get two jobs to afford one.

I never bought an original Xbox and had no plans in purchasing the 360 but as a kid who relied on an allowance on $25 per month, SOny left me no other alternative but to purchase a 360...sure I could have just waited but seeing all my friends talkingn about how awesome the next gen was,I just had to jump in.

I know Sony could not sell the PS3 at a cheaper price becuase they were already selling at a loss but they should have worked out something for those kids who dont work and played the PS2...they could have thought ahead and release a model like this but the same size as the fat PS3 and sell it for $450

[MostJadedGamer]

What it says is that console had the worse hardware problems ever, and scared a lot of people, and forced a lot of people to switch to the PS3.

Heck I bought a 360 at launch, but after all the hardware problems I had, and after 2 broken systems I decided enough was enough, and switched to the PS3. The 360's crappy hardware ended up being the PS3's killer app for me.

[neogeo]

They did price PS3 way out of the market. Wall street expected PS3 to be way over 100+ million a year ago. PS3 sales are an epic fail.

PS3 was expected to destroy 360 so bad it would leave MS would be dead in the water and bleeding money.

[majiebeast]

Sony been on track with the ps3 since metal gear solid 4 launched in Q2 2008.

[srcBFMVBMTH]

Pretty much, 2008 was just the beginning of a barrage of awesomeness.

The amount of core AAA exclusives may have taken a slight hiccup this year. But 2013 is definitely in the overkill department in terms of "making up for it".

With balls to the wall releases like God of War: Ascension, Yakuza 5, Sly Cooper 4, and some new IP's like The Last Of Us, Beyond: Two Souls, The Last Guardian (Hopefully), and Ni No Kuni next year. 2013 is looking to be another great year.

Hopefully late 2013/ early 2014 is when we'll see next gen though.

[Clarence]

6 yrs of being out of touch? I stopped reading after that statement.
Bluray
Built in wifi
Web browsing
A console that doesn't scratch my discs
Upgradable harddrive
Free online service
Yep really out of touch.

[rezzah]

Yea that's a great example of a first generation console =p

People forget/ignored why the PS3 was always so costly, it had the newest tech of all current gen consoles.

If memory serves me right, Sony would have had to sell the PS3 for 800 at launch to make a profit. I know they mostly make profit off games and accessories, but for a console to make a profit at the price of 800 is crazy. Again it just shows that sony likes using new tech in their systems. Makes you wonder what they will do for PS4.

[AIndoria]

The problem was, Blu-Ray was a new technology when PS3 was released. Sony realised that and hence priced it higher only to get kicked in the face.

Blu-Ray players alone cost that much back then, to be honest. But it's all fine now. We have exclusives and we have PlayStation plus. It's all I need from this generation at the moment.

[moparful99]

Dont forget the first console with an hdmi port either

[josephayal]

This is really bad for Nintendo

[Belking]

i think they may be a little too late. Next gen is just around the corner. At this point it really doesn't matter what they do with PS3. Nintendo is getting ready to launch their next console and MS will follow next with sony releasing in 2014. I really don't think Nintendo or MS is too concerned with PS3 sales right now.

[CPTN MITCHELL]

Where do u get your info? Can u show proof that's the way is going to happend that way.

[Belking]

We all know Sony isn't going to launch next year and even if MS doesn't they will still launch before sony. There is no evidence whatsoever of Sony launching next year. As a matter of fact, their actions show they they are far from launching PS4. New hardware for PS3, PS vita is still trying to get a foothold, and still creating new IP's for PS3. I see no sign of a ps4 launch next year. I'm guessing they will launch in 2014 or later. They just can't afford to do it right now. They are still losing money on Vita and PS3 hasn't been a huge profit for them so far.

[KingMe42]

So what yoru saying is PS3 will still hold a foot over the other 2 in next gen?

See the thing is in order for M$ to surpas Sony next gen they have to amp up their consoles over the the PS3 stats, which as we can see they are making it hard. If in any way the next M$ matches but doesn't surpass PS3 it will probably be deemed a failure. That and we all know Sony likes the new and shiny tech of the time so even if the next xbox is released the PS4 will try to surpass it wih tech just like it did this gen.

tl:dr
I don't think Sony will release any time soon but i doubt M$ will release any sooner since they can't afford to have their tech inferiors to Sony again.

[AngelicIceDiamond]

Back On track? Where were they headed when they were off the track "befroe" the slim I guess.

[CPTN MITCHELL]

Ms also gave away a lot of free Xbox thru m dew with does free xbox360 every hr with The codes from The caps also rrod just saying

[KingMe42]

He meant dumb as in your grammar is bad (I think english is not your first language) and we cant understand what you are saying.

[california]

The PS3 was never the problem. The PS3 is fine and beloved. Products that don't sell and bad investments are the problem. It is like asking Superman to save a ton of kryptonite. The PS3 is overworked. It is now being asked to carry on it's back: blu ray, vita bundles, gaikai, move and wonderbook.

[Hicken]

Yup, quality journalism right here... wait, where did it go?

[MadMen]

nope

[thehitman]

The problem Sony had at the start wasnt really the price point it was the lack of availability. It was 600 dollars at start but I couldnt even find a PS3 until a week after christmas since launch and thats calling every major store in my area every day. Coupled with the bad press of it having "no games" at launch gave it a bad start with tight competition. The ps3 was easily worth every penny at launch and if i had to buy it again I would do it again same price no complaints. In fact I probably saved hundreds of dollars then buying a 360 with the pay2play online, battery costs for controllers. Not to mention at the start it didnt have wifi which was costly and really small HDD (unless u got an elite which was priced near the ps3 range w/o a blu-ray player) that couldnt be upgraded and headache of replacing the inevitable RRoD.

[NoSuchUserName]

Whenever there's an article about the how expensive the launch model was it always misses the bigger picture. At the time, there was a war between the Blu-Ray and the HD-DVD camp. Sony used the PS3 to push the Blu-Ray format at the expense of revenue for and initial adoption of the PS3. Regarding the format war however, "the rest is history"...

[vork77]

if this is getting back on it tracks can i play Ps2 games on it?

[chukamachine]

I'm actually starting to think, it's not the games that 360 owners want so much. It's the frontend software.

Alot of people do not like xmb. But love live.

I've seen people do custom xmb's and they look awesome.

I don't care what SONY said, they should have had cross-chat, voice messaging. DAY1. and game lobby.

Hopefully PS4 will address these issues.

[Thepcz]

and its SKU blitz on the market proves it. it proves sony doesn't know what the market wants, and doesnt have the confidence to put out 1 product, so instead saturates the market with dozens of skus.

the superslim doesn't put anything right. its still too expensive. its more expensive than the ps3 slim, which is ridiculous. the whole idea of putting out a new model should be to make the product more appealing. but with that price tag, they have shot themselves in the foot.

plus its a completely pointless addition to the ps3 catalogue of skus. the slim was perfectly adequate. it only shows sonys lack of belief in the product it has on the shelf already.

with wiiu looming, and at the price it will launch at, superslim only shows how much of a rip off it really is. it doesnt represent value at all. only sonys greed this generation.

[Nexy]

I don't get how this new Super Slim puts Sony back on track.

If it was considerably cheaper this claim could hold some water. But it's got the same pricing and it seems to be made of cheaper materials.

Anyway, this new Slim is the ugliest console I've ever seen. If my Slim breaks down I'm going to repair it at all costs and not buy the new Super Slim.

[iHeartHelloKitty]

Is anyone more than a few years old? When PS3 came out Blu ray DVD players costed 600$ the cheapest.

[VTKC]

I saw this version of playstation online priced at £184.85
Below that was the previous slim version 320Gb and Tekken 6 priced at £184.85
I am wondering why would anyone buy this new version (which is 12GB) at this price when you can get the previous version (which has 320GB) at the same price.

[MultiConsoleGamer]

No. It's only a poorly designed hardware revision. IMO, the disc tray is a deal breaker. They also raised the price. That was a very bad idea.

Now if this thing sells enough to give Sony their first profitable quarter in 5 years, then we can say that Sony is back on track. Until then, recent layoffs and poor financial reports prove they are still on the same old course.

[violents]

why is the disc tray a deal breaker? Is the disc getting sucked in really that important? Honestly i think they should have gone with a top loader in the first place just to cut costs so they wouldnt have launched at 600 dollars. I bought one anyway but still there was a lot of the tech in it was just fluff to look impressive.

And its only like 20 bucks more expensive and you get a massive hdd and a couple free games and a month of ps+ for free. Sounds like its worth an extra twenty to me.

[boybato]

I agree with the disc tray however i think the reason why sony sells the "super slim" at full if not at a higher price is so that they would be able to cut down its price after the holidays.... around the same time the Wiiu's sales plateaus.

[violents]

I think they are just trying to get as much as they can out of it for the holidays and still be under cutting a new wii u. They are going for the people that are penny pinching for the holiday. I mean most parents that go to buy a kid a new video game system for the holiday are going to go see a product that has more value for the dollar they are spending. The ps3 has more extras and a huge game library at this point and a new super slim comes with bunch of free stuff.

New Wii U 300
New SSPS3 270

[boybato]

@steverhude

also wonderbook i believe would be out for the holidays.

[Cam977]

I might replace my old fatty with the new, ripped PS3. You won't see betterwashboard-abs anywhere else other than on the new ps3!

[violents]

I think the cell processor and Blu ray are the real reasons it launched at such a high price point. Both were new technologies and the tech was very expensive and then the cell was so different that no one knew how to program for it so the game library was pathetic for a year or two.

It's funny that people always bring up sales to say who's the best. No one ever thinks about the fact that consoles fail and people have to repurchase a new one.

How many of the xbox sales are due to the 72%failure rate of the launch model

How many ps3 sales are due to the Fat versions YLOD?

I honestly dont know how those effect the numbers but would be very curious to know how many of the millions of units sold by each company are to replace broken units. I think that should be taken into account when people get into arguments like this. I think im commenting more on the comments of this article than the article but it's bothering me so i asked.

[FFXI101]

I trade in my slim one for the new "Super Slim" one last night and I love it!

[birdykilla]

Microsoft cut off support of the OG Xbox the day the 360 came out. The 360's launch line-up was god awful and if it wasn't for the major leap in graphics that everyone saw it would have sold way less. To get those graphics you would need a thousand dollar HDTV. (at the time) Then on top of that the damn thing doesn't even work for more than a year then it RROD. Also they charge you to unlock the multiplayer part of any game forcing you to want to get your money worth and play more multiplayer.

First we get cut off - OG XBOX
Second we get the crappiest launch line-up ever! - 360
Third we get sold quality graphics - w/HDTV at $1274
Fourth we get RROD every year - useless HDTV for 3 weeks!
Fifth we get charged for online gameplay - Xbox Live

Yet you idiots eat it up like it spinach or something! lol PS3/PC FTW

[sdplisken]

i need to get a terabyte hdd for my slim dammit

[IWentBrokeForGaming]

Nooooo it was supposed to be doomed!...