Sony phasing out 20gigs?

[GizmoGC]

Every store I have been to in the past month has had 60gigs. That includes Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart, EB/GB etc. Ive even asked the stores if they have had any 20gigs and the usualy answer is "We get 3 20gigs for every 30-40 60gigs". Is Sony done with the 20gig? Was the 20gig just a temporary solution to say "Hey, we are only $100 more then the 360!"? Should the 'true' price of the PS3 be $600 instead of $500 as most claim it to be?

I think originally the lack of HDMI port really meant they were not serious about the 20gig and its only purpose was for the launch month only and really then focus on the 60gig?

Fact is, Sony loses more money on the 20gig then the 60 gig. While the cost is not a ton, it still makes sense for them to produce the 60gig instead of the 20gig. With future PSP intergration (connect to your PS3 and stream music, movies etc) the 60gig makes more sense over a 20gig.

[Scorch]

For someone that bashes other people about things that were old news (aside from me, of course), you sure did pick up on this late.

It's kinda weird, though.. you asked the question, then answered it later on in the same post.

[HumanSnatcher]

I've only seen 60gigs myself. I wouldn't be suprised if they only did a set run of 20gigs, just to get people to the store only to find out the store only has 60gigs, and people just decide to cough up the extra hundred.

[GizmoGC]

For someone that bashes other people about things that were old news (aside from me, of course), you sure did pick up on this late.

It's kinda weird, though.. you asked the question, then answered it later on in the same post.

This is a discussion. Unless Sony has made an official announcement, then 20gigs SHOULD still be out there. My question is a. are they b. should the real MSRP of PS3 be $600 to end discussions of PS3 compared to 360 only being a $100 difference and now a $200 difference.

[icruise]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Sony should've just made the 20GB the *only* PS3 model. Wireless can be an external add-on like the 360. Same with the card reader. The extra hard disk space could have been saved for an incremental upgrade (around the time MS bumps up the 360's hard disk). It would have saved them a hell of a lot of bad PR.

Whether they're actually getting rid of the 20GB model I can't say, but I am sure that they would prefer that people buy the 60GB model, so they're putting more of them out there. I got the 20GB model and I don't regret it at all.

[GizmoGC]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Sony should've just made the 20GB the *only* PS3 model. Wireless can be an external add-on like the 360. Same with the card reader. The extra hard disk space could have been saved for an incremental upgrade (around the time MS bumps up the 360's hard disk). It would have saved them a hell of a lot of bad PR.

Whether they're actually getting rid of the 20GB model I can't say, but I am sure that they would prefer that people buy the 60GB model, so they're putting more of them out there. I got the 20GB model and I don't regret it at all.

If they made the wireless add-on as nice as the 360 that would be great. Card reader is useless to me as is the extra 40gigs I'm sure I will never use.

[RedvsBlue]

I think you're right, it really seems as if they're limiting the number of 20gb models outside of the initial launch period. My guess would be that they're simply losing too much money per unit on the 20gb so they've scaled down the production on that model.

If they made the wireless add-on as nice as the 360 that would be great. Card reader is useless to me as is the extra 40gigs I'm sure I will never use.

I still have no idea why the even included that card reader. I mean, it made sense with the Wii cause it only has 512 mb internal memory but the PS3 starts with 20 or 60 gb and the HDD is user replaceable so really, what's the point of plugging in a 2-4 gb memory card?

[HumanSnatcher]

I think you're right, it really seems as if they're limiting the number of 20gb models outside of the initial launch period. My guess would be that they're simply losing too much money per unit on the 20gb so they've scaled down the production on that model.



I still have no idea why the even included that card reader. I mean, it made sense with the Wii cause it only has 512 mb internal memory but the PS3 starts with 20 or 60 gb and the HDD is user replaceable so really, what's the point of plugging in a 2-4 gb memory card?

Only thing I can think of, well for at least the MemStick Duo, is being able to swap between the PS3 and PSP, for different functions and such. Then again isn't that being done now, anyway?

[The Mana Knight]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Sony should've just made the 20GB the *only* PS3 model. Wireless can be an external add-on like the 360. Same with the card reader. The extra hard disk space could have been saved for an incremental upgrade (around the time MS bumps up the 360's hard disk). It would have saved them a hell of a lot of bad PR.

Whether they're actually getting rid of the 20GB model I can't say, but I am sure that they would prefer that people buy the 60GB model, so they're putting more of them out there. I got the 20GB model and I don't regret it at all.I agree. I feel the 60GB model shouldn't be there in the first place, because its what gives PS3 a bad rep. The general public normally prefers a cheaper price, but having to pay a crapload of cash to buy accessories. Last gen, the PS2 was only $300 initially, but you had to buy a network adapter seperately (although that came later), Memory cards for $35 initially for 8MB ones (definitely a rip-off), multi-tap was $35, and so on (when giving it a thought, I spent just as much on my PS2 as I did my PS3, after buying memory cards and network adapter, and if I bought a multi-tap, I would have paid more).
Only thing I can think of, well for at least the MemStick Duo, is being able to swap between the PS3 and PSP, for different functions and such. Then again isn't that being done now, anyway?From what I heard, it's memory stick pro, not duo. IMO, it should have been just MS Duo.

[whoknows]

I've seen a few 20gigs, but mainly 60gigs.

[H.Cornerstone]

I know for a fact that Sony stopped production of the 20gigs for the austrialia and the Europe Markets. Don't know about the Japanese and American markets...

[HumanSnatcher]

From what I heard, it's memory stick pro, not duo. IMO, it should have been just MS Duo.

Ehhh, whatever, I lost track of memory sticks several years ago. All I know is that my Sony camera takes regular old memory sticks, which seem to be a bitch to find sometimes...

[dpatel]

I doubt they will phase it out completely. They are just shipping them out in an uneven ratio, to try and encourage the 60GB. Although, it seems that, unlike the 360, the 20GB actually has quite a bit of demand, which isn't helping the fact that it is being shipped in smaller numbers.

I have to agree with whoever said the 20GB should've been the only model. I went with the 60GB, but I would've preferred to have gotten the 20GB, bought my own HDD and wi-fi adapter. Don't have too much use for the memory stick slots. I was a bit reluctant to go that route, because I didn't want to buy a 3rd party wi-fi adapter and find out a couple years down the road that that adapter won't let me use the PSP-PS3 capabilities. Too much of a risk for me, so I went with the 60GB.

And does it really matter what the "true" price is? That is obviously going to vary from each person. I know you really want the official price of the PS3 to be $600 so you can continue to complain at how expensive it is, and that's fine. Some people wanting something equivalent to the 360 premium will only see a $100 and that is fine too. It's just going to vary from person to person.

I also hope this is the last of the 2 SKU approach. I remember a lot of negativity surrounding MSs choice to go with 2 SKU's, so I have no idea why Sony decided to go that route too.

[mykevermin]

Only thing I can think of, well for at least the MemStick Duo, is being able to swap between the PS3 and PSP, for different functions and such. Then again isn't that being done now, anyway?

You can copy your gamesaves onto the memory card, which is nice. You can also play media off of your memory cards, such as videos, just like you would on your PSP. Moreover, some Sony BluRay movies will include portable formats of the movie on the BR disc (so you can watch the BR on your PS3 and also on your PSP) - the memory card reader will come in very handy for that.

[dallow]

The card reader is there for the same reason it's on PCs, to read your cards.

Take some pics with your camera, and pop in the card.
Friend coming over with a movie on a card, pop it in.

It's just for sheer convenience.

Some people use flash sticks, some people use cards.

[RedvsBlue]

I doubt they will phase it out completely. They are just shipping them out in an uneven ratio, to try and encourage the 60GB. Although, it seems that, unlike the 360, the 20GB actually has quite a bit of demand, which isn't helping the fact that it is being shipped in smaller numbers.

I have to agree with whoever said the 20GB should've been the only model. I went with the 60GB, but I would've preferred to have gotten the 20GB, bought my own HDD and wi-fi adapter. Don't have too much use for the memory stick slots. I was a bit reluctant to go that route, because I didn't want to buy a 3rd party wi-fi adapter and find out a couple years down the road that that adapter won't let me use the PSP-PS3 capabilities. Too much of a risk for me, so I went with the 60GB.

And does it really matter what the "true" price is? That is obviously going to vary from each person. I know you really want the official price of the PS3 to be $600 so you can continue to complain at how expensive it is, and that's fine. Some people wanting something equivalent to the 360 premium will only see a $100 and that is fine too. It's just going to vary from person to person.

I also hope this is the last of the 2 SKU approach. I remember a lot of negativity surrounding MSs choice to go with 2 SKU's, so I have no idea why Sony decided to go that route too.

Sony went with 2 skus for the plain and simple fact that its a nice way of bait and switching people like someone else mentioned in this thread. Someone looks at buying a PS3 and says "oh, well I'm just gonna get the $500 model I can afford that" Then when they get to the store they find out they can only get the $600 model but since they already committed to spending $500 what's an extra $100 anyway? They're losing too much on the 20gb model but its an easy way for Sony to maintain that their console isn't that expensive compared to the other consoles.

[GizmoGC]

And does it really matter what the "true" price is? That is obviously going to vary from each person. I know you really want the official price of the PS3 to be $600 so you can continue to complain at how expensive it is, and that's fine. Some people wanting something equivalent to the 360 premium will only see a $100 and that is fine too. It's just going to vary from person to person.


If you can't even find the $500 PS3, it shouldn't even be in any price debate at all.
360 = $400
PS3 = $600

[dpatel]

Sony went with 2 skus for the plain and simple fact that its a nice way of bait and switching people like someone else mentioned in this thread. Someone looks at buying a PS3 and says "oh, well I'm just gonna get the $500 model I can afford that" Then when they get to the store they find out they can only get the $600 model but since they already committed to spending $500 what's an extra $100 anyway? They're losing too much on the 20gb model but its an easy way for Sony to maintain that their console isn't that expensive compared to the other consoles.

Yea, I completely understand that. I guess I worded my post wrongly. I just wonder why they would imitate something that didn't seem too popular. Guess the unpopularity of the 2 SKUs is greatly outweighed by its monetary benefits.

[dpatel]

If you can't even find the $500 PS3, it shouldn't even be in any price debate at all.

So, because YOU can't seem to find them, automatically negates the fact that they exist?

People will perceive the PS3 how they want to. You obviously choose to believe that the $600 is the true price point, while others might disagree. It all depends on what the consumer is looking for.

Are you trying to set the standard for price debates from now on with this topic? Because I have seen how well you are at those.

[The Mana Knight]

Are you trying to set the standard for price debates from now on with this topic? Because I have seen how well you are at those.He's just a troll in the Sony forum (along with oasisboy).

[RedvsBlue]

So, because YOU can't seem to find them, automatically negates the fact that they exist?

People will perceive the PS3 how they want to. You obviously choose to believe that the $600 is the true price point, while others might disagree. It all depends on what the consumer is looking for.

Are you trying to set the standard for price debates from now on with this topic? Because I have seen how well you are at those.

Its quite obvious that Sony itself is choosing to push the $600 price point so it doesn't really matter what we, as the consumers, percieve the price point to be when Sony is forcing the 60 gb model on us and nothing else.

Yea, I completely understand that. I guess I worded my post wrongly. I just wonder why they would imitate something that didn't seem too popular. Guess the unpopularity of the 2 SKUs is greatly outweighed by its monetary benefits.

Yes but I think when they announced the 2 skus that they didn't realize how much they'd be losing per unit so they therefore thought the $500 price point was a good price point for them and the consumers.

[dpatel]

He's just a troll in the Sony forum (along with oasisboy).

Yea I know. Nothing wrong with hating a system. I just don't understand when one hates a system, is openly verbal about hating said system, spends quite a bit of time on boards dedicated to the system to point out its faults, but then buys the system. Makes no sense to me.

[dpatel]

Its quite obvious that Sony itself is choosing to push the $600 price point so it doesn't really matter what we, as the consumers, percieve the price point to be when Sony is forcing the 60 gb model on us and nothing else.

We shouldn't ignore the $500 price point though. Sony is obviously pushing the 60GB price point, but the $500 price does still exist. People looking for a more minimalistic approach will opt for that.

[GizmoGC]

So, because YOU can't seem to find them, automatically negates the fact that they exist?

People will perceive the PS3 how they want to. You obviously choose to believe that the $600 is the true price point, while others might disagree. It all depends on what the consumer is looking for.

Are you trying to set the standard for price debates from now on with this topic? Because I have seen how well you are at those.

Wow. Did you nor read my original post? I asked if anyone has seen 20gigs. I have only seen them once. Has anyone else seen them? Kinda hard to keep boasting on about how great the 20gig is when its not even being produced in decent numbers by Sony who would rather push 60gigs out the door.

[RedvsBlue]

Yea I know. Nothing wrong with hating a system. I just don't understand when one hates a system, is openly verbal about hating said system, spends quite a bit of time on boards dedicated to the system to point out its faults, but then buys the system. Makes no sense to me.

I understand why he did it. He wanted a cheap blu-ray player and the PS3 is the absolute cheapest one around. I've toyed with the idea of buying one myself for that reason alone but I just don't have the money to burn. If I did end up buying one I probably wouldn't even bother buying any games for it. I'd rent some to give it a spin but I really think that, right now, the PS3 is failing as a game system because there's absolutely no compelling reason to own it as a game system.

[GizmoGC]

Yea I know. Nothing wrong with hating a system. I just don't understand when one hates a system, is openly verbal about hating said system, spends quite a bit of time on boards dedicated to the system to point out its faults, but then buys the system. Makes no sense to me.

I'm hardly bashing the system. I'm simply asking a question as to the availability of the mythical 20gig PS3. Of course YOU have to jump in and TURN it into a PS3 is awesome Gizmo just hates Sony thread.

[GizmoGC]

I understand why he did it. He wanted a cheap blu-ray player and the PS3 is the absolute cheapest one around. I've toyed with the idea of buying one myself for that reason alone but I just don't have the money to burn. If I did end up buying one I probably wouldn't even bother buying any games for it. I'd rent some to give it a spin but I really think that, right now, the PS3 is failing as a game system because there's absolutely no compelling reason to own it as a game system.

Which is exactly what I did. I bought the PS3 only for BR. Has there been a cheaper solution I would have went that way instead of the PS3.

Its fine, I will now be blocking dpatel as he is just a Sony fanboi.

[RedvsBlue]

We shouldn't ignore the $500 price point though. Sony is obviously pushing the 60GB price point, but the $500 price does still exist. People looking for a more minimalistic approach will opt for that.

The simple fact that Sony isn't releasing the PS3 in Europe and Australia is pretty much the writing on the wall that the 20 gb model won't be around much longer. I've seen literally hundreds of 60 gb models in the last month or so and yet the only 20gb models I've seen are returns of the launch units (you can tell cause of the Talladega Nights sticker...). Its quite obvious that Sony isn't bothering with the 20gb anymore. They're producing a token amount to say that they're still being produced but its pretty obvious that they're not pushing it in any way at all.

[dpatel]

Wow. Did you nor read my original post? I asked if anyone has seen 20gigs. I have only seen them once. Has anyone else seen them? Kinda hard to keep boasting on about how great the 20gig is when its not even being produced in decent numbers by Sony who would rather push 60gigs out the door.

I did read your original post. I was responding to this post:

"If you can't even find the $500 PS3, it shouldn't even be in any price debate at all."

And FYI, you NEVER asked if anyone has seen 20GBs in your original post. So, like I asked before, are you trying to set the standard for price debates in the future? If so, I don't believe it will work, for reasons I have already stated.

I understand why he did it. He wanted a cheap blu-ray player and the PS3 is the absolute cheapest one around. I've toyed with the idea of buying one myself for that reason alone but I just don't have the money to burn. If I did end up buying one I probably wouldn't even bother buying any games for it. I'd rent some to give it a spin but I really think that, right now, the PS3 is failing as a game system because there's absolutely no compelling reason to own it as a game system.

Yea, I realize it is a great option for a blu-ray player. I have also seen him bash blu-ray constantly too, which is why I am surprised he got a PS3 which consists of the two things he doesn't seem to like. But I am not going to get into a debate about what he should or should not do, because that is ultimately up to him.

I'm hardly bashing the system. I'm simply asking a question as to the availability of the mythical 20gig PS3. Of course YOU have to jump in and TURN it into a PS3 is awesome Gizmo just hates Sony thread.

I don't recall saying anything about the PS3 is 'awesome'. And when I referred to your bashing of the system, I, and the other user who pointed it out, was referring to your collective posts on this board. There is nothing wrong with this topic, and I never specified any particular post.

EDIT: Also, I wasn't the first person that jumped on you. Most of us here know that you constantly like to bash the PS3, but I kept a civil debate in this topic since you seemed to be doing so as well.

Which is exactly what I did. I bought the PS3 only for BR. Has there been a cheaper solution I would have went that way instead of the PS3.

Its fine, I will now be blocking dpatel as he is just a Sony fanboi.

Now please, show me what exactly makes me a 'fanboy'.

[dpatel]

The simple fact that Sony isn't releasing the PS3 in Europe and Australia is pretty much the writing on the wall that the 20 gb model won't be around much longer. I've seen literally hundreds of 60 gb models in the last month or so and yet the only 20gb models I've seen are returns of the launch units (you can tell cause of the Talladega Nights sticker...). Its quite obvious that Sony isn't bothering with the 20gb anymore. They're producing a token amount to say that they're still being produced but its pretty obvious that they're not pushing it in any way at all.

I think we are arguing different points here. It seems we agree, for the most part. I agree Sony is pushing the $600 console. The OP was just asking if the 20GB should be considered in "price debates". I feel it should be, as it does still exist. Although, given the way things are going, I agree, I don't think we will be seeing it for too long.

I really think Sony should've went the other way with their decision.

[RedvsBlue]

I think we are arguing different points here. It seems we agree, for the most part. I agree Sony is pushing the $600 console. The OP was just asking if the 20GB should be considered in "price debates". I feel it should be, as it does still exist. Although, given the way things are going, I agree, I don't think we will be seeing it for too long.

I really think Sony should've went the other way with their decision.

See, that's where I'm disagreeing though. I don't think the $500 model should not be a consideration when the company producing it is making all efforts to remove it from the retail channel.

I couldn't agree more with your other part though. Sony needs the PS3 to be as cheap as possible. They never should have had the blu-ray drive on there but that's a moot point now because it is there and they're stuck with it. They obviously have not learned that consumers will not see a large difference between the 360 and the PS3 (aside from the price tag) and will see a whole lot more 360 games sitting on the shelf than and decide that its cheaper and has more games so might as well get that.

Sure you're getting a lot for your money with the PS3 but that's only if you know what you're getting. Most of the average consumers don't know what they're getting aside from a "video game machine". A lot of people know the Playstation brand and its pretty much become as synonymous with gaming as "NES" was 20 years ago. "Oh you play video games? You got one of those playstation things then I bet" The only problem for Sony is that they've got Microsoft and Nintendo (who seems to be back in the game bigtime) nipping on their heels and every day that passes that playstation branding is going to mean less and less for Sony. They need to get back in the game and they need it bad right now. The plain and simple fact is that they need a lower, more competitive price and the $500 model was a stab at that but obviously they can't keep it up monetarily. Its the only solution I can see as to why they refuse to produce the 20gb model in higher quantities.

[ZForce]

Maybe my 20 GB Model will be MEG@ R@RE and L337!!!!!!!! :)

[Chitown021]

I'm hardly bashing the system. I'm simply asking a question as to the availability of the mythical 20gig PS3. Of course YOU have to jump in and TURN it into a PS3 is awesome Gizmo just hates Sony thread.

Well Gizmo I think dpatel is going by your past history and reputation in the forums (his believing your bashing the PS3). We've clashed before and you have been quite a hater in the past. He's way off base this time (obviously the point of the thread was to say "What's up wit the 20GB PS3's") but I can kinda see where he's coming from. Calling you a PS3 hater is completely stupid though since you own the system and your initial statement had nothing to do with the success or failure of it at all. Just a simple discussion of why so few PS3 20GB units are being shipped.

[dallow]

Yeah, we all know Gizmo is a PS3 and BD basher (but a proud papa!)

Old news, just like his original post.

[GizmoGC]

Well Gizmo I think dpatel is going by your past history and reputation in the forums (his believing your bashing the PS3). We've clashed before and you have been quite a hater in the past. He's way off base this time (obviously the point of the thread was to say "What's up wit the 20GB PS3's") but I can kinda see where he's coming from. Calling you a PS3 hater is completely stupid though since you own the system and your initial statement had nothing to do with the success or failure of it at all. Just a simple discussion of why so few PS3 20GB units are being shipped.

If the PS3 actually had titles to play I wouldn't rag on it so much. This is already happening on the Wii forum, but there are atleast several decent titles out while the PS3 has had nothing. Game droughts for a just launched system are not un-common, but with only 3-5 games released in the past 3 months, and most of them ports of 360 games it leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth. While the Wii has not had a whole ton of games released, it did see Metal Slug, Elebits, and Warioware. That not even including all the VC releases which KILL Sony's PS1 titles.

THIS thread was about the mythical 20gig PS3 which is no where to be found. I think nearly everyone can agree with me that the 20gig is non-existent and the 60 gig is everywhere. Its not that people are buying all the 20gigs up, its that Sony is not shipping them.

[Chitown021]

I for one enjoy the PS3 and do believe I got lots of features in one machine. The best being the Blu-Ray drive since stand alone units sell for $1000 (especially since most reviews rate the PS3 player pretty well whereas the 360 HD-DVD player has been rated at the bottom when compared to the stand alone models). However in my case as RedvsBlue pointed out that's because I did the research and knew what I was getting. A vast majority of consumers have not made the switch to HDTV so the Blue-Ray feature is meaningless. That puts them looking at the console as a gaming machine only and they're not willing to sink $600 for that alone.

I've seen many PS3 consoles sitting on store shelves the past few months but I never really stopped to look and see if any of them were 20GB models. I remember the day I picked up my 60GB unit (first week of Dec when they were still rare) Best Buy had 8 units sitting there and they were all 60GB.

[GizmoGC]

Yeah, we all know Gizmo is a PS3 and BD basher (but a proud papa!)

Old news, just like his original post.

:roll: Which is why I own 14 BR movies.

[dallow]

:roll: Which is why I own 14 BR movies.
Exactly, a proud papa who hates his kids.

I know your post history Giz. Love all your backhanded comments about PS3 and BD.
But I love even more that you support both with your money.

[GizmoGC]

The best being the Blu-Ray drive since stand alone units sell for $1000

The Samsung BR player is now about $500 online. It atleast up-converts DVDs, something the PS3 still cannot do.

[GizmoGC]

Exactly, a proud papa who hates his kids.

Yeah, thats it.

[RedvsBlue]

I for one enjoy the PS3 and do believe I got lots of features in one machine. The best being the Blu-Ray drive since stand alone units sell for $1000 (especially since most reviews rate the PS3 player pretty well whereas the 360 HD-DVD player has been rated at the bottom when compared to the stand alone models). However in my case as RedvsBlue pointed out that's because I did the research and knew what I was getting. A vast majority of consumers have not made the switch to HDTV so the Blue-Ray feature is meaningless. That puts them looking at the console as a gaming machine only and they're not willing to sink $600 for that alone.

I've seen many PS3 consoles sitting on store shelves the past few months but I never really stopped to look and see if any of them were 20GB models. I remember the day I picked up my 60GB unit (first week of Dec when they were still rare) Best Buy had 8 units sitting there and they were all 60GB.

EGM is the only place that has said the HD-DVD addon is worse than a standalone player.

For example-CNet rates the HD-DVD drive addon as a 7.6 and the Toshiba HD-A1 (the $500 HD-DVD player) at 6.9

[dpatel]

Well Gizmo I think dpatel is going by your past history and reputation in the forums (his believing your bashing the PS3). We've clashed before and you have been quite a hater in the past. He's way off base this time (obviously the point of the thread was to say "What's up wit the 20GB PS3's") but I can kinda see where he's coming from. Calling you a PS3 hater is completely stupid though since you own the system and your initial statement had nothing to do with the success or failure of it at all. Just a simple discussion of why so few PS3 20GB units are being shipped.

I guess I jumped the gun on the 'bashing the PS3 comment', and I do apologize about that. In my defense, I was on topic and up for debate the entire time. A couple of people did post saying that Gizmo is a troll, and that is where my post came from. Although, for some reason, out of all the people that claims he is here to bash the PS3, he chose to ignore me, even though I was brining in civil discussion aside from my one post (which I really regret doing now).

[daroga]

I would be really interested to see the pricing comparisons on Sony's end between the 20 and 60 GB models. They must lose far less money on the 60 GBs to sell them almost exclusively like they are (which I can back up from my anecdotal evidence here for the OP's question).

It's really a shame that Sony did take as much heat as they did on the pricing. Once HDMI got added back into the 20 GB model they had done totally the opposite of what Microsoft had done. Microsoft made their base model, and the stripped it down requiring expensive add-on (memory cards) to even get most of the functionality of the higher price model. Sony on the other hand gave a good root system in the 20GB and then added a few bells and whistles for more the 60GB at a higher price. But all people can see is the $300 price gap between the two systems' most wildly differing SKUs.

If I were in their marketing department, I'd have pushed the 20GBs, maybe exclusively at first, to get a decent install base. But, I'm not, and it doesn't surprise me that Sony is doing directly the opposite of what I'd do; very few of their choices in PR or otherwise have made any sense to me over the last couple of years.

[GizmoGC]

I guess I jumped the gun on the 'bashing the PS3 comment', and I do apologize about that. In my defense, I was on topic and up for debate the entire time. A couple of peopel did post saying that Gizmo is a troll, and that is where my post came from. Although, for some reason, out of all the people that claims he is here to bash the PS3, he chose to ignore me, even though I was brining in civil discussion aside from my one post (which I really regret doing now).

The thing is, I don't really care at all between the console wars of Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony. I do care that Sony still thinks that their shit does not stink and continue to release articles like "1 Million PS3s Sold" when that really means 'shipped'. I do care that Sony has claimed 'victory' in the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD wars when it has only been recently that BR has started to actual sell more then HD-DVD. They seem to forget the 6-8 months prior that it was 5:1 in HD-DVDs favor. Sony is some BIG fucking ego's and its time they got the shit kicked out of them. This happened to Nintendo as well, and they seemed to recover quite well (selling what, 4 million+ Wii's and they STILL can't even get them to the shelves before they are sold).

The main point of this thread was asking if Sony is done with 20gig PS3s, and if so, they should not be considered in the price debates anymore. Its either $400 for a 360 or $600 for a PS3. Now add-in the price of an HD-DVD player and you have two systems, each capable of playing different formats, and one that has had a year+ of great games and one that has next to nothing to offer game-wise. BR movie sales are up just like UMD movie sales were up when the PSP luanched. With no games to buy, people will buy SOMETHING just to make their $500-$600 mean something. That thing is BR movies. Once March/April come around and better games come out, BR movies sales will see a decline. Sure, there are still gonna be some GREAT movies coming out (Casino Royale), people will not go out of their way to buy a copy of Resident Evil or anything else that is available on SD DVD for $20 less.

BR is great, it really is. All of the movies I own (14 and growing) look great. I own around 25 HD-DVD movies and will continue to purchase movies that are exclusive to HD-DVD and ones that are one both formats. Why? I believe HD-DVD will eventually win the war. Judging Sony's past track record, and the fact that I believe BR sales will die down in the next 2-3 months, I'd rather stick to a format which I think will win. If it doesn't, no biggie. I invested a whole $200 in an HD-DVD player which will still work even if HD-DVD goes away.

However, once again, I believe BR movies will see a huge decline in coming months. The reason why HD-DVD sales are low is because nothing has come out. In the past month we've had very little on the HD-DVD front. Why? Who knows. Maybe Universal underestimated the BR camp at CES. Maybe they are holding back to announce neutrality. Maybe they are gearing up to release a whole slew of movies. I own both HD formats for a reason; to WATCH movies. If this war means better transfers then i'm all for it. Lets not even discucss TotalHD....ugh.

[dpatel]

This means that for every 60GB PS3 sold, Sony loses $241.35, and for every 20GB system sold, the company takes a $306.85 loss.
http://ps3.gamespy.com/articles/746/746671p1.html

[GizmoGC]

I would be really interested to see the pricing comparisons on Sony's end between the 20 and 60 GB models. They must lose far less money on the 60 GBs to sell them almost exclusively like they are (which I can back up from my anecdotal evidence here for the OP's question).

It's really a shame that Sony did take as much heat as they did on the pricing. Once HDMI got added back into the 20 GB model they had done totally the opposite of what Microsoft had done. Microsoft made their base model, and the stripped it down requiring expensive add-on (memory cards) to even get most of the functionality of the higher price model. Sony on the other hand gave a good root system in the 20GB and then added a few bells and whistles for more the 60GB at a higher price. But all people can see is the $300 price gap between the two systems' most wildly differing SKUs.

If I were in their marketing department, I'd have pushed the 20GBs, maybe exclusively at first, to get a decent install base. But, I'm not, and it doesn't surprise me that Sony is doing directly the opposite of what I'd do; very few of their choices in PR or otherwise have made any sense to me over the last couple of years.

Nevermind. Way off on the numbers.

[GizmoGC]

http://ps3.gamespy.com/articles/746/746671p1.html

So a real difference of $35 between the two. Still makes me wonder why they would not just want to eat that $35 and produce a cheaper system to lure people in.

[icruise]

I still have no idea why the even included that card reader. I mean, it made sense with the Wii cause it only has 512 mb internal memory but the PS3 starts with 20 or 60 gb and the HDD is user replaceable so really, what's the point of plugging in a 2-4 gb memory card?
I think it's because they want the PS3 to act as a sort of media hub for a lot of Sony products, a great many of which use memory cards of one sort or another. My Sony video camera takes them, and so does the PSP. But that doesn't make it a good idea to charge extra for it, especially because USB card readers work fine on the PS3.

Wow. Did you nor read my original post? I asked if anyone has seen 20gigs. I have only seen them once.
Yeah, I read it. Did you? I don't see where you asked that. But since you did, I have seen a number of 20GB models. However, that was back closer to the launch date, since that was when I was actually looking for them.

The simple fact that Sony isn't releasing the PS3 in Europe and Australia is pretty much the writing on the wall that the 20 gb model won't be around much longer.

Not necessariily. Remember, Microsoft only sold the Premium Xbox 360 system in Japan for a long time -- I think until the Blue Dragon Core Bundle came out. I'm sure similar examples exist for many other products and regions. Different markets have different needs and strategies, and you can't necessarily say that one will influence another.

[dpatel]

The thing is, I don't really care at all between the console wars of Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony. I do care that Sony still thinks that their shit does not stink and continue to release articles like "1 Million PS3s Sold" when that really means 'shipped'. I do care that Sony has claimed 'victory' in the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD wars when it has only been recently that BR has started to actual sell more then HD-DVD. They seem to forget the 6-8 months prior that it was 5:1 in HD-DVDs favor. Sony is some BIG fucking ego's and its time they got the shit kicked out of them. This happened to Nintendo as well, and they seemed to recover quite well (selling what, 4 million+ Wii's and they STILL can't even get them to the shelves before they are sold).

I don't care about the "console wars" either (its mostly a term used by fanboys and trolls who think there is some sort of "war"). I do also agree that Sony has gotten too arrogant for their own good. I do think Sony should be taken down a peg or too (not to the degree that Nintendo was, since it has taken them two generations to get back, and their future of this gen is still not determined).

However, when you say that Sony 'still thinks their shit does not stink', you have to keep in mind that they are doing all they can to sell their product. No matter how bad a product is, a company is not going to admit it.

The main point of this thread was asking if Sony is done with 20gig PS3s, and if so, they should not be considered in the price debates anymore. Its either $400 for a 360 or $600 for a PS3. Now add-in the price of an HD-DVD player and you have two systems, each capable of playing different formats, and one that has had a year+ of great games and one that has next to nothing to offer game-wise. BR movie sales are up just like UMD movie sales were up when the PSP luanched. With no games to buy, people will buy SOMETHING just to make their $500-$600 mean something. That thing is BR movies. Once March/April come around and better games come out, BR movies sales will see a decline. Sure, there are still gonna be some GREAT movies coming out (Casino Royale), people will not go out of their way to buy a copy of Resident Evil or anything else that is available on SD DVD for $20 less.

I answered your original question. I don't think the $500 system should be ruled out completely. I believe they won't phase it out completely. I think their plan is to limit it for now until the amount lost is not substantially greater than the 60GB. As time goes on, the amount lost per 20GB will decrease (as will the 60GB), and I think that is when they will begin to push more of those to capture the 'casual' market (I'm talking later next year or 09).

As for BR. I have to disagree that people are just buying BR movies just to fill the void for no games. Although, I guess that is going to depend on the person. Still, I don't think PS3 game sales and blu-ray sales are inversely related. You do also realize that when more PS3 games come out, more PS3s will most likely be sold (and it will soon be available to the rest of the world in March), which opens the doors for more BR sales.

I do think that BR will continue to climb this year, although, like I have said numerous times, no true "winner" will be determined for another 4-5 years. BR may be "winning" now, and HD-DVD might be "winning" in a few months, but both are getting their asses kicked by DVD. I still think BR will win over HD-DVD, but it will take 4-5 years before BR starts truly competing with DVD.

BR is great, it really is. All of the movies I own (14 and growing) look great. I own around 25 HD-DVD movies and will continue to purchase movies that are exclusive to HD-DVD and ones that are one both formats. Why? I believe HD-DVD will eventually win the war. Judging Sony's past track record, and the fact that I believe BR sales will die down in the next 2-3 months, I'd rather stick to a format which I think will win. If it doesn't, no biggie.

I really don't see any reason as to why HD-DVD would win the war (and no reason as to why anyone would want it to. Although, we have already discussed this many a time before, and I don't want to start that again. We obviously both have our reasons, and lets leave it at that).

I have to point out the comment you made about sonys "track record", which seems to be a popular fallacy that is brought up when speaking about blu-ray. I know that you know that blu-ray isn't a sony only format (unlike UMD, Beta, and Minidisc). It is a collaborative effort involving Sony, much like DVDs and CDs were. So, if anything, we should go by that track record. Although, using history to predict the winner isn't a good indication, in my opinion.

I invested a whole $200 in an HD-DVD player which will still work even if HD-DVD goes away.

I would probably take into account the amount I spent on movies too. That's just me though.


However, once again, I believe BR movies will see a huge decline in coming months. The reason why HD-DVD sales are low is because nothing has come out. In the past month we've had very little on the HD-DVD front. Why? Who knows. Maybe Universal underestimated the BR camp at CES. Maybe they are holding back to announce neutrality. Maybe they are gearing up to release a whole slew of movies. I own both HD formats for a reason; to WATCH movies. If this war means better transfers then i'm all for it. Lets not even discucss TotalHD....ugh.

I really don't see why Universal would've underestimated Blu-ray at this year's CES. They went all out in 06, but didn't show too much this year, from what I understand. If anything, they should've done the exact opposite. I really don't think Universal is holding anything back either, as that would pose no advantages to them. CES is the biggest event for the two formats, and you don't hold back when you are one of the major backers of HD-DVD.

[dpatel]

So a real difference of $35 between the two. Still makes me wonder why they would not just want to eat that $35 and produce a cheaper system to lure people in.

It's a $35 difference in manufacturing costs, but they are not being sold at the same price. So they are eating way more than the $35.

Although, I agree they should just suck it up.

However, I still stand by my prediction that Sony will push the 60GB this year and most of next, and then start pushing the 20GBs when the loss isn't as big and when they want to get the 'budget' gamers.

[icruise]

I have to point out the comment you made about sonys "track record", which seems to be a popular fallacy that is brought up when speaking about blu-ray. I know that you know that blu-ray isn't a sony only format (unlike UMD, Beta, and Minidisc). It is a collaborative effort involving Sony, much like DVDs and CDs were. So, if anything, we should go by that track record. Although, using history to predict the winner isn't a good indication, in my opinion.

Good point, although minidisc was not a Sony-only format either. Lots of companies made MD players and discs. And as a matter of fact, it was pretty successful as a format in Japan.

[dpatel]

Good point, although minidisc was not a Sony-only format either. Lots of companies made MD players and discs. And as a matter of fact, it was pretty successful as a format in Japan.

ah ok, my mistake. Either way, I don't think 'track record' is a good way to judge the format wars. Way too many other variables that come into play.

[dpatel]

Also, another question for gizomc:

You say you believe Blu-ray sales will decline in the coming months and HD-DVD sales will see an increase this year. Have you taken into account the fact that:

-PS3 will be launching worldwide in March
-Blu-ray's 2007 line-up has more movies due this month than hd-dvd (I believe, not sure)
-The increase in PS3 games (that you pointed out) will lead to more PS3 sales and more potential BR owners
-Sale of PS3 games might be helping blu-ray as a format (not ENTIRELY sure on this one. Anyone with knowledge on the subject want to enlighten me? I am almost certain their game sales are helping to push the format, which is why Sony mandated all games be on blu-ray, despite the fact that there is a perfectly fine DVD reader (which may have faster read speeds).

[mykevermin]

I think gizmo's claim is that BR is a novelty format, that people will buy into initially, then shortly lose interest in. As DVDs have shown, however, I really don't think that's the case at all. Interest and sales for DVD have never slowed, or even stagnated, really, since 1999.

At this point, if given the option of the BR or DVD version of a movie, I'll buy the BR if it's the same price as the DVD (or $20>=). I won't pay $30 for a BR, but that doesn't mean I'll buy the DVD version either - I'll just wait it out. The only exception will be Casino Royale (3/13!!!); I thought so highly of that movie I'll buy it in the first store it appears in.

BR is my new DVD. This doesn't mean I'll never buy DVDs, because I own a shitton of pro wrestling on DVD. They do not use HD cameras (they're afraid that the detail level on the video will expose fake moves for what they are, I believe, more than standard DVD). What it does mean is that unless it's a must-have movie that doesn't seem to be coming out on BR anytime soon (which means more or less anything that Universal puts out, since they're the only major studio not committed to BR), I'll wait it out.

gizmo's speculation is just that - speculation, based on little more than uninformed guesswork. Sony may have lost $265 on my 60GB, but since I own 8 BR movies (7 if you count Talladega Nights), they're creeping closer to breaking even on me. Why would I go back to DVD now? Who in the world would go back to DVD if they have a BR player? That's absurd.

[icruise]

Yeah, I haven't bought many DVDs since I got my PS3, partially because I know that sooner or later the same movie will come out on Blu-ray (unless it's a Universal picture) and I'll have to buy it again.

Still, there are some reasons to prefer DVD to Blu-ray or HD-DVD, at least at the moment. One is price. Another is that you can't view your Blu-ray disc in a portable player or laptop computer (unless you have one of the very few Blu-ray equipped laptops out there), and you also can't rip it to make a version for your portable media player (iPod, PSP, what have you). Still, that's not enough to make me want to buy DVD instead of Blu-ray.

[dallow]

I think gizmo's claim is that BR is a novelty format, that people will buy into initially, then shortly lose interest in. As DVDs have shown, however, I really don't think that's the case at all. Interest and sales for DVD have never slowed, or even stagnated, really, since 1999.

At this point, if given the option of the BR or DVD version of a movie, I'll buy the BR if it's the same price as the DVD (or $20>=). I won't pay $30 for a BR, but that doesn't mean I'll buy the DVD version either - I'll just wait it out. The only exception will be Casino Royale (3/13!!!); I thought so highly of that movie I'll buy it in the first store it appears in.

BR is my new DVD. This doesn't mean I'll never buy DVDs, because I own a shitton of pro wrestling on DVD. They do not use HD cameras (they're afraid that the detail level on the video will expose fake moves for what they are, I believe, more than standard DVD). What it does mean is that unless it's a must-have movie that doesn't seem to be coming out on BR anytime soon (which means more or less anything that Universal puts out, since they're the only major studio not committed to BR), I'll wait it out.

gizmo's speculation is just that - speculation, based on little more than uninformed guesswork. Sony may have lost $265 on my 60GB, but since I own 8 BR movies (7 if you count Talladega Nights), they're creeping closer to breaking even on me. Why would I go back to DVD now? Who in the world would go back to DVD if they have a BR player? That's absurd.

Exactly Kev.
Lots of people now have a brand new BD player. Given the option at the same price (and it's much easier to find deals now), these newbies are going to take the BD over the DVD.

All my friends have.

[dpatel]

I slowed my DVD purchases last year, and haven't bought one in a while. I generally try to hold out for a BR release, although that can be hard since I can't justify spending $30 on one movie so I wait for deals to roll around.

[dallow]

ah ok, my mistake. Either way, I don't think 'track record' is a good way to judge the format wars. Way too many other variables that come into play.

MiniDisc is still popular in the concert bootlegging, erm, "industry".

Either a quality MD or DAT recorder are best for getting a lossless recording, ready to share.

[mykevermin]

Exactly Kev.

It's myke, but it's cool.

icruise, I agree about the portability; I'm not sure if I can make heads or tails of how the mass market (we keep using that phrase as if we aren't a part of it :lol:) thinks of it. I try not to watch videos on my laptop, as I have work to do, and I'm frankly too lazy to convert dvds to play on my ipod video. I will, however, download google videos to copy directly onto it.

This may become somewhat moot if the "portable file" on the BR takes root soon, and if you, of course, have a memory card capable of holding the file size of the movie. Fret not, 20GB'ers, as I'm sure that a USB card reader is vastly cheaper than the 60GB's included version.

[dallow]

It's myke, but it's cool.

Haha, all this time I've always read it as "my kevermin".
Which I thought was something so hip I didn't know about it.

Thanks for the correction.

[dpatel]

speaking of 20GBs. Just got my 20GB in the mail today from freepay.com!! Really cool. Was kinda worried for a bit because they decided to change certain stipulations after I had completed the site, but they still sent me one even though I only complied with the old set of stipulations.

Already have a PS3 though, so Ill be getting rid of it on eBay.

[GizmoGC]

Exactly Kev.
Lots of people now have a brand new BD player. Given the option at the same price (and it's much easier to find deals now), these newbies are going to take the BD over the DVD.

All my friends have.

Which is fine, but not everyone will. Its like the folks over at AVS think they are REALLY deciding the format war by buying a movie. We are small frys compared to the others who do not frequent forums and such. While you may buy BR and all your friends that does not mean everyone else will or will continue to do so.

[GizmoGC]

Also, another question for gizomc:

You say you believe Blu-ray sales will decline in the coming months and HD-DVD sales will see an increase this year. Have you taken into account the fact that:

-PS3 will be launching worldwide in March
-Blu-ray's 2007 line-up has more movies due this month than hd-dvd (I believe, not sure)
-The increase in PS3 games (that you pointed out) will lead to more PS3 sales and more potential BR owners
-Sale of PS3 games might be helping blu-ray as a format (not ENTIRELY sure on this one. Anyone with knowledge on the subject want to enlighten me? I am almost certain their game sales are helping to push the format, which is why Sony mandated all games be on blu-ray, despite the fact that there is a perfectly fine DVD reader (which may have faster read speeds).

Of course. That still does not mean that the PS3 will make BR movies a success. Just because people are buying BR movies NOW does not mean they will continue to do so forever. The lack of HD-DVD releases is really killing HD-DVD right now...thats a fact. The HD camp has had maybe 8-10 releases since January while BR has had atleast 30+. This alone caused BR sales to increase at a rapid rate.

An increase in PS3 console sales and an increase in PS3 game sales may mean a decrease in BR movie sales. If someone has a budget of $100 a month, you think they are going to buy 4 movies or 2 games? If all these wonderful games are suppose to be coming out in March....we may see a huge decrease. What if gamers start playing they 60+ hour games (Oblivion) you think they are going to continue spending $25+ a pop on BR movie that they may never get around to watching?

As for BR game sales...I don't THINK they are being counted in the BR Vs. HD sales debate. Some have speculated that they have been (and if it was a Sony report I'm sure it would be), but as far as I know they do not count BR game sales as BR movie sales.

(Not directed at dpatel) As for comparing DVDs to BR/HD....just stop. DVD compared to VHS was VAST improvement. Not only were the movies better quality that any TV could take advantage of, but you could skip to chapters, special features, no rewinding, DVDs could be purchased 3-5 months after theatrical release, they were not $100+ each, etc. While BR/HD does offer visual/audio improvements its not a giant leap like DVD was.

[dpatel]

Of course. That still does not mean that the PS3 will make BR movies a success. Just because people are buying BR movies NOW does not mean they will continue to do so forever. The lack of HD-DVD releases is really killing HD-DVD right now...thats a fact. The HD camp has had maybe 8-10 releases since January while BR has had atleast 30+. This alone caused BR sales to increase at a rapid rate.

Yea, I'm not saying PS3 will make blu-ray a success. I think the lack of HD-DVD releases isn't that big of a deal now, but they do need to change that trend if they want to pick. In the short time that HD-DVD had lackluster releases, Blu-ray has picked up quite a bit from what I hear.

An increase in PS3 console sales and an increase in PS3 game sales may mean a decrease in BR movie sales. If someone has a budget of $100 a month, you think they are going to buy 4 movies or 2 games? If all these wonderful games are suppose to be coming out in March....we may see a huge decrease. What if gamers start playing they 60+ hour games (Oblivion) you think they are going to continue spending $25+ a pop on BR movie that they may never get around to watching?

True. I see what you are saying. I guess people with PS3s would be less likely to buy movies if they are spending so much on games. An increase in PS3 game sales could lead to a decrease in BR movie sales, like you said, but an increase in PS3 consoles isn't going to lead to a decrease. It may not increase it, but it certainly won't hurt it.

As for BR game sales...I don't THINK they are being counted in the BR Vs. HD sales debate. Some have speculated that they have been (and if it was a Sony report I'm sure it would be), but as far as I know they do not count BR game sales as BR movie sales.

Oh no, that's not what I meant. Sorry, I should've clarified. I meant that the release of more BR games might help decrease the manufacturing costs of the BR discs. I know that new technology becomes cheaper as time progresses, technology increases, and the technology becomes more widespread, so I figured that the sales of BR games would increase the 'widespread' portion and help push the format. It's the only thing that would make sense as to why Sony is mandating all games be on blu-ray (I can't think of any other reason as to why they would do this, unless they want to prove that it is 'necessary' which is possible).

(Not directed at dpatel) As for comparing DVDs to BR/HD....just stop. DVD compared to VHS was VAST improvement. Not only were the movies better quality that any TV could take advantage of, but you could skip to chapters, special features, no rewinding, DVDs could be purchased 3-5 months after theatrical release, they were not $100+ each, etc. While BR/HD does offer visual/audio improvements its not a giant leap like DVD was.

I agree. There is going to much less motivation to make the switch this time. On top of that, DVDs were available to anyone with a TV. BR/HD is only available to those with HDTVs, which is a VERY small market at the moment.

[RAMSTORIA]

i believe before the system launched an analyst or sony themselves said that the 20 gig model would only be about 20% of the systems produced. so that could be why they are hard to come by.

[RedvsBlue]

Of course. That still does not mean that the PS3 will make BR movies a success. Just because people are buying BR movies NOW does not mean they will continue to do so forever. The lack of HD-DVD releases is really killing HD-DVD right now...thats a fact. The HD camp has had maybe 8-10 releases since January while BR has had atleast 30+. This alone caused BR sales to increase at a rapid rate.


I'm really anxious to see what's gonna happen with The Departed. IIRC this is the first simultaneous release of a movie on both HD-DVD and Blu-ray since the PS3 has come out. It should be interesting to see what will happen with sales.

[GizmoGC]

I agree. There is going to much less motivation to make the switch this time. On top of that, DVDs were available to anyone with a TV. BR/HD is only available to those with HDTVs, which is a VERY small market at the moment.

Which makes me wonder how many people with crappy TVs are buying BR movies and going crazy about them. I know a friend of mine has a 24 inch Zenith POS and is FLOORED by how good BR movies look...through composite. I looked at it...and it wasn't pretty.

I wonder if anyone uses RF Adapters with the PS3....dear jebus.

[GizmoGC]

I'm really anxious to see what's gonna happen with The Departed. IIRC this is the first simultaneous release of a movie on both HD-DVD and Blu-ray since the PS3 has come out. It should be interesting to see what will happen with sales.

Amazon rankings have shown BR edging out HD by a bit...its gonna be big. I still have NO idea what the movie is about, seriously. I'm more shocked that The Grudge 2 is not coming out on BR tomorrow. I was looking forward to picking that up. I guess its the BB Exclusive Steelbook for me.

[dpatel]

Which makes me wonder how many people with crappy TVs are buying BR movies and going crazy about them. I know a friend of mine has a 24 inch Zenith POS and is FLOORED by how good BR movies look...through composite. I looked at it...and it wasn't pretty.

I wonder if anyone uses RF Adapters with the PS3....dear jebus.

:lol: I know exactly the type of people you are talking about. Kinda sad that they are buying into all the hype with zero knowledge on the product.

I'm really anxious to see what's gonna happen with The Departed. IIRC this is the first simultaneous release of a movie on both HD-DVD and Blu-ray since the PS3 has come out. It should be interesting to see what will happen with sales.

That should be interesting. The movie was pretty good too, one of the bigger blu-ray/hd-dvd movie releases.

[RedvsBlue]

Amazon rankings have shown BR edging out HD by a bit...its gonna be big. I still have NO idea what the movie is about, seriously. I'm more shocked that The Grudge 2 is not coming out on BR tomorrow. I was looking forward to picking that up. I guess its the BB Exclusive Steelbook for me.

Well no shit, I just realized the Blu-ray version is actually cheaper than the HD-DVD version because the HD-DVD version is a freakin combo disc... jesus christ when are they gonna quit forcing these damn things on us?!?!

Edit- The HD-DVD version of The Departed is beating out the full screen DVD version :rofl:



That should be interesting. The movie was pretty good too, one of the bigger blu-ray/hd-dvd movie releases.

It'll be like Miami Vice for me, I want it bad enough that I'm buying it on release day regardless of the instore markup price.

[dpatel]

Amazon rankings have shown BR edging out HD by a bit...its gonna be big. I still have NO idea what the movie is about, seriously. I'm more shocked that The Grudge 2 is not coming out on BR tomorrow. I was looking forward to picking that up. I guess its the BB Exclusive Steelbook for me.

I really liked the movie (although I realized halfway through it was a remake of an asian film I had seen a few years ago).

Yea, and Amazon shows BR is winning slightly in total sales, although it looks like they really sold a lot of that just recently.
http://www.dailytech.com/Bluray+Sales+Surpass+HD+DVD+Nearly+Threefold+/article5965.htm

[GizmoGC]

Why can't we have a HD/BD dicussion thread?
Seems like we could actually keep it civil.

[RedvsBlue]

Why can't we have a HD/BD dicussion thread?
Seems like we could actually keep it civil.

The majority of the threads are civil until some smartass comes in and starts stirring shit up. For a great example look at the the HD-DVD software thread in the 360 board, the discussion was fine until DomLando came in there in the last couple pages.

[Megalith]

It's a shame, because the 20GB pure black PS3 looks better.

[CounterSeal]

Amazon rankings have shown BR edging out HD by a bit...its gonna be big. I still have NO idea what the movie is about, seriously. I'm more shocked that The Grudge 2 is not coming out on BR tomorrow. I was looking forward to picking that up. I guess its the BB Exclusive Steelbook for me.

The Grudge 2... geez that movie scared the crap out of me... even in a crowded movie theater... don't watch it alone.

[Chitown021]

Which makes me wonder how many people with crappy TVs are buying BR movies and going crazy about them. I know a friend of mine has a 24 inch Zenith POS and is FLOORED by how good BR movies look...through composite. I looked at it...and it wasn't pretty.

I wonder if anyone uses RF Adapters with the PS3....dear jebus.

Using the RF adaptor for a PS3... OH THE HUMANITY!!!!

If I didn't have an HDTV I would not have bought a PS3 period.

[Mechafenris]

Why can't we have a HD/BD dicussion thread?
Seems like we could actually keep it civil.


I think we can too. :) That's one thing that's refreshing about CAG.. I really don't see too awful many fanboi threads cluttering the forums... sure there are a few here and there willing to poo-poo all over anything they don't own... but for the most part, we can have actual discussions here that don't border on the "my pop can kick your pop's butt" threads constantly.

I have more HD-DVDs than BR DVDs at this point because I got a few "non-movie" titles like Chronos (that really show off the picture quality quite well)... And when I first started in the quest for the next-gen format movies, I was determined only to buy the extremely good (relatively speaking) titles... There's not exactly a $5 HD/BR bin that you can get the mediocre movies.....

Excalibur (from what 1981?) looks frighteningly good for such an old movie, which looked rather "fuzzy" on the initial DVD release. That bodes well for other movies...if they try...

[addicted2games]

Today I saw one 60G and one 20G PS3 at Target. So they are still out there.

[io]

Haha, all this time I've always read it as "my kevermin".
Which I thought was something so hip I didn't know about it.

Thanks for the correction.

Completey off-topic, but I thought the same thing for a few months until it finally clicked for me ;).

As for BR, HD-DVD, whatever: I was really tempted to get the PS3 for BR, but then I looked at my DVD collection and realized I buy, maybe, 8 DVDs a year, and maybe rent 8 more. And most of those are Simpsons's collections and kids titles. With 3 kids and all the gaming I do, I simply have NO time to watch movies. I used to be really into movies, and got a DVD player and surround sound setup very early on. It just doesn't appeal to me any more. That, and the fact that any MUST have movies (for me) are nowhere to be seen on either format. When LOTR, Star Wars, Pixar movies, etc, start coming out on one format or the other, then I might jump in. By that time, the PS3 might not be the cheapest BR player around.

Sony has lost me for the time being because of the upscaler issue (and I was Xbox-free last gen, so that's saying something). I've pretty much decided to get a 360 for now to satisfy my HD gaming (already have a Wii of course). I'll get a PS3 when its exclusive games hit GH status (so yes, I'll be waiting a while ;)).

As for 60GB vs 20GB, I've made a point of looking at all the systems I see in a store when I'm browsing to see if there are any 20GB. I've seen 60GB in just about every store I go to (they do sell out, it just takes a week or two, then they get more in shortly thereafter). For the first time in the 3-4 weeks I've been doing this I saw 1 20GB amongst the 6-7 60GB at a Target last week. For my money, if I was going to get the system, I'd definitely get the 60GB. Sure, it isn't as clear cut as the 360, but I think you are getting a better deal: 1) bigger hard drive means no switching it out later (a "convenience" fee for me) 2) I have a PSP although I use it very little - but the built-in Wifi is nice to have for that. 3) The card readers are the least interesting feature, and yet I see them as the best way to transfer my digital camera pictures to the system, unless there is some way to FTP or transfer from a PC on your home network? Have no idea about that. All combined, those are worth (barely) $100 for me. But I could see how if one or more of those things was not an issue for you, the 20GB is a better deal.

[Kayden]

Actually, the only PS3 I've seen has been a single 20GB at a WalMart.



From what I heard, it's memory stick pro, not duo. IMO, it should have been just MS Duo.

I don't know about you, but all of my Pro Duos have come in Pro adapters that make it compatible with either. Its a Pro card that you slide your Pro Duo into.

[Chitown021]

LOL I also read Myke's name as "my Kevermin".

Before I found my PS3 in December I almost went with a new Xbox360. Three main factors kept me from doing so:

#1) I don't want to pay a yearly subscription fee for on-line play (even though MS's service right now is much better). It's not worth it since I play once in awhile but not enough to justify the cost.

#2) My PS2 was the "centerpiece" of my entertainment center. By this I mean I used it for gaming and a primary DVD player. I wanted the all-in-one goodness the PS3 offered over the 360 (without having to buy a bunch of add ons)

#3) My PS2 and PS1 gaming library

[io]

Well, except for 2 things (I have no PS1 games and I don't use my PS2 as a DVD player) I agree with all those issues - which is why I wanted to buy a PS3. But when they gimped it for my HDTV (most games display in 480p, no thanks!) that was a big let down. I'm still not entirely convinced on the 360 (I mean, it's been out over a year and there's only about 3 games I want to play for it - not a good sign). But with the PS2 RPG-like Blue Dragon coming out (my main reason for getting the PS2 to add to my GC was for RPGs) as well as Mass Effect I figure I'll get my money's worth. Anyway, OT again, sorry ;).

[Thomas96]

Sony should give a price drop on the 20gb PS3s... might be a good way to boost sales, and then if people can't find them, the might just at that point and time be more willing to pay for the 60gb. 475.99 could be a nice price. Phasing out 20gb isn't a good idea.. unless they price drop the 60gb..

[furyk]

Sony should give a price drop on the 20gb PS3s... might be a good way to boost sales, and then if people can't find them, the might just at that point and time be more willing to pay for the 60gb. 475.99 could be a nice price. Phasing out 20gb isn't a good idea.. unless they price drop the 60gb..

The 20 GB version strikes me as more of a loss generater for Sony then the 60 GB version. The most expensive part of the system is the Blu Ray drive right now and the extra 40 GBs, ports, and wireless certainly doesn't cost $100 to implement. Selling a $600 PS3 loses less for Sony then selling the $500 PS3. It makes less sense to bring up the amount of cash lost per system on the 20 GB version which is already perceived as a gimped system (wrongly though, thanks Microsoft for that one). If there's a cut, my guess is we'll see it on the 60 GB version for those two reasons. Having said that, I think it's way too soon for a cut.

[H.Cornerstone]

The 20 GB version strikes me as more of a loss generater for Sony then the 60 GB version. The most expensive part of the system is the Blu Ray drive right now and the extra 40 GBs, ports, and wireless certainly doesn't cost $100 to implement. Selling a $600 PS3 loses less for Sony then selling the $500 PS3. It makes less sense to bring up the amount of cash lost per system on the 20 GB version which is already perceived as a gimped system (wrongly though, thanks Microsoft for that one). If there's a cut, my guess is we'll see it on the 60 GB version for those two reasons. Having said that, I think it's way too soon for a cut.

Take it for what it's worth, but I read on Wikipedia that it costs 865$ for Sony to produce the 60, and 800 to produce the 20.

[The Mana Knight]

LOL I also read Myke's name as "my Kevermin".

Before I found my PS3 in December I almost went with a new Xbox360. Three main factors kept me from doing so:

#1) I don't want to pay a yearly subscription fee for on-line play (even though MS's service right now is much better). It's not worth it since I play once in awhile but not enough to justify the cost.

#2) My PS2 was the "centerpiece" of my entertainment center. By this I mean I used it for gaming and a primary DVD player. I wanted the all-in-one goodness the PS3 offered over the 360 (without having to buy a bunch of add ons)

#3) My PS2 and PS1 gaming libraryI agree.
Well, except for 2 things (I have no PS1 games and I don't use my PS2 as a DVD player) I agree with all those issues - which is why I wanted to buy a PS3. But when they gimped it for my HDTV (most games display in 480p, no thanks!) that was a big let down. I'm still not entirely convinced on the 360 (I mean, it's been out over a year and there's only about 3 games I want to play for it - not a good sign). But with the PS2 RPG-like Blue Dragon coming out (my main reason for getting the PS2 to add to my GC was for RPGs) as well as Mass Effect I figure I'll get my money's worth. Anyway, OT again, sorry ;).That's pretty much my problem with 360 right now, and I even own one. Its release list does look better this year, causing me to keep mine. Some may think I'm too much of a Sony fan to see anything good; however, over 6 years ago when PS2 launched (I was just as big of a Sony fan back then, maybe even bigger), I didn't really like PS2 too much at first because I felt the Dreamcast was superior in every way game wise (DC had way too many games I loved around the time PS2 came out, and I definitely liked it more, until it died and PS2 was out for over 2 years). That's not the case with 360 because I could say there were at least 10-15 times more DC games I liked during the same time period.

Yeah, Sony does lose more on 20GB PS3 consoles. I do still feel it would be best to go with 20GBs, to make PS3 appear cheaper to consumers, but to an extent, I don't want PS3 to be like PS2 (having to buys tons of add-ons that make the console quite expensive in the end).

[Blitz]

The one thing that M$ did right was not forcing HD-DVD down your throat like Sony did. That way if someone wanted a GAMING machine they could get one without selling their first born.

Sony forgot what brought the Playstation to the dance.

[Chitown021]

The one thing that M$ did right was not forcing HD-DVD down your throat like Sony did. That way if someone wanted a GAMING machine they could get one without selling their first born.

Sony forgot what brought the Playstation to the dance.

It's kind of a double edged sword... On the one hand by building everything into the system it makes it more expensive but it's a one time "start up" fee and it's out of the way. You please the people (like myself) that would rather pay more but get it all at once rather than having to buy $300 worth of upgrades down the road. At the same time you piss off the folks that don't want one component or the other (like the Blu-Ray drive). Either way you're gonna upset 1/2 of the consumers.

[The Mana Knight]

The one thing that M$ did right was not forcing HD-DVD down your throat like Sony did. That way if someone wanted a GAMING machine they could get one without selling their first born.

Sony forgot what brought the Playstation to the dance.Actually, blu-ray will be VERY important for games. Kojima said himself that he needs over 25GB of space for his game. MS made a huge mistake sticking to HD-DVD, because DoA4 and Enchanted Arms were downgraded because they could not fit HD cinemas on the disc (the developers wanted to). Blue Dragon had to use three disc, and if it were on PS3, it could fit on one blu-ray disc. Having blu-ray disc also allows games to be released on multiple languages (part of the reason we didn't get Japanese voices in PS2 games was because of lack of space). Going blu-ray was the smartest, and best move Sony ever did. Not just for the player, but for games.

Some may be forgetting, Sony was bashed for going with the CD format on PS1 (since all CD format consoles failed before hand), and it ended up working out well (Many PS1 games used multiple disc. Squaresoft came to PS1 because of disc space). People criticized Sony for using DVDs on PS2, thinking the space could never be used, but there ended up being games needing more than one DVD. Basically, Sony's doing the same again by going one step above the competition, going with the blu-ray format (for more space). One thing the PlayStation brand has done well over the years, is going to larger disc formats.

[GizmoGC]

Actually, blu-ray will be VERY important for games. Kojima said himself that he needs over 25GB of space for his game. MS made a huge mistake sticking to HD-DVD, because DoA4 and Enchanted Arms were downgraded because they could not fit HD cinemas on the disc (the developers wanted to).


He needs OVER 25GB? C'mon. Multiple discs are not a bad thing. I'd rather have a game split then have it crammed onto 1 single disc.

What happpens in the near future....where will we pricedrops on BR titles? The discs themselves are pretty expensive so I don't see drops as fast as the 360 counterparts.

[Chitown021]

Well we shall see if including the BluRay drive was truly a vision of the future or a blunder by Sony. As mentioned earlier in the tread Sony started the trend by making the PS1 exclusivly CD formatted games. The press ate them alive saying they were crazy for not sticking with carts. Sony had success and the N 64 eventually fell because of it. If Blu-Ray discs become the standard then Sony is ahead of the curve and could be sitting pretty in a few years. When it's all said and done if it fails at least they had the balls to take a chance.

[Duo_Maxwell]

He needs OVER 25GB? C'mon. Multiple discs are not a bad thing. I'd rather have a game split then have it crammed onto 1 single disc.


If the one disc is almost 3 times the capcity of the others you're not "cramming" anything into the one disc. Anymore the only reason splitting discs is done is because they can't fit the quality they want on a single DVD9 disc and that practice is in no way exclusive to the game industry. That is the instance in which it is "not a bad thing". Yet, if you don't have to do it, then all the better IMO. I'll agree you can make some arguments against Blu-ray as format at times, but that one is getting you no place.

[sonicbooom]

I hope they don't phase out the 20gb ps3. If I do buy a PS3, I'll be getting the 20gb and adding a cheap 2.5" drive.

[H.Cornerstone]

Io, I have no idea what your talking about with the games only outputting in 480p. Most games will output in 720p or 1080i, which I know all HDTV can do. Or at least my resistance and NBA 2k7 do.

[mykevermin]

Older HDTV's have 480P and 1080i, but not 720 anything. Stuff that plays at 720p won't be upscaled to 1080i, but downscaled to 480p on these tvs by the PS3.

[lanzarlaluna]

If they get rid of the 20GB model, they better add a 60GB system without the ghey-looking chrome. I swear, that shit looks like it was painted on by a first grader with ADHD.

[schuerm26]

Actually, blu-ray will be VERY important for games. Kojima said himself that he needs over 25GB of space for his game. MS made a huge mistake sticking to HD-DVD, because DoA4 and Enchanted Arms were downgraded because they could not fit HD cinemas on the disc (the developers wanted to). Blue Dragon had to use three disc, and if it were on PS3, it could fit on one blu-ray disc. Having blu-ray disc also allows games to be released on multiple languages (part of the reason we didn't get Japanese voices in PS2 games was because of lack of space). Going blu-ray was the smartest, and best move Sony ever did. Not just for the player, but for games.

Some may be forgetting, Sony was bashed for going with the CD format on PS1 (since all CD format consoles failed before hand), and it ended up working out well (Many PS1 games used multiple disc. Squaresoft came to PS1 because of disc space). People criticized Sony for using DVDs on PS2, thinking the space could never be used, but there ended up being games needing more than one DVD. Basically, Sony's doing the same again by going one step above the competition, going with the blu-ray format (for more space). One thing the PlayStation brand has done well over the years, is going to larger disc formats.

Just what we need, more space on discs so we can sit through more long ass movies instead of play the game.

[mykevermin]

Just what we need, more space on discs so we can sit through more long ass movies instead of play the game.

Any particular reason you're in the PS3 forums?

[GizmoGC]

If the one disc is almost 3 times the capcity of the others you're not "cramming" anything into the one disc. Anymore the only reason splitting discs is done is because they can't fit the quality they want on a single DVD9 disc and that practice is in no way exclusive to the game industry. That is the instance in which it is "not a bad thing". Yet, if you don't have to do it, then all the better IMO. I'll agree you can make some arguments against Blu-ray as format at times, but that one is getting you no place.

Does anyone really care? Most people have no problems putting a second disc in. To date, how many 360 games have used 2 discs? Any? I can't think of one.

I played through and beat Enchanted Arms on 360. There were a TON of movies. Enough to warrant a 25GB disc? No way. While developers would love to have an endless amount of space, I doubt very many will take advantage of a full 25GB disc.

[Kayden]

Most likely looking to cause headaches.

Any particular reason you're in the PS3 forums?

[Pootie Thang]

Does anyone really care? Most people have no problems putting a second disc in. To date, how many 360 games have used 2 discs? Any? I can't think of one.

I played through and beat Enchanted Arms on 360. There were a TON of movies. Enough to warrant a 25GB disc? No way. While developers would love to have an endless amount of space, I doubt very many will take advantage of a full 25GB disc.

Maybe those videos were compressed. And maybe the audio was compressed as well. You never know

[Apossum]

If they get rid of the 20GB model, they better add a 60GB system without the ghey-looking chrome. I swear, that shit looks like it was painted on by a first grader with ADHD.


Agreed. I went with the 20gb for this very reason (and since you can pop in a 60gb HDD for about $60.) Attn Sony and MS: chrome was cool in the 90s.

[icruise]

Does anyone really care? Most people have no problems putting a second disc in. To date, how many 360 games have used 2 discs? Any? I can't think of one.

Your argument is like saying "how many DS games need two cartridges? None. That's why the PSP's extra storage space is useless." Developers of Xbox 360 games know that they are dealing with a limit of 9GB, so they design their games accordingly. Plus, most types of games just don't work very well with more than one disc. Imagine if you had to put in another disc every time you wanted to play certain levels of Gears of War, or every time you wanted to race a particular track in Burnout. It just wouldn't work, so the developers in general don't do it. (One obvious exception is the 3-disc Blue Dragon., but it works for linear RPGs)

For games that are developed specifically for the PS3, developers won't have to worry about size limits and can use the capacity to its fullest.

[dpatel]

Does anyone really care? Most people have no problems putting a second disc in. To date, how many 360 games have used 2 discs? Any? I can't think of one.

I played through and beat Enchanted Arms on 360. There were a TON of movies. Enough to warrant a 25GB disc? No way. While developers would love to have an endless amount of space, I doubt very many will take advantage of a full 25GB disc.

We haven't seen too many multiple disc 360 games, because it isn't really a feasible choice for most. It may not seem like much to the consumer to add a second disc (to us, it really isn't that big of a deal), but it is more of a hassle for developers. It isn't as simple as splitting the game into two and releasing it on two discs. It only works well in certain types of games, certain data must be replicated on both discs, etc.

I'm sure if developers on the 360 were given more space, they would've used it by now. It would definitely ease some of the effort and time used on extra optimization and compression, which could be otherwise used to getting the game out sooner, or putting more content into the game. Something that blu-ray does potentially offer. I don't think that advantage is worth the extra price, but it is nice to see that it is being used.

[Kayden]

Thirty bizzilion threads later and we're still having the same fucking arguement?

We get it, you think bluray is useless, now just shut up and play with your wii.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Does anyone really care? Most people have no problems putting a second disc in. To date, how many 360 games have used 2 discs? Any? I can't think of one.

I played through and beat Enchanted Arms on 360. There were a TON of movies. Enough to warrant a 25GB disc? No way. While developers would love to have an endless amount of space, I doubt very many will take advantage of a full 25GB disc.

Blue Dragon uses 3 discs. but yes it really isn't a big deal. I just thought someone should point out how saying "Multiple discs are not a bad thing. I'd rather have a game split then have it crammed onto 1 single disc." is a senseless comment with regards to the presented situation.

[Chitown021]

LOL just saw this comic and had to laugh... Maybe he should've said "If you can find a 20GB PS3 I will pay you $1200".
We Accept Paypal And Most Major Credit Cards
http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20070210.jpg

[GizmoGC]

Thirty bizzilion threads later and we're still having the same fucking arguement?

We get it, you think bluray is useless, now just shut up and play with your wii.

How are you not on my block list yet?

You must have not even read the thread, just assume this was a PS3 bashing thread. :roll:

[GizmoGC]

Your argument is like saying "how many DS games need two cartridges? None. That's why the PSP's extra storage space is useless." Developers of Xbox 360 games know that they are dealing with a limit of 9GB, so they design their games accordingly. Plus, most types of games just don't work very well with more than one disc. Imagine if you had to put in another disc every time you wanted to play certain levels of Gears of War, or every time you wanted to race a particular track in Burnout. It just wouldn't work, so the developers in general don't do it. (One obvious exception is the 3-disc Blue Dragon., but it works for linear RPGs)

For games that are developed specifically for the PS3, developers won't have to worry about size limits and can use the capacity to its fullest.

I'm sure they will try and use it to the fullest...but will we ever really know if they did? Sure, they may stick it on a 25GB disc and say they used as much space as possible, but how do we know its not padded with useless crap and code. It really does not matter to me as I bought a PS3 for Blu-Ray movies, not games. Very little upcoming games have impressed me at all (again, not saying its crap, just that nothing interests me besides DMC4)

[dpatel]

I'm sure they will try and use it to the fullest...but will we ever really know if they did? Sure, they may stick it on a 25GB disc and say they used as much space as possible, but how do we know its not padded with useless crap and code. It really does not matter to me as I bought a PS3 for Blu-Ray movies, not games. Very little upcoming games have impressed me at all (again, not saying its crap, just that nothing interests me besides DMC4)

I could really only see first party Sony adding 'padding and code' just to help hype blu-ray. But I doubt someone like Kojima would make a statement like that, and then only use filler to fill up the disc.

And I'm almost certain that all games use some sort of compression, which shows that space budgeting is an issue.

[dpatel]

And you say that we may never know if the extra space for blu-ray is actually used for more than filler. By that same token, I could argue that we will never know if certain 360 games could've used the extra space but were cut short because of the limited amount of space. Sure you could say that the option to use more space is there just by adding a second DVD, but I don't think its a coincidence that we only have 1 360 that uses more than 1 disc, however, we have had at least a couple of PS3 games already exceed the 9GB DVD limit. One possible reason is because developers will use what is available to them. If they are working on the 360, chances are, they will try, from day 1, to have the game fit onto 9GB of space, whereas a developer working with blu-ray will have more room to breathe and a little less to worry about.

[H.Cornerstone]

Rumor has it that Bungie is having huge problems with halo 3 with only being able to use one disc. Anywyas, Blu-rya may seem useless now, but it has far more potential in the future. Resistance used 15gb of the blu-ray disc, and that game wasn't filled with pointless crap. Granted, I am sure a big reason why is that they didn't use compressed audio, which is a big advantage if you have your ps3 hooked up to a 7.1 system. And just think about it, did we ever think 5 years ago that we would ever need more than a dvd? Or ten years ago did we ever think we would need more than a CD? etc.

[AlienHeadBoy]

I've seen tons of 60gigs just sitting on store shelfs.
I've been waiting to buy one but I've got $500 in wal-mart gift cards and Walmart seems to be the one store in my area that doesn't have any PS3s :(

[dfo]

Perhaps this is too close to the original point of this thread to be of interest to those still reading it, but Best Buy now as the 20 gig PS3 in stock online:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8008513&st=ps3&lp=3&type=product&cp=1&id=1156202764757

[Thomas96]

might as well phase out the 20gb ps3s no one wanted it anyway... if you can get 500, then you might as well get the extra hundred and get the total package...

[sonicbooom]

might as well phase out the 20gb ps3s no one wanted it anyway... if you can get 500, then you might as well get the extra hundred and get the total package... No one wanted it? What?? What's are the main differences between the 60gb and 20gb? The HDD and cosmetics? If that's all, then that is a good enough reason for me to want the 20gb ps3 over the 60gb version, and it is the reason that people wanted the 20gb version.

[lanzarlaluna]

might as well phase out the 20gb ps3s no one wanted it anyway... if you can get 500, then you might as well get the extra hundred and get the total package... Oh boy, you get card readers and wireless. Yipee. Let's see, my router is near my consoles, so I don't need that. Card readers are like 15 bucks at newegg, so I don't need that. The chrome looks cheap and hand-painted. My plan is to take that $100 I save and buy a bigger HDD. Unfortunately, the 20GB model won't be around by the time I get a PS3.

[The Mana Knight]

Oh boy, you get card readers and wireless. Yipee. Let's see, my router is near my consoles, so I don't need that. Card readers are like 15 bucks at newegg, so I don't need that. The chrome looks cheap and hand-painted. My plan is to take that $100 I save and buy a bigger HDD. Unfortunately, the 20GB model won't be around by the time I get a PS3.That's pretty much why I went with a 20GB. The only thing I may regret is not being able to do remote play. I plan to upgrade the HDD in the future.

[dallow]

I played through and beat Enchanted Arms on 360. There were a TON of movies. Enough to warrant a 25GB disc? No way. While developers would love to have an endless amount of space, I doubt very many will take advantage of a full 25GB disc.

Obviously the movies and audio are compressed since it's on a DVD.
Maybe they don't need 25GB, but more than 9GB would be nice.

BTW, how was the Motorstorm demo?

[H.Cornerstone]

You say developers don't need more than 9gb, yet Blue Dragon is going to be multiple discs and halo 3 will most likely be multiple discs as well. Not having to compress audio and the cut scenes drastically helps with load times, as scene with Oblivion.

[mykevermin]

halo 3 will most likely be multiple discs as well.
Cite your source. If you want to talk about a multi-disc "collector's version," that's one thing. But to suggest a shooter will be multiple discs for the game only is absurd.

[H.Cornerstone]

Cite your source. If you want to talk about a multi-disc "collector's version," that's one thing. But to suggest a shooter will be multiple discs for the game only is absurd.

How is it absurd? Bungie has been working on this game a long time and wants to put a lot of detail into it. You could do it with one being MP and the other being SP. I mean, Halo is a big game and trying to fit it on one disc could be hard, that or you would end up with a very short game like Gears.

[rodeojones903]

How is it absurd? Bungie has been working on this game a long time and wants to put a lot of detail into it. You could do it with one being MP and the other being SP. I mean, Halo is a big game and trying to fit it on one disc could be hard IMO, that or you would end up with a very short game like Gears.

How is it absurd? You are just making it up. You state IMO, so it means jack shit. You have no actual proof of those statements unless you can cite where you got the info from.

[icruise]

It's pretty unlikely that Halo 3 will be on more than one disc, because it's a shooter and not the kind of game that could easily be split up, and because the developers *know* they are dealing with a certain size limit, and will make the game fit. That doesn't mean that they couldn't have used the extra space to make the game better, though.

[gunm]

Perhaps this is too close to the original point of this thread to be of interest to those still reading it, but Best Buy now as the 20 gig PS3 in stock online:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8008513&st=ps3&lp=3&type=product&cp=1&id=1156202764757

Good heads up...still in stock as I type this too.

Also, thx for trying to keep this thread OT...

[H.Cornerstone]

http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4068
http://xbox360.qj.net/Halo-3-Rumour-city/pg/49/aid/4485
http://www.halo3multiplayer.com/Halo3-Rumors/Leaked%20Halo%203%20Story%20and%20Disc%20Info.php

Halo 3 will come on 2 seperate disks?
It's a possibility I suppose, one for the story/campaign mode and one for the multiplayer? Games radar reported that one unnamed multiplayer title may be using up to four 9GB DVD's (http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4068#). Considering there is only around 13GB of space on the 360 harddrive (http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4068#) this would mean upgrading considerably.Bungie's forums issued polls back in the summer asking gamers if they would like to see two disks for Halo 3 and what they would like to see on those disks. They could be just drumming up interest or it could be a clever plot to see exactly what Halo's obsessives really want.The latest rumour suggest a two disk set with one showing the 'Making Of Halo 3'. That certainly sounds more feasible.

I guess a rumor from a site is more respectable then mine.....

[Chris in Cali]

Unless you're in a wheelchair, complaining about multiple discs has to be the most ridiculous fanboy arguement I've ever heard. If you're to lazy to get off of your fat ass to change a disc, then you have much bigger problems than interupted gameplay.

[icruise]

For an RPG, maybe. But are you really telling me you wouldn't mind getting up to change discs every time you want to play a certain level in a shooter?

[mykevermin]

http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4068
http://xbox360.qj.net/Halo-3-Rumour-city/pg/49/aid/4485
http://www.halo3multiplayer.com/Halo3-Rumors/Leaked%20Halo%203%20Story%20and%20Disc%20Info.php

Halo 3 will come on 2 seperate disks?
It's a possibility I suppose, one for the story/campaign mode and one for the multiplayer? Games radar reported that one unnamed multiplayer title may be using up to four 9GB DVD's (http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4068#). Considering there is only around 13GB of space on the 360 harddrive (http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=4068#) this would mean upgrading considerably.Bungie's forums issued polls back in the summer asking gamers if they would like to see two disks for Halo 3 and what they would like to see on those disks. They could be just drumming up interest or it could be a clever plot to see exactly what Halo's obsessives really want.The latest rumour suggest a two disk set with one showing the 'Making Of Halo 3'. That certainly sounds more feasible.

I guess a rumor from a site is more respectable then mine.....

QJ is more full of it than any single website or forum poster out there. Blogs and fan-run sites are one thing, but I put zero stock into Halo being multiple discs until I see it on a gaming journalism site.

Don't mistake this for me thinking that Blu-Ray is a foolish idea, because I couldn't disagree more. I really think Sony's thinking 3-4 years into the future with Blu-Ray, and that games will show them to be a necessity. It just won't be anytime soon, IMO.

Truth be told, the Wii, IMO, actually helps make the case for Blu-Ray. Developers making games for all platforms the last time around would take a "lowest common denominator" approach - the base game would be enough to run on any platform, so the graphical/content difference was never anything major. The biggest differences in games across several platforms was perhaps Splinter Cell, and then the differences were significant to die-hard fans (always benefitting the xbox), but it didn't mean that the PS2/GC versions were garbage or empty games.

This gen, many studios are developing Wii versions separate from PS3/360. This reduces the incentive to make a common "base" game, with minute additions/subtractions for each platform. This gives studios greater leverage to make games that take advantage of the PS3 and 360's relative differences. They may make games for PS3/360 that are near identical (see MLB 2K7, a number of mostly sports franchises, etc.), but the opportunity for differences is greater this time around.

[Dr Mario Kart]

This gen, many studios are developing Wii versions separate from PS3/360. This reduces the incentive to make a common "base" game, with minute additions/subtractions for each platform. This gives studios greater leverage to make games that take advantage of the PS3 and 360's relative differences. They may make games for PS3/360 that are near identical (see MLB 2K7, a number of mostly sports franchises, etc.), but the opportunity for differences is greater this time around.

Shouldnt the PS3/360 situation of being much closer to each other than the Wii is HURT the PS3/360. From a multiplatform perspective, you now have two graphical powerhouses with robust online functionality. The Wii version is going to be the only experience not available on a competing system.

Also, just because there is a massive amount of power there, doesnt mean that developers will all of a sudden be compelled to use every bit of it. Budgets and various other quirks of the dev process could leave them with a pretty bare game even on a so called 'next-gen' system.

Also, the greater difference in power is offset by this generation being at a point on the graphical asymptote where the difference matters less relative to previous generations. Thats the very point of the Wii.

[RedvsBlue]

Don't mistake this for me thinking that Blu-Ray is a foolish idea, because I couldn't disagree more. I really think Sony's thinking 3-4 years into the future with Blu-Ray, and that games will show them to be a necessity. It just won't be anytime soon, IMO.


I agree that Blu-Ray is a way of Sony's thinking ahead approach but given the fact that video game generations don't seem to last more than 5 years anyway, don't you think that they're possibly planning too far ahead by including it in this generation?

[mykevermin]

Shouldnt the PS3/360 situation of being much closer to each other than the Wii is HURT the PS3/360. From a multiplatform perspective, you now have two graphical powerhouses with robust online functionality. The Wii version is going to be the only experience not available on a competing system.

Also, just because there is a massive amount of power there, doesnt mean that developers will all of a sudden be compelled to use every bit of it. Budgets and various other quirks of the dev process could leave them with a pretty bare game even on a so called 'next-gen' system.

Also, the greater difference in power is offset by this generation being at a point on the graphical asymptote where the difference matters less relative to previous generations. Thats the very point of the Wii.

That assumes that the games we see on PS3 and 360 will be little more than basic upgrades to the Wii version. Which won't be the case due to:
1) established precedents. You still have inter-console competition. If your game is a slight Wii upgrade, my game will be sure to optimize the console. Who's going to buy your game if mine is available?
2) Having different studios develop Wii titles. They won't be starting on common ground, really.

Some of what you're arguing is the opposite side of the coin I brought up. It's entirely possible that the PS3/360 won't be utilized to their potential, but since they already have been shown by published games that are visually above the Wii, they certainly can't move backwards without killing off their fanbase. It's possible, but its likelihood is a whole 'nother story.

I agree that Blu-Ray is a way of Sony's thinking ahead approach but given the fact that video game generations don't seem to last more than 5 years anyway, don't you think that they're possibly planning too far ahead by including it in this generation?

That's entirely, entirely possible. I've wondered that myself. It's not as if Sega CD really came about in an era that demanded CD-based games.

[gunm]

wtf, take the multi-disc argument somewhere else! I think this has gone way beyond asking politely now...

[CokeCola]

On topic, I was doing some work in electronics at Target today, and noticed the 20 Gig PS3 came up as "Discontinued." That's Discontinued in Target-Speak, which means we're no longer receiving the given product.

[dallow]

On topic, I was doing some work in electronics at Target today, and noticed the 20 Gig PS3 came up as "Discontinued." That's Discontinued in Target-Speak, which means we're no longer receiving the given product.

Dun dun dunnnnnn.

[H.Cornerstone]

On topic, I was doing some work in electronics at Target today, and noticed the 20 Gig PS3 came up as "Discontinued." That's Discontinued in Target-Speak, which means we're no longer receiving the given product.

Yeah, at my store we don't even have the tag anymore.

[lanzarlaluna]

I saw two 20GB systems at Wal-Mart today. I didn't have $500 handy though. :((((((((

[dpatel]

Unless you're in a wheelchair, complaining about multiple discs has to be the most ridiculous fanboy arguement I've ever heard. If you're to lazy to get off of your fat ass to change a disc, then you have much bigger problems than interupted gameplay.

It's not about changing discs. That is not a big deal. It's that fact that it can be somewhat limiting to developers. Because of the limited size of a DVD, developers will spend more time on optimization and compression which could be otherwise used to make a better end product, or to get the end product released sooner.

[Trakan]

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/17/best-buy-done-with-ps3-20gb/

Goddamnit.

[sonderiaom]

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/17/best-buy-done-with-ps3-20gb/

Goddamnit.

That, along with Target as well. Wonder who's going to be the next?

[Radioactive_Man]

Take this with grain of salt.

Someone at work (gamestop) wanted to return his defective ps3 20 gig and get another 20 gig. Turns out no store's in our whole company has any 20 gig ps3. So GS might be phasing them out aswell.

This happened 3 days ago.

[PaulG]

I've never seen a 499.99 model and haven't seen a 499.99 label SKU in months.

Was hoping it'd change, but it looks like the occassional 499.99 model that was being spotted was old inventory being cleared out.

This really sucks. It's essentially an unofficial price hike. It's not like prices didn't suck from day one, but Sony and MS seem price changing in the wrong direction. Sony's only selling the 599.99 model and if rumors are to be believed, the new top of the line Xbox 360 is gonna be priced at 479.99. Awesome.

As much as I hate the Nintendo Wii (lifelong Nintendo fan who sold his Wii), MS and Sony both deserve to get their @@@ handed to them this generation. Heck, even the Wii was designed to be sold at 129.99/99.99 and Nintendo just jacked up the price when MS/Sony lost their mind and suddenly made 249.99 look like a bargain.

[RedvsBlue]

I've never seen a 499.99 model and haven't seen a 499.99 label SKU in months.

Was hoping it'd change, but it looks like the occassional 499.99 model that was being spotted was old inventory being cleared out.

This really sucks. It's essentially an unofficial price hike. It's not like prices didn't suck from day one, but Sony and MS seem price changing in the wrong direction. Sony's only selling the 599.99 model and if rumors are to be believed, the new top of the line Xbox 360 is gonna be priced at 479.99. Awesome.

As much as I hate the Nintendo Wii (lifelong Nintendo fan who sold his Wii), MS and Sony both deserve to get their @@@ handed to them this generation. Heck, even the Wii was designed to be sold at 129.99/99.99 and Nintendo just jacked up the price when MS/Sony lost their mind and suddenly made 249.99 look like a bargain.

Listen Paul, let's have a little chit chat. Now, what you say about Sony and the 20 gb model may be true but getting down on Microsoft about a system price-point that they haven't even publicly acknowledged exists, is a little bit ridiculous. In addition to that, the current rumor regarding the new 360 models says that the current $400 will replace the $300 model and the $400 model will be replaced by the new 360 model with the bigger harddrive and all the bells and whistles. Furthermore, praising a company for pricing their console higher, just 'cause they can, is similarly ridiculous given that they've always launched their systems at a $200 price-point and have suddenly decided to abandon that strategy.

[GizmoGC]

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/17/best-buy-done-with-ps3-20gb/

Goddamnit.

Do I win a prize?

The ONLY 20GBs I have seen have been the original launch systems (due to the T. Nights inside). Unless Sony plans on re-introducing the 20GB later, is the agreement now that the PS3 costs $599.99? So now there is a $200 price difference between it and the 360?

What about when the rumored 360 Core gets dropped and he Premium becomes $300 with more features/bigger space? Will Sony let there system be twice as much?

[GizmoGC]

As much as I hate the Nintendo Wii (lifelong Nintendo fan who sold his Wii), MS and Sony both deserve to get their @@@ handed to them this generation. Heck, even the Wii was designed to be sold at 129.99/99.99 and Nintendo just jacked up the price when MS/Sony lost their mind and suddenly made 249.99 look like a bargain.

?

Nintendo had originally aimed for the Wii to be at that pricepoint several years ago when they started. They never intended to introduce it for that price, and then suddenly jack the price up due to MS and Nintendo. Nintendo still makes a small profit off the Wii, something MS was not able to do at the launch of 360, and something Sony won't be doing for a while (a $350 hit for each one sold).

[RedvsBlue]

Do I win a prize?

The ONLY 20GBs I have seen have been the original launch systems (due to the T. Nights inside). Unless Sony plans on re-introducing the 20GB later, is the agreement now that the PS3 costs $599.99? So now there is a $200 price difference between it and the 360?

What about when the rumored 360 Core gets dropped and he Premium becomes $300 with more features/bigger space? Will Sony let there system be twice as much?

You know, at this point, does it really matter?

I read the article a little more closely and I'm fucking floored

When Joystiq spoke with Sony's David Karraker earlier this week he told us, "Overwhelmingly, retailers have been requesting the 60GB model, the mix has been about 80 percent 60GB, 20 percent 20GB retailer orders." With Best Buy's decision to no longer carry the unit, a major retailer has walked away from the 20GB table, obviously the margins were better on the 60GB model. Sony says they are still producing 20GB models.

You're telling me its the RETAILERS that don't want the 20gb model?!?!? Unfreakinbelievable.

[GizmoGC]

You know, at this point, does it really matter?

I read the article a little more closely and I'm fucking floored



You're telling me its the RETAILERS that don't want the 20gb model?!?!? Unfreakinbelievable.

Oh course! They would much rather have a $600 item then a $500 item.
The retailers still make the same amount on them if sold ($10-$15 tops), and there so small they can fit 2, maybe 4 in a case.

I find it VERY hard to believe retailers would want the more expensive unit considering they would make the same amount if sold, they are identical in size, and that $600 is a better pricepoint then $500.

[RedvsBlue]

Oh course! They would much rather have a $600 item then a $500 item.
The retailers still make the same amount on them if sold ($10-$15 tops), and there so small they can fit 2, maybe 4 in a case.

I find it VERY hard to believe retailers would want the more expensive unit considering they would make the same amount if sold, they are identical in size, and that $600 is a better pricepoint then $500.

Especially a retailer like Target that THRIVES on offering bargain priced merchandise...

I sent an email to Sony's customer service saying that I couldn't find 20gb models anywhere and I asked where I might be able to purchase one.

[H.Cornerstone]

Didn't the 20gb model have an open price point as well meaning that retailers could sell it for any price they wanted to?

[GizmoGC]

Didn't the 20gb model have an open price point as well meaning that retailers could sell it for any price they wanted to?

No, no videogame hardware has ever had that to my knowledge.

Considering some retailers are willing to drop the PSP if Sony does not lower the price, I find it hard to believe $600 and not $500 is the magic pricepoint.

[H.Cornerstone]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/734/734349p1.html

I take that back, I read this article a long time ago and it was the 60gb model, but that was only Japan.

[schuerm26]

You know, at this point, does it really matter?

I read the article a little more closely and I'm fucking floored



You're telling me its the RETAILERS that don't want the 20gb model?!?!? Unfreakinbelievable.

Actually, I don't think they really want either model

[RedvsBlue]

Actually, I don't think they really want either model

You know, your posts usually annoy me but for this one I'll make an exception.

Well played sir, well played.

[dallow]

I guess it may surprise many of you that yes, people ARE buying the PS3.
It's not a hotcake item like the Wii, but retailers do want them and are selling them.

[icruise]

At first blush, it may sound strange that retailers don't want the 20GB model, but I think that may actually be the case. A lot of people still think of it as the "tard pack" (ala the 360 Core System) and don't even consider it when making a buying decision.

I still maintain that Sony should have ONLY come out with the 20GB model.

[RedvsBlue]

I guess it may surprise many of you that yes, people ARE buying the PS3.
It's not a hotcake item like the Wii, but retailers do want them and are selling them.

The other "hotcake" items that beat it in February included the DS at 485,000 units; the Wii (which was already mentioned) at 335,000; the 360 had 228,000 sales; the (how old is this thing now) Playstation 2 with 295,000 units; the positively white-hot selling PSP with 176,000 units; and finally the PS3 did indeed manage to sell 127,000.

You're right, its not a hotcake but it sure is a beefcake.

[Dr Mario Kart]

don't forget about the GBA clearing the PS3 by 9k (136,000) http://www.platformers.net/forum/Smileys/default/science.gif

[icruise]

don't forget about the GBA clearing the PS3 by 9k (136,000) http://www.platformers.net/forum/Smileys/default/science.gif

In November (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4362&Itemid=2), the GBA sold 641,000 units, outselling the Xbox 360, Wii, and PS3 (the latter two having just launched) and only barely being beaten out by the PS2, which sold 664,000 units.

And in December (http://www.gadgetell.com/2007/01/npd-groups-real-2006-video-game-report/) the GBA sold 850,700 units! All this talk about how pathetic it is to be outsold by the GBA doesn't take into account the fact that the GBA has been selling like gangbusters for months.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Circuit City is not really carrying them anymore either. No store in my state has one, it's not available in any distribution center, it can't be web-ordered or special ordered, and worse still it ends in .96 (with max store level of 0), which always indicates a brand new item or an OOP item. And seeing as how the PS3 isn't brand new, then it's being listed as OOP.

[Chitown021]

Hmmm... Does that mean they (20GB PS3's) will fetch a premium on ebay??

Ever since this thread started I've made it a point to look for 20GB units. I haven't seen a single one in the past month.

[CrimsonPaw]

Well, I'm a day late and a dollar short on this discussion, but here's what I predict will happen:

Sony will stop production on the 20Gb PS3 unit around the European launch.
The new 60Gb unit will start to be produced without the PS2 emotion engine (ala the European unit).
Because of this, they will drop the price to $500 slightly before Christmas of '07 to compete, hoping that the once it's only $100 from the competition people will be more apt to pick one up.Again, just my $.02.

[Thongsy]

Hmmm... Does that mean they (20GB PS3's) will fetch a premium on ebay??

Ever since this thread started I've made it a point to look for 20GB units. I haven't seen a single one in the past month.

No, cause than you're paying close to the 60 gb model price just to say you have a 20 gb model. Wouldn't make any sense.

[Chitown021]

No, cause than you're paying close to the 60 gb model price just to say you have a 20 gb model. Wouldn't make any sense.

And don't forget the different color.... ;)

[dpatel]

Because of this, they will drop the price to $500 slightly before Christmas of '07 to compete, hoping that the once it's only $100 from the competition people will be more apt to pick one up.[/LIST]Again, just my $.02.

I'm not so sure about that. As soon as the PS3 drops, you can bet both the 360 and Wii would drop too. Both MS and Nintendo are profiting on their systems and are in a very comfortable position right now. I'm sure Sony will just wait for either the Wii or 360 to drop in price before making their move, since any price drop the PS3 gets will be negated by an inevitable following 360 drop and a possible Wii drop.

That's just my opinion though. Some may be looking at PS3's price independently, in which case it won't matter how much the 360/Wii are, as long as the PS3 drops.

[Dr Mario Kart]

If a price drop by your competitor is imminent, shouldnt you lower your prices first so you appear to be taking the initiative?

Its like in poker, if you are SURE that your opponent will bet come their turn, but they wont raise/reraise, then you should bet first to appear stronger, if you were going to call his bet anyway

[dpatel]

If a price drop by your competitor is imminent, shouldnt you lower your prices first so you appear to be taking the initiative?

Its like in poker, if you are SURE that your opponent will bet come their turn, but they wont raise/reraise, then you should bet first to appear stronger, if you were going to call his bet anyway

Good point. I'm just speculating here, so I could be wrong. But, the PS3 has been out a year less than the 360, and is taking a huge loss, compared to the 360's profit. To me, all signs point to 360 dropping first.

[dallow]

Pretty good sales for the price of the PS3.
And man, PS2 is one great system.

[icruise]

Good point. I'm just speculating here, so I could be wrong. But, the PS3 has been out a year less than the 360, and is taking a huge loss, compared to the 360's profit. To me, all signs point to 360 dropping first.
Is the 360 actually making a profit? I thought the Wii was the only console currently being sold for a profit.

[Dr Mario Kart]

The hardware by itself is. Probably not so much or at all once you add some associated costs like marketing or whatnot.

[dpatel]

The hardware by itself is. Probably not so much or at all once you add some associated costs like marketing or whatnot.

yea, i was talking about the hardware itself.

The 360 launched at a loss, but just recently started to turn a profit (a small profit)
http://www.techspot.com/news/23612-microsoft-makes-tiny-profit-on-xbox-360-hardware.html

[dfo]

PS3 20g is now out of stock again at BestBuy.com, though they claim it is "Coming Soon" so perhaps they intend to restock at some point ...


http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8008513&st=playstation+3&lp=3&type=product&cp=1&id=1156202764757

[dpatel]

PS3 20g is now out of stock again at BestBuy.com, though they claim it is "Coming Soon" so perhaps they intend to restock at some point ...


http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8008513&st=playstation+3&lp=3&type=product&cp=1&id=1156202764757

I believe they say 'Coming Soon' for all out of stock items. I might be wrong though.

[dfo]

For anyone looking, PS3 20g is back in stock again at Best Buy.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8008513&st=ps3&lp=3&type=product&cp=1&id=1156202764757

[RedvsBlue]

For anyone looking, PS3 20g is back in stock again at Best Buy.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8008513&st=ps3&lp=3&type=product&cp=1&id=1156202764757
Ugh, what do to? I don't want to get it unless I have a job but if I put it off, I risk not being able to get one. Well I can always hope my interview this afternoon goes well and its still in stock at that point.

[dfo]

Ugh, what do to? I don't want to get it unless I have a job but if I put it off, I risk not being able to get one. Well I can always hope my interview this afternoon goes well and its still in stock at that point.
Hey, hope the interview went well and if so that you scored a 20g before they went out of stock again!

[RedvsBlue]

Hey, hope the interview went well and if so that you scored a 20g before they went out of stock again!

Not well enough that I was one of the people that got one of those before they were gone...