BB dropping the 80GB PS3?

[Groundbeef]

Word on the street is that BB is going to sh!tcan the 80GB PS3. This leaves the 40GB the only available model left. There is some rumors that a lower price PS3 is in the works, but I can't find any more info.

So if you have a PS2, and want to play them on your PS3, act now. When the 80GB is gone, there will no longer be a model of the PS3 that emulates the games.

Not sure if any of this will affect users of the PS3 on this forum, but it is "news".

Read:
http://www.ps3fanboy.com/2008/01/24/best-buy-discontinuing-80gb-ps3/

[GMichael]

There was an article a few days ago that Sony is looking for programmers to work on s/w to give the 40 BC. It would seem that it's not anything that will be soon though. But once it's out, it's just a matter of downloading the new version.

[Groundbeef]

There was an article a few days ago that Sony is looking for programmers to work on s/w to give the 40 BC. It would seem that it's not anything that will be soon though. But once it's out, it's just a matter of downloading the new version.

I seriously doubt the story. Sony has already gone on record stating that BC is "dead". They want to focus attention to the PS3.

If they could do it, I think that Sony would love the PS2 to die sooner rather than later. The PS2 is KILLING the PS3 in terms of sales (ironic isn't it?). BC was more of a band-aid when the PS3 didn't have any games. Now the games are rolling out, Sony has no real incentive to spend more money making the PS3 pretend its a PS2.

Heck, for $129, you can just buy a PS2.

[GMichael]

You may be right. Either way, I have no intentions on buying any PS2 games. With my set-up, HD is needed.

[johnny p]

I read this as well. Making room for the White PS3 perhaps, and also rumors of releasing a 100-120 gb version.

[Groundbeef]

You may be right. Either way, I have no intentions on buying any PS2 games. With my set-up, HD is needed.

I think MS did it right. Roll out the 360, kill the original XBOX. Right now Sony is battling both MS, Nintendo, and the PS2. It amazes me that they keep releasing games (the same games) for both systems. Whats the incentive to change? PS2 version of Madden 08 is $50, PS3 version is $60. Some incentive to change.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think MS did it right. Roll out the 360, kill the original XBOX. Right now Sony is battling both MS, Nintendo, and the PS2. It amazes me that they keep releasing games (the same games) for both systems. Whats the incentive to change? PS2 version of Madden 08 is $50, PS3 version is $60. Some incentive to change.

Beef, I do not want you to take this wrong, but their roll out was not so rosey.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/digitaljoystick/archives/129866.asp

And here are more problems they are having

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6184323.html?sid=6184323&action=convert

They didn't do it so right when you look at detail. They rushed the product to market.

[Groundbeef]

Beef, I do not want you to take this wrong, but their roll out was not so rosey.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/digitaljoystick/archives/129866.asp

And here are more problems they are having

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6184323.html?sid=6184323&action=convert

They didn't do it so right when you look at detail. They rushed the product to market.

I considered the usual 3 page point/counter point, then decided against it.

I've read both articles, and the first one has more merit than the second. So I'll address them in that order.

1. I agree that the rollout of the 360 was "poor" at best. However, it doesn't negate the point I was originally trying to make. Rollout = "Poor" Decision to kill original XBOX when 360 came out = "Very Good"

MS has fixed the problems, and continues to address the failure issues as they come up. As indicated in your link, the newest machines have a failure rate right in line with other console makers. So until the old machines are either fixed or pulled out of the stream, the old consoles will consider to fail until replaced out. MS is doing that for free, and offering a 3 YEAR warrenty on older consoles. Considering a console "life" is typically 5 years, a failure warrenty for 60% of its life for free it pretty damn good.

So please separate the issues before muddying the waters.

Sony is in a pickle. Its prior generation of game machines (7 years long in the tooth) is KILLING the PS3. Sony continues to release games for the platform concurent with the new console, for less money.

By killing Backwards Compatibility (BC) in the newest incarnation of the PS3 Sony commented that they are focusing on the PS3 now, not the PS2. Good for them, should have thought of that a year ago.

2. Suing MS for $5MM for 7 days of spotty Live outages is at best stupid, at worst litigation gone wrong. MS had actually made a decision to "right" the problem PRIOR to the lawsuit (a couple days actually) by releasing a LIVE ARCADE game for free. The game normally sells for 800 MS points or approximatly $10.00 per user.

If the suit goes forward, and the plaintiffs prevail, each of the approximate 8 million live users can expect a check of $.43.

So, in summary:

1. I agree the rollout could have been better. Doesn't relate to the BC compatibilty issue I raised, but so be it.

2. Its a non issue. Guy cries about spotty outages during the biggest holiday season in XBOX history. Whaaaaa. If he wins all xbox live customers get $.43. Lawyers get millions.

MS prior to being sued offered in effect EVERY user of Live $10 in the form of a free d/l. This was done proactively, and worth more than the non-issue lawsuit.

[kexodusc]

I can't help but feel that MS knew the competition would be extremely intense, if not outright better than the product they were developing. So they made a calculated decision to rush the 360 out to establish a market and accepted the consequences of that.

From their perspective:
additional revenue from launching premature > cost of warranty replacement + cost of good will forfeited

Simple math.

Word on the street is MS continues to have some pretty big performance incentives in senior management positions directly linked to performance figures. If market share or just beating Sony was one of them, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the "insider's" comments are true, and everyone knew there'd be embarassing problems, but they did it anyway.

Looking back, if MS was launching in late 2006 early 2007, they'd probably be selling a lot less consoles, a lot less games, bringing in a lot less revenue from Live, and not supporting the continued dominance of Windows via the media integration. I'm guessing that the benefit rushing to market more than offset the cost of doing so in the short term. Long-term, well, they're damage control was slow, but has been fairly decent. They probably won't lose as many people as some would think - Sony's late launch and high prices continue to peeve gamers off, too.

From a business standpoint, they probably did things right, even if it was not in the consumer's best interest. At the end of the day, the game titles tend to mean more than the machines themselves, and I think XBOX is doing alright there.

[Groundbeef]

From a business standpoint, they probably did things right, even if it was not in the consumer's best interest. At the end of the day, the game titles tend to mean more than the machines themselves, and I think XBOX is doing alright there.

Either way, the XBOX division is making money. Something they didn't even do during the entire time the original XBOX was in the market.

Recent profit reports indicate that the division turned a profit of $357MM as compared to a LOSS of $302MM last year. Keep in mind that also includes the setaside for warrenty repairs. A $1Billion setaside.

[kexodusc]

Either way, the XBOX division is making money. Something they didn't even do during the entire time the original XBOX was in the market.

Recent profit reports indicate that the division turned a profit of $357MM as compared to a LOSS of $302MM last year. Keep in mind that also includes the setaside for warrenty repairs. A $1Billion setaside.

My point exactly. Had they due-processed the XBOX 360, they might have sold what? Half as many units, games, Live memberships etc, as a result of the later release. They'd probably still be in the red, despite the quality being better.

I have to say, I brokered the transaction for my brothers replacement console while he was in Germany, and MS was very easy to deal with - something far different than experiences I continue to have with their software division... :incazzato:

[Woochifer]

Well, if Sony indeed goes this route, then I most definitely won't be getting the 40 GB model. For me, the last thing I want is to have two separate gaming consoles in my audio rack (since I still like to break out my old PS2 games). And the ability to transcode SACDs into multichannel PCM was a big plus.

No backwards PS2 capability & no SACD = no sale

Fortunately, eBay and Gamespot aren't going away anytime soon, so I'll at least have a chance to pick up a second hand unit if need be. At the rate that Blu-ray player prices are declining, I might wind up waiting for the Profile 2.0 players and forget about the PS3 (even though its media center functions look very intriguing).

[pixelthis]

And this marketing screwup from a company that will be instrumental in
promoting Blu-Ray, probably got advice from sir t.
the biggest competitor for PS3 was PS2, and there isnt any reason to buy a new one,
really if the older one works fine.
Leave it to Sony, their engineering expertise is matched only by their marketing
stupidity.
Part of the cause this time was fear, they were too scared to kill off the ps2,
afraid that the PS3 couldnt carry the load, or would flop outright.
AND they might have been right:1: