PDA

View Full Version : PS3 Slim



Shadow Bahamut
11-26-2009, 10:50 PM
Was there any point really? What actual benefits are there of owning this cheapened version of a mighty console?

Sorry guys, this actually bugs me as to why Sony needed to do it... 360 sales were already down and ps3 sales were on the up BEFORE the Slim release. So you get a 120gb HDD - big deal! Why don't you just buy an older one and slam a 250gb (and upwards) Laptop SATA drive in it? like i did :P (gots me an original 60gb model and stuck a 250gb HDD in, works a treat).

Plus, the slim looks cheap and nasty with all its dull black plasticky parts...and BUTTONS!!! in a world with touch-sensitive areas (like the original ps3) they go and stick BUTTONS ON IT?!?!

seriously, what are Sony thinking? :confused:

what do you guys think?

Yeargdribble
11-27-2009, 01:12 AM
I much prefer the look of the slim. I'm tired of the glossy black finish on pretty much anything. It's just a magnet for fingerprints and tiny scratches. Granted, that's less of a problem with a console, but still a bit of one. Dust shows way worse on gloss than on matte and when trying to clean it off you're gonna almost always leave smudges.

I've got enough huge boxes hooked into my entertainment center. I don't mind saving a little space anywhere I can get it. The smaller size and weight are absolutely fine by me. The touch buttons are neither here nor there for me. Who cares if they are solid buttons or not. Anything they can do to bring the launch price down even further is fine by me.


What actual benefits are there of owning this cheapened version of a mighty console?

Exactly what is cheapened other than the price? It does exactly what the old one is. I guess people with old ones can brag about how giant their c**ks are because they bought it when it ws $4-600 bucks or something and it looks like something out of 2001: A Space Odyssey.


seriously, what are Sony thinking?

They were thinking that finally production costs had dropped on things like the blu-ray bits. They were thinking they needed something new and sexy to make a bigger splash. They were thinking more people would buy their console if the dropped the price AND made it look different. Some people would finally get around to getting one and the gadget whores might also get an extra one for the looks or just to have an extra.

Sony was thinking of turning a profit and honestly it's one of the smartest things they done lately after a litany of prior mistakes (and it seems to be followed by plenty more... hi2u PSPGo).



So you get a 120gb HDD - big deal! Why don't you just buy an older one and slam a 250gb (and upwards) Laptop SATA drive in it?

You're saying that coming with a decent size HDD pre-installed is a bad feature? You been trying the Xbox 360 Kool-aid? And if you want a bigger one, there's nothing to keep you from upgrading to a bigger one. I honestly don't see where your logic is coming from that starting with a 120 GB HDD (at a price point of $300) is a bad thing anyway.


I hate to say it, but you just sound butthurt that you shelled out a lot of money and now the price is far lower. If you had a launch PS3 (not sure... maybe your 60 GB one) then just be glad it's BC. I'd be willing to pay more if it was BC.

eestlinc
11-27-2009, 02:22 AM
one point was to make possible threads like this.

Shadow Bahamut
11-27-2009, 02:35 AM
i wasnt actually complaining about Sony re;easing the slim, i just didnt see any logc behind it, why didnt they just reduce the price of the originals (40gb + 80gb models) instead of shelling out millions more on a redesign and making extra moulds for the new shape?? it doesnt make sense.
And no, i didnt buy a release PS3, i was actually smarter than that and waited a year and only paid 300 for mine + a game, which, to be fair is only 50 extra, and i get Backplay for ps2 games (admitedly rarely used, but there if i ever start to feel nostalgic) and i get all the card readers.

Either way, i'm not a 360 fan AT ALL, i hate them with a passion (after owning an Elite, after i bought the ps3, and having it crash several times on me before re-selling it).

My point of buying an older one, is that there are some awesome Used deals out there for like 200 or less, that i've seen around anyhow.

Yes, i agree, the glossiness can get annoying sometimes, it is a huge fingerprint/dust magnet. All you need is an anti-static cloth (i got one supplied with my tv for the same reason) and it shouldnt smudge

all in all, i say LONG LIVE PS3! (whichever model)

ljkkjlcm9
11-27-2009, 03:43 AM
Because remodels do more than just get new people to buy it. It gets people that own the original model to get the new model as well.

GBA, GBA SP, GBA Micro are a great example

THE JACKEL

McLovin'
11-27-2009, 05:48 AM
It plays PS3 games and is cheaper....that's all I give a :bou::bou::bou::bou: about.

Bolivar
11-27-2009, 05:57 AM
The parts are cheaper for manufacturing. The parts they used in the PS3's up until the Slim were bigger and more expensive, not to mention used more power. They were only dropped to $299 on the older models to clear them off the shelf. Now Sony isn't losing as much money on each console sold and they're supposed to break even or profit by the end of the year.

Lastly, hard drives are cheap anyway so you might as well put one int he same size as the 360 Elite HDD because that's what they're supposedly "competing" with, if that's even an appropriate term.

I hear what you're saying, though. I bought a 60GB model for $340 after tax & shipping at the beginning of 2008: best Playstation-related purchase I've ever made. I honestly wish they figured out ways to make that version 299 because it's possibly the best gaming machine ever made. PS1, PS2, and PS3 games, Linux-supported, 4 USB slots, Compact Flash slot, SD memory slot, Memory Pro slot, Wi-Fi, it's absolutely the all-in-one entertainment room centerpiece that Sony envisioned, and they've been slowly chipping away at it over time, because everyone in the media complained about the price. People still bought it despite the price - it sold better than the 360 did in its first 3 years, they had to drop the price to 199 to start outselling the ps3 again and that's come to an end even though the ps3 is still 100 more expensive. Despite all of that the media still made it look like it was a failure.

Anyway, I guess I can't really knock Sony for it - I got my 60GB model and they're still out there refurbished/used for cheap if anyone really wants it. I guess they just had to make it more accessible and that's what they did.

Shadow Bahamut
11-27-2009, 09:52 AM
agreed Bolivar. the 60gb was the masterpiece that sony said the ps3 was going to be, and its a shame they stopped production after 2 years (? not sure) of the 60gb model. it had everything. Yes, it was pricey, but look at the prices of BluRay players at the same time the ps3 was released. They must've been around $400 alone, which in my mind made the ps3 a bargain!

and if the media should've made any PS3 version look like a failure, it should have been the old 20gb model. Not that it was a failure, but compared to the premium model, it was barely comparible (see Bolivar's 60gb spec above). None of the models now have that spec.

and the people that buy the new model as well as having the old one are a little crazy... why spend that much money when you've already got what the new model has? technologically anyhow...

Slothy
11-27-2009, 11:43 AM
Because remodels do more than just get new people to buy it. It gets people that own the original model to get the new model as well.

GBA, GBA SP, GBA Micro are a great example

THE JACKAL

This would probably be the largest reason why. I mean let's face it, Nintendo have been remodeling hardware since the original Gameboy and it's never failed to get them more sales.


The parts are cheaper for manufacturing. The parts they used in the PS3's up until the Slim were bigger and more expensive, not to mention used more power.

That's not totally true. In fact, since launch the PS3's Processor and GPU have undergone die shrinks to make them less expensive to produce and use less power. They did shrink the Cell to 45nm again with the Slim but there's no reason they couldn't have done that with the original form factor. Of course what you do have happening if you keep that up with the original design is a console with a lot of extra space inside as the CPU, GPU, and Power Supply continue to shrink. I'd say that's the most likely technical reason for the redesign. You save on materials and parts by reducing the size since a bigger machine is unnecessary.


Yes, it was pricey, but look at the prices of BluRay players at the same time the ps3 was released. They must've been around $400 alone, which in my mind made the ps3 a bargain!

Actually, if I remember correctly, Blu-Ray players were all more expensive than the PS3 at launch at around $1,000. I know for certain it was being pushed as the cheapest Blu-Ray player on the market at the time.

Shadow Bahamut
11-27-2009, 01:43 PM
Actually, if I remember correctly, Blu-Ray players were all more expensive than the PS3 at launch at around $1,000. I know for certain it was being pushed as the cheapest Blu-Ray player on the market at the time.

i do suppose this is one reason why sales have dropped, since bluray players are now a LOT cheaper than what they used to be.
It was one of the biggest sales factors on the ps3 launch, and it worked. Maybe Sony should try some more of their incredible innovation and create something new for the ps3? rather than keep in trend by re-designing an existing model? Maybe try to make it somewhat more "pc" compatible, to complete the "entertainment center in-one" sort of package ( i know you can install Yellowdog Linux, but the last experience i had with Linux, you needed to be a genius to use it)...although i doubt that would ever happen.

Infact, i just thought of something...
As a kid, i alwayds wanted one of those game headsets which is basically like a 3-d tv on your head with 360deg visuals, those would be awesome for FPS'. Imagine those, coupled with the PS3 and HD1080p graphics - i think that would = legend.

i do understand size reduction is cheaper than to keep making over-sized models, but i didnt think the chips were much smaller. i was obviously wrong..

I wonder if the bluray disc will ever be developed into a mini version like the standard cd was? that would make the disc drive even smaller, then we'd end up with a PS2 Slim-sized PS3 model.

The other concern i have about shrinking console sizes/chipset sizes is over-heating. I dont tend to like smaller stuff being crammed into smaller spaces, it has to work at the same rate, but it's a lot smaller - logically this would generate more heat. Or is this assumption wrong?

Slothy
11-27-2009, 02:20 PM
I wonder if the bluray disc will ever be developed into a mini version like the standard cd was? that would make the disc drive even smaller, then we'd end up with a PS2 Slim-sized PS3 model.

I won't say we'll never see mini-Blu Ray discs, but I doubt we'll ever see a PS3 using smaller discs. Then you pretty much cut out the used market for the newer model that can't take the larger discs.


The other concern i have about shrinking console sizes/chipset sizes is over-heating. I dont tend to like smaller stuff being crammed into smaller spaces, it has to work at the same rate, but it's a lot smaller - logically this would generate more heat. Or is this assumption wrong?

The assumption seems logical but it is wrong. A side benefit of shrinking the die size of the CPU and GPU (aside from saving on materials and waste) is that they actually use less power to do the same work. Since they use less power they generate less heat, and the power supply is also smaller and has a lower output, reducing the heat it creates as well. As a result, you can pack them into a smaller space and not have to worry too much about overheating so long as the case design allows for sufficient cooling.

The original PS3 design would range from 170-200 watts in power consumption when playing games, but by the time the last large model PS3 came out they were down to 90-120W. That's practically half, and the subsequent Cell shrink that came with the Slim model apparently reduced that even farther.

Shadow Bahamut
11-27-2009, 03:42 PM
^ thanks for the info Vivi. i guess technology can defy logic after all lol :p

Croyles
12-02-2009, 06:52 AM
Because they could seize the opportunity to basicly relaunch it, also changing the marketing style.

Cheaper + more efficient parts = less expensive for us = more sales.

It means the market stays competitive between consoles. This is a good thing.