PS3 HDMI, but No Hard Drive

[Groundbeef]

Well, Woochifer I followed your advice and started a new thread to deal with the PS3.

I was at my local BestBuy to get some printer ink for my printer. While in line I was reading an article sponsered by BestBuy and IGN.com It was kind of a general holiday/upcoming tech issue showcasing new tech coming in the next few months.

Low and behold the New PS3 will not come with a Hard Drive. Thats right, its not an option like the 360, there will not be any to get period. They will be released later for a fine price I am sure.

So if you get your PS3, and you want to save anything...you gotta get a memory card. ($40 if history serves). And since the price is already speculated at the same as the xbox 360 premium ($399) your now going to be close to $500 with the box, 1 game and mem card.

I would argue that this will impact far more gamers than the lack of HDMI on the 360.

Any thoughts? Also it seems that the goal of the PS3 is to be an entertainment hub much like MS would like the 360 to be.

See here for some more info although there is plenty out there.
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000833046205/

[drseid]

Personally, I will buy the PS3 for its BluRay drive. The gaming capabilities most will buy it for are not important to me at all, but I guess they are an added bonus. To me, it will serve its purpose of being the cheapest way to get a 1st gen BluRay compatible drive.

---Dave

[Groundbeef]

Personally, I will buy the PS3 for its BluRay drive. The gaming capabilities most will buy it for are not important to me at all, but I guess they are an added bonus. To me, it will serve its purpose of being the cheapest way to get a 1st gen BluRay compatible drive.

---Dave

Sony's hoping you will be the only one. They only make money if you buy games. Current thought is that if Sony matches 360 at $400 they will be losing more than $150 per console. Games are where the money is.

[drseid]

Sony's hoping you will be the only one. They only make money if you buy games. Current thought is that if Sony matches 360 at $400 they will be losing more than $150 per console. Games are where the money is.
As a consumer, I am just fine with that (I doubt Sony is though)... ;-)

---Dave

[topspeed]

I'm with Dave. I'll buy the PS3 when there is plenty of BluRay software along with good games. As a video source, this thing will be one of the least expensive BluRay players available at the initial launch. Who cares if Sony is losing money? Their marketing strategy is not really my problem.

BTW Dave,
I noticed you added the CODA. Congrats on that! What happened to the Stratos?

[Woochifer]

Well, considering that my PS2 does not come with a hard drive, and I've never owned a gaming system with a hard drive, the lack of a hard drive on the PS3 is neither here nor there in my thinking. In the 4+ years that I've had my PS2, I've bought a grand total of three memory cards.

I have no idea whether the PS3 games will put more demands on the memory side, or if the hard drive would provide any benefit whatsoever to the PS3 games, or if Sony will even market a hard drive as an option (I know they make one for the PS2, but I don't anyone who uses one with their console). Time will tell on those questions.

For my own purposes, the exclusion of HDMI on the PS3 would be far more consequential because when I upgrade my video chain to HD, I intend to go with all digital video sources (DVD universal player, HD satellite receiver, HD-DVR, and Blu-ray or HD-DVD player), and have all of them switched out to the TV through a single HDMI video output.

HD components that saddle me down with analog component video would necessitate buying a redundant set of analog cabling going out to the TV. Considering that I need about 15' from the rack to the TV, that would entail at least another $70 or so for two sets of decent cabling (just one 16' set of Monster's entry level component video cabling will run at least $80, plus another $30 or so for the short run from the component to the switching device), not to mention having to switch two sources every time I change from a digital source to an analog source. Keeping the video chain all digital keeps the video source switching as simple as possible.

Plus, the Blu-ray playback capability for my purposes will factor in much more prominently than whether the thing comes with a hard drive.

[drseid]

I'm with Dave. I'll buy the PS3 when there is plenty of BluRay software along with good games. As a video source, this thing will be one of the least expensive BluRay players available at the initial launch. Who cares if Sony is losing money? Their marketing strategy is not really my problem.

BTW Dave,
I noticed you added the CODA. Congrats on that! What happened to the Stratos?
Well, the Coda amp is really my old Legacy High Current amp made by Coda that blew after my 30 minutes of sonic heaven on the Tylers when I bought it used months ago... The Stratos was on a build delay by the manufacturer, so on a whim, I called up Coda to see if they could fix the amp thinking it would be cost prohibitive (I figured the burning smell meant it was done for)... When I was quoted $500 or less over the phone, I figured it was better to just fix it than toss it (I am lucky I never threw it out, even after I thought I could never use it again). Bottom line, the amp cost $125 to fix including return shipping, so my fears were completely unfounded on the repair costs. I now have the amp I wanted with my speakers in the first place, and saved $1300 to boot. Needless to say, I cancelled the Stratos order before assembly began. While I feel bad for Klaus, I am a happy camper with the Coda. and know I would not have found a better match with my Linbrook System.

---Dave

[Groundbeef]

Well, considering that my PS2 does not come with a hard drive, and I've never owned a gaming system with a hard drive, the lack of a hard drive on the PS3 is neither here nor there in my thinking. In the 4+ years that I've had my PS2, I've bought a grand total of three memory cards.

I have no idea whether the PS3 games will put more demands on the memory side, or if the hard drive would provide any benefit whatsoever to the PS3 games, or if Sony will even market a hard drive as an option (I know they make one for the PS2, but I don't anyone who uses one with their console). Time will tell on those questions.

Plus, the Blu-ray playback capability for my purposes will factor in much more prominently than whether the thing comes with a hard drive.


Your desire for the HDMI connection is well established. However, on the gaming side, there is much lamenting that the Hard Drive will not be included. Many gamers are upset this feature is left out. Now this forum is a bit different that many posters are more interested in the Blu-Ray than for gaming.

However, there have been many posts on other boards pointing out how games play different on the orginal xbox than ps2 due to the xbox Hard Drive. The football games in xbox for example use in game video clips to replay during half time, whereas the ps2 uses "pictures". THere are others, but I can post them if you like.

Yes, the ps2 only has a harddrive for 1 game, but I think Sony missed the boat on that one, and on the future of gaming if the PS3 lacks the hard drive.

Anyway, good discussion.

[bacchanal]

Sony's hoping you will be the only one. They only make money if you buy games. Current thought is that if Sony matches 360 at $400 they will be losing more than $150 per console. Games are where the money is.

Those market analysts or whatever they are that try to guess these things aren't neccessarily correct. They said that microsoft was losing money on the xbox after microsoft itself said that they were making a profit on the hardware.

[Groundbeef]

Those market analysts or whatever they are that try to guess these things aren't neccessarily correct. They said that microsoft was losing money on the xbox after microsoft itself said that they were making a profit on the hardware.

Gonna have to differ on this one with you. Even Microsoft has admitted to losing money on the original XBOX and XBOX 360. I will provide links if you need. Also, there are many others written on the PS3 will be a money loser for Sony.

This is not guessing in that they are blindly shouting out numbers. It is pretty easy to tear these consoles apart, and analyze the components. Without a doubt in the inital phase of the console they are a money loser. As time goes on, and the experience curve gets better, then MAYBE the mfg (sony or MS) will make money due to price breaks on quantity of parts ordered, or the natural downward pressure on computer parts pricing as time moves forward. However, it is an established fact that MS and Sony do not make money on the consoles (in the beginning). Sony is making money on the PS2, but that is due to economies of scale...after 80 million units, you better be making money!

Nintendo is a different animal. They generally make money on the consoles (albiet maybe a few dollars per console) but, they are also not cutting edge. When Xbox and PS2 were using dvd, game cube went with smaller disks. N64 was a cartridge, not a disk, and so on.

[teledynepost]

Nintendo is a different animal. They generally make money on the consoles (albiet maybe a few dollars per console) but, they are also not cutting edge.

I definitely remember GameCube at release was priced below the manufacturing cost. I remember it was quite cheap compared to PS2 and XBox.