Sony finally gets official with 80GB PS3 availability
Filed under: Gaming
Relevant Posts
- PS3 unable to hold its own against Wii, Xbox 360 this holiday season (11 days ago - 155 Comments)
- PlayStation 3 used to hack SSL, Xbox used to play Boogie Bunnies (10 days ago - 124 Comments)
- Nintendo sold 1.7 million Wiis last week? (16 days ago - 134 Comments)
- Microsoft exec predicts Sony will be forced to cut PS3 prices (2 days ago - 102 Comments)
- PS3 teardown: 30% fewer parts, $300 cheaper (17 days ago - 124 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
joseraulnova @ Aug 6th 2007 6:22PM
im waiting for a non bundled 80 GB with rumble and headset included... id pay 600 for that
oGMo @ Aug 6th 2007 7:24PM
You shouldn't. I got a headset off woot.com for like $15. Decent little motorola bluetooth dealybob. PS3 saw it like a charm. Pick up a 60GB for $500 and pay the $15 for a headset. If you plan on playing Motorstorm though, the bundle is a decent deal; $1/GB extra. Not bad for 2.5" drives I think.
dklicker @ Aug 6th 2007 6:29PM
What's the extra 20GB's for? What are you going to put on it?
Ravi @ Aug 6th 2007 7:29PM
I guess one could use the space for media (HD movies/music/photos) or games (demos or full games [warhawk, littlebigplanet,etc]), or Linux.
You can also swap out the HDD if you want.
jamma @ Aug 6th 2007 8:33PM
The extra 20GB is a way of making it sound like sony are upping the spec of the PS3 when they just cutting costs.For example they have taken out the emotion engine for the 80gig and it will use emulation like the European versions do. so it all depends on whether people want more memory or proper backwards compatibility
DJBro @ Aug 6th 2007 6:45PM
100 dollars more, but includes motorstorm... so, you basically get 20GB more for 40 bucks, plus a crippled PS3 with software emulation.
Rob @ Aug 6th 2007 6:46PM
Ok, so you get an additional 20gigs and a video game. Hmmmm. That doesn't sound like much of a deal. Considering that you can always add an 250gig external hdd for around $75. I already have the 60gig when the price went down to $499. Actually, mine cost $457 through some deal at Amazon. Never-the-less, what's the point here?
Ok, people at Sony, let's cut the nonsense and hear me out here:
1) Get a unit with all the specs/features of the 60gig and make it a 40gig, (it seems like Sony likes to price 20gigs at around $50)
2) remove the Blu-Ray movie playback feature and make it a $50 license, activated via your website (if you can find a cheaper Blu-Ray player than that, let me know)(but I'm quite sure someone is going to take the time to crack it though, but still)
3) price it at $350.
If that doesn't kick off sales, I don't know what else would. I think that unless Sony gets more aggressive with their pricing, they're fucked. I only buy PS2 games because I don't want to spend over $20 on each game. That's the most I want to spend on games, and I'm happy with it. I didn't get a PS2 because I want to use the PS3 as my media/entertainment center. I like the Blu-Ray format because it has the potential of higher storage capacity. And let's face it, our storage needs get bigger each and every day. So, 50gigs on a disc sounds pretty amazing to me.
Sony can't afford to play the Apple game of sticking to their high pricing. Even Apple had to lower their prices when they started to feel the heat from MS with the threat of the arriving Zune. Although the Zune didn't turn out to be the threat we all thought of, the reality is that consumers benefited from that and got a 30gig video capable iPod for $100 cheaper than Apple would've loved to sell it at.
Come on Sony, show me that you've learned from your MiniDisc and Betamax mistakes. I still use MiniDiscs, but can't afford to use Betamax as it only comes on those expensive tv cameras. Betamax is a much better format than VHS, but Sony's stubbornness and the Betamax tapes' short running tape capacity killed it. Porno was the major "decider" because VHS offered longer playback time and costs less. So, if you want to save the PS3 and Blu-Ray, give people what they want at a price they're willing to pay for; a $350 PS3 with ability to upgrade to Blu_ray for $50. I think that you've already lost enough money on keeping the prices high. It costs more to have an item sitting on a shelf than to sell it at a lower price.
Chuckles McGee @ Aug 6th 2007 7:54PM
Hooray for extremely long comments! Your prize: a neutral post!
kingofwale @ Aug 6th 2007 8:26PM
>Come on Sony, show me that you've learned from your MiniDisc and Betamax mistakes.
By dropping Blu-Ray format? which is winning the format war at this time?
What are you going to suggest next? PS2 dropping the (at the time) overly expensive DVD format? ;)
Rob @ Aug 6th 2007 9:38PM
Yes, I did get carried away on my post. Sorry about that. Thank you for the prize.
@kingofwale, I really don't particularly care what Sony does from this point forward because I've already paid my admission fee. I wasn't implying that they should drop Blu-Ray. I was merely suggesting for them to deactivate it, passing on the savings to those who aren't interested in paying for it, and for those who may decide that they want it, pay a $50 activation fee. MS charges $179 for the HD-DVD player. I was only suggesting on ways to lower the price in order to make it more competitive with the Xbox 360. I only buy PS2 games because I don't want to pay more than $20 for the games. So, you bringing the PS2 comparison was not necessary. Regarding who's winning the HD war, no one really knows because this week Blu-Ray camp says they're winning, next week HD-DVD camp say they are. So, who has the real numbers? All I know is that I support, and hope, Blu-Ray wins.
Brian @ Aug 6th 2007 9:50PM
I know what would kick off sales....good games. SHOCK.
Greg Mcp @ Aug 6th 2007 7:01PM
The thing that confuses me with all this is that we are talking about 20-60-80GB hard drives.
Nowdays, quite old tech, and worth bugger all.
Could you even go out and buy a 60 gig drive, if you wanted?
If they were talking about upgrading to 200Gig drives, then the price might matter a bit.
Mark @ Aug 6th 2007 10:05PM
I think the PS3 uses a 2.5" hdd?
2.5" 80gb HDD can be had for $40 easy.
Chuckles McGee @ Aug 6th 2007 8:00PM
Amazes me too. Price for one of those drive must be dirt cheap. I think that's why most manufacturers pretty much ditch the smaller capacity drives- cost boxing and shipping starts to add up to a major part of the costs.
Geir E @ Aug 6th 2007 7:16PM
http://www.amazon.com/Fujitsu-5400RPM-2-5-Inch-Notebook-MH2060AH/dp/B000F6VBRU/ref=sr_1_23/002-2360607-3384018?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1186442075&sr=1-23
random 60gb 2.5" drive on the net.
you have to remember this is a 2.5", not 3.5"
still, your us$499 is twice that price here in Norway. so stop complaining.
kenmachacek @ Aug 6th 2007 7:22PM
A word to the wise... It's my understanding that the new 80GB model uses software emulation and NOT hardware to play PS2 games. That's right, it's just like the European system now, and backwards compatibility has taken a hit for all you PS2 lovers out there. (Like the XBOX 360, the new 80 GB PS3 model doesn't have PS2 hardware built-in, which means that Sony needs to write software for EACH PS2 game to make it playable on the PS3. So, instead of 99% of your games being backwards compatible, it's only about 75%.) My advice: pick up the 60 GB model, and if you want, upgrade the hard drive yourself. (It's easy to do... the PS3 uses a laptop-sized hard drive, and you won't void your warranty at all... In fact, your PS3 instruction manual tells you how to replace the hard drive, if you want to.)
Also, and this may be incorrect, but I also have heard that the new PS3 uses a less-processor-intensive Blu-Ray spec that doesn't have as good of quality (not that most people would notice, if push came to shove) as the original PS3 models. Again, this may be TOTALLY incorrect (although I'm 99% sure about the backwards compatibility thing), but regardless... The moral of the story is: the new 80 GB is inferior to the 60 GB model, except when it comes to hard drive space (duh.)
oGMo @ Aug 6th 2007 7:46PM
That is very incorrect. This is entirely unlike the 360's emulation, which isn't emulation, but rather rebuilt binaries with different graphics libraries and code. No downloading anything. The compatibility list is still 1500+ titles. If anyone has any information on non-theoretical complaints about the software emulation, please post a link. If anything, you might eventually have *improved* rendering etc with the software, because it's not tied to original PS2 hardware, and can be tweaked with future firmware updates.
"I also have heard that the new PS3 uses a less-processor-intensive Blu-Ray spec that doesn't have as good of quality"
This, in addition to poor grammar, sounds like bullshit to me. Link? What would be "not as good of quality (sic)"? How do you have lower-quality decoding of compressed data? Do you mean scaling? Why would they care about less-processor-intensive scaling, if the only thing you're doing is watching a movie? It's not like Cell is strapped for horsepower. Reading the disc? This makes no sense.
The moral of the story is actually that you don't know what you're talking about.
kenmachacek @ Aug 6th 2007 10:43PM
oGMo:
First off, I was just trying to help. Sorry if my quick post didn't live up to your standards of grammar. (Loosen up, man.)
Second of all, here's a whole bunch of links that state how the 80 GB model is NOT backwards-compatible through hardware. Sure, that means it can be updated, but it's still a pain in the rear.
http://www.gamingbits.com/content/view/2294/2/
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=26520
http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/07/backward-compat.html
And, as I said in the original post, the Blu-Ray playback quality issue was simply speculation from a knowledgeable store clerk. Insult all you want, man. I wasn't trying to post outright lies - I was just trying to give cautionary advice, based on what I heard.
Read the links and stop warmongering.
Zeus the God @ Aug 6th 2007 7:46PM
Still a waste of money, and a waste of Sony's money to be producing the thing. Its one thing to lose a bit of money, but still get the product out there, than it is to lose a TON of money for every PS3, and not get the product anywhere.
They need to cut WAY back on what they are putting in there. The PS3 was a failure from the beginning, because they were focusing too hard on trying to sell Blu-ray off as the main format. If they would have gone with a standard DVD9 (there is no problem with it when it comes to games, as there is no difference in quality). If push came to shove, then they could simply make two discs for a game, rather than one- besides, that would probably a lot cheaper than burning a single Blu-ray disc, anyway. Cut the WiFi and the card reader, and then it might have been able to be sold at a more competitive price to the 360. Either way, whats done is done, and Sony fingered themselves.
kingofwale @ Aug 6th 2007 8:30PM
>...but still get the product out there, than it is to lose a TON of money for every PS3, and not get the product anywhere.
>They need to cut WAY back on what they are putting in there. The PS3 was a failure from the beginning, because they were focusing too hard on trying to sell Blu-ray off as the main format. If they would have gone with a standard DVD9"
Didn't I see an exact same post on Engaget about 7 years ago? Let me quote it
"but still get the product out there, than it is to lose a TON of money for every PS2, and not get the product anywhere.
They need to cut WAY back on what they are putting in there. The PS2 was a failure from the beginning, because they were focusing too hard on trying to sell DVD off as the main format. If they would have gone with a standard CD..."
woah, major Deja-vu. ;)
jere @ Aug 6th 2007 11:37PM
How the hell did you come up with that quote?
Zeus the God @ Aug 6th 2007 11:59PM
Sorry, but everything other than music was going DVD. That wasn't as big a jump as it was, because it was still cheaper to produce than cartridges and not much more expensive than regular CDs or CD drives.
Not to mention the competition was using the same format. That means that there wasn't much of a cost difference between the competition- oh, and the Xbox was more expensive than the PS2 out of the gate anyway.
The PS3 is an entirely different story, and you cannot compare the PS2 and PS3 in that category.
chad @ Aug 7th 2007 2:05AM
Guess what, they're pusing blu-ray and blu-ray is winning in big numbers... primarily because of the.... you guessed it... PS3!
Do you honestly think MS gives a rat's behind about HD-DVD anyway (though besides the point)? They're just pushing that silly non-profit add-on until they can get enough DRM HD content on Live so they can milk you for what you're really worth (I know you're a prime candidate) and declare OPTICAL MEDIA is DEAD. Don't think so buddy... oops. Online purchasing may get huge, but it won't be Live that pushes it s ubiquity I'm saddened to tell you.
Here's more testament...
"Every week, NPD releases numbers for Hi-Def sales. The last measured week was the week Bourne was released on HD-DVD, enabling HD-DVD to hold onto a 35% sales margin, against 65% for Blu-Ray... for the year, Blu-Ray has not dropped below 64% and the average is 67%. The week before, Blu-Ray managed a 75% sales rate against HD-DVD's 25%.
If those numbers sound familiar, it's because they are right around the numbers Blockbuster gave (70% Blu-Ray) when they decided not to carry HD-DVD beyond the trial stores, and only offer Blu-Ray.
If you want something else to chew on, Target recently announced they will sell ONLY the Sony Blu-Ray player at Target this Christmas, the only HD-DVD player being the 360 add-on (note: only toshiba is even making the hd-dvd players anymore). In fact Target until recently sold HD-DVD players online (not in stores) but even online sales of HD-DVD players are gone now. Costco also dropped online sales of HD-DVD players."
kitt2112 @ Aug 6th 2007 8:00PM
@ rob
I'm sorry i was reading your post but stopped when you got to the"2) remove the Blu-Ray movie playback feature" What are you a MORON! get rid of one of the biggest advantage sony has over the xbox,, have you been reading around the net, stories about games not being able to fit on one dvd9 disc, im not going to bother getting into the details look it up.and also if they got rid of the blu-ray how would the new ps3 owners be able to play the games that are out right now? "THERE BLU-RAY!!" p.s. don't bother answering back, i wont waist my time with someone that came up with an idea like that one . lol omg lol
Craig @ Aug 6th 2007 8:30PM
you quoted him yourself: remove the movie playback feature, not the blu-ray drive itself. he's suggesting lowering the cost by not allowing the machine to play blu-ray movies. games would still use the blu-ray drive.
i don't completely agree with rob, but clearly, you're the moron
Rob @ Aug 6th 2007 9:55PM
I was only suggesting what Sony should consider doing. Make the hdd drive smaller, turn off the ability to play back BD movies (not games), and make it more competitive with pricing with the Xbox 360. Hey, even at $599 the PS3 is a better buy than the Xbox. But, MS is winning, and able to sell it at a lower price, because HD playback, wi-fi, and multi-card reader, are optional features. Lots of people are not buying the PS3 because they don't feel like paying for HD, and/or some other things the PS3 is capable of. So, give them what they want. Again, I already own a PS3. But, if Sony doesn't want to continue to struggle against MS and Nintendo, they need to change their strategy before the holiday season begins.
Let's keep the debate civilized, will you.
Poom @ Aug 6th 2007 11:06PM
What's the point in disabling Blu-ray movie when you have to add a blu-ray drive anyways??? That's no reduction in cost. -_-"
People seem to be commenting only on the additional 20GB. Does everyone forget that MotorStorm is also included? That's quite a deal if you ask me. Blu-ray games are quite expensive.
Zeus the God @ Aug 7th 2007 12:01AM
Sorry, but the PS3 has no real advantages over the Xbox.
St. Stephen @ Aug 6th 2007 8:32PM
The Ps3 is a value @ $600, a damn iphone is $500. I'm willing to bet half of you would fuck a fat black transvestite midget with no arms for a Ps3.
carlos @ Aug 6th 2007 11:10PM
Are you racist, or moron or both?
Aaron @ Aug 7th 2007 10:21AM
Actually, I just screwed a regular girl for mine...
(my girlfriend paid for our PS3)
kitt2112 @ Aug 6th 2007 11:15PM
@ Rob
Ok first i would like to apologize, i did not mean to call you a moron. just got carried away there, but maybe im missing something maybe you can enlighten me , why do some ppl think that playing Blu-ray movies and playing Blu-ray games are any different they both use the same blue light laser, what can they take out that would save them any money,? I do believe that Phil Harrison stated in an interview that the blu-ray in the ps3 was not put in the ps3 solely for playing back movie but for the storage size on the disc for games, and it dose not cost them anymore money to have it in there as a movie player. and if your going to say the licensing fee for using the blu-ray i do believe that sony is the creator of the blu-ray and they would not have to pay themselves for it, unlike the cd that was jointly created by others including sony. please , please, show me some proof once and for all, a link of some kind that proves your theory, and i will then come back and agree with you. thank you.
Rob @ Aug 7th 2007 12:04AM
I was only suggesting on ways for Sony to make the PS3 price lower. Would disabling Blu-Ray (movies) playback capabilities be cost effective? I really don't know. I don't have numbers, statistics, or anything of the like to support my opinion. I was just thinking. Can I be wrong about all my suggestions? Sure. However, I do know that some companies would, sort of, hide some features found in their programs/hardware, and have the power to activate them if you're willing to pay for additional features.
What is Sony going to do? I really don't know. But, often times, it seems like they keep on going the opposite direction from what those "undecided buyers" are looking for. The same issue is found on the PSP. I love my PSP, but Sony has dropped the ball there too. However, PSP and PS3 interaction is just plain and simply beautiful.
Zeus the God @ Aug 7th 2007 12:07AM
If they dropped the coding to allow the drive itself to read the movie files, but still read the game discs (its all in the coding) and have that as an optional activatable feature, then that would save them some money in production, allowing them to sell it at a cheaper price.
Then again, they would still be losing roughly 300 bucks but thats better than taking a dive to maybe 350-400 (depending on how much that switch takes off).
No matter how you slice it, though, the Blu-ray drive was a waste. Its slow as Hell (1x) compared to the 360 drive (12x), so load times are unbelievably long, and every game has to "install" itself (cache some info) to make load times a bit quicker (not much). Not to mention the Blu-ray drives are expensive no matter what, and more expensive than HD-DVD. Sony should have gone with DVD9 or HD-DVD to cut costs down.
chad @ Aug 7th 2007 2:17AM
Zeus, I'm dumbfounded as to how I should reply to you sometimes. You just hit these astronomical levels of stupidity that are difficult to absorb all in one sitting. I like when you try to get all elementary-esque technical, but it doesn't suit you chap.
The Blu-Ray drive is a waste? You have to be out of your gourd... seriously man... that PS3 trojan horse (that I don't even own so no bias there) is the PRIMARY reason Blu-Ray is in a strong lead of the format war, and why someday you will own a PS and you'll be here raving about it in every related thread.
Notwithstanding, your point on drive speeds between blu-ray and dvd is dead wrong, and somebody already pointed this out to you in a previous thread but you're quick to forget aren't you; rehashing the same tired arguments over and over and over...
:::::::::::ALL COMMENTS TO ZEUS ON THIS EXACT SAME THING::::::::::
"The 2x being "slow" is FUD. It means absolutely nothing if you can even differentiate a hint about CLV and CAV drives.
HD-DVD has a maximum data transfer rate of 36 Mbps (for both movies and data) while a 2x Blu-ray player yields 72 Mbps."
"Actually, the ps3 is one of the better blu-ray players out there, unlike the xb360 hd-dvd drive, which is ranked pretty low among hd-dvd players."
"Get Your Facts Right.
Actually, The PS3 is one of the Best Bluray Players out at the Moment, and considered a bargain.
It use HDMI Ver. 1.3, can play all the latest Java niceties on BD Movies Discs, very fast response and has the abilty to output Full 1080p without upscaling or compressing image or audio.
Review from AVGuide link - http://www.avguide.com/products/product-3766/ [Aside from the lack of DVD conversion and automatic disc-format detection, I could find little to fault in the PS3's performance as a Blu-ray player. Picture and sound quality were first-rate (with a few caveats on DVD playback), and the console was far more responsive than other high-def players in my experience. At nearly half the price of the next most expensive Blu-ray player (unless you fall prey to scalpers), this black beauty is one hell of a deal]"
"That's total bs. The PlayStation 3 is actually faster than most of its contemporary standalone Blu-ray Disc players, because it loads the disc from a system that has already initiated. Both audio and video quality are on par with, if not better than most, standalone Blu-ray Disc players because it is the first commercial product to implemented HDMI 1.3, which adds support for several next-generation audio formats."
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/18/microsoft-still-not-so-keen-on-blu-ray/#comments