[nick_phizz]

Quote

Sony announces new PS3 Slim, coming first week of Sept.

Don't ask why, but I was on the Myspace home page for some reason, and I saw an ad for the PS3, but it looked different...


We know, we're as shocked as you are! Sony has used the GamesCom stage in Cologne to announce the oh-so-tiny PS3 Slim. The good news is that the system sports both a slimmer form factor (33 percent smaller, 36 percent lighter and 34 percent less power use) a 120GB hard drive and the tidy price tag of $299 (or €299, £249, and ¥29,980). It boasts all the same features as the current PS3, which means still no backwards compatibility with your PS2 games.

If you've been holding off on buying a chunkier PS3 until the inevitable release of its slimmer little brother, your wait will finally end in September.

Here's a link to the site with the info from a quick google search.

This is where I got some of the pictures from.

[Kvitne]

Old news is fucking OLD. I'm just surprised Arc didn't already post a topic about it.

[C.Joker]

I'll be buying one once my crummy little town gets them in stock. I've been away from the modern generation of gaming for far too long.

[???????]

Old news or no, I'm glad he brought this up, because I sure as hell haven't heard about it. I'm kinda glad I haven't had a chance to get a PS3 yet because of this.

[KennEH!]

I would get one if I didn't already own a 360.

[NiGHTS Noob]

I'd get one if I didn't have an irrational hatred for Sony and refused to buy any of their products new. I get every Sony system or game for said systems used in some way or another. I just don't like Sony.

[nick_phizz]

NiGHTS Noob, on 02 September 2009 - 09:26 PM, said:

.ynoS ekil t'nod tsuj I .rehtona ro yaw emos ni desu smetsys dias rof emag ro metsys ynoS yreve teg I .wen stcudorp rieht fo yna yub ot desufer dna ynoS rof dertah lanoitarri na evah t'ndid I fi eno teg d'I

Any particular reason?

[Master of AFTER]

The Path to Success, Step One: "Lower the price of your system to something people can actually afford."
Status: COMPLETE

The Path to Success, Step Two: "Release some exclusive games for your system that people actually want to play."
Status: INCOMPLETE

Someone call me when Sony is two for two.

[NiGHTS Noob]

nick_phizz, on 02 September 2009 - 11:10 PM, said:

Any particular reason?

I don't like the way they conducted their business when they first entered the race. SEGA did the whole mud sling advertising thing, but it had some truth to it, the Genesis was significantly more powerful than the NES and the processor, while not "Blast Processing" was faster than the SNES's. Sony just came in and just pulled a bunch of dick moves. They hooked up with Nintendo to make a disc system, and then demanded shared rights to all of Nintendo's characters in return, they went and purposely dropped the price of the PS1 right after SEGA dropped the Saturn twice (like they could have dropped it anytime, but they purposely timed it to make the Saturn look bad), and they released the PS2's specs way before they should have, they didn't even have prototype systems or anything, it was all speculation, and they did it just to fuck with the Dreamcast.

They purposely went out of their way time and again to fuck with the other companies instead of just trying to beat them out in a standard arms race of gaming, and I don't like that at all. They didn't have to play fair and square, but they just went way too low at some points to keep my respect.

[KJ]

I don't understand why Sony has to release a smaller version of their consoles all the time. It's exactly the same as the bigger version, except for the price cut, which would be perfectly fine for the bigger version. Is the size of a console REALLY that big of a drawback?

[NiGHTS Noob]

Makes sense with the handheld, not so much with the console, but they've been doing it since the PS1 days.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, all consoles have been doing it forever. Genesis model 2 and 3, SNES v2, Saturn 2. You could technically count a few others too, like the 360 elite and the NES top loader.

This post has been edited by NiGHTS Noob: 05 September 2009 - 02:30 AM

[???????]

It is a drawback in some cases. Do either of you remember just how big the PS3 is? I'd say that releasing a slimmer, cheaper version of the console is reasonable here.

[C.Joker]

I just bought mine yesterday. I don't have any games for it right now, but I've been running around in Home, and downloading various game demos. I actually feel like I'm finally apart of the modern gaming world again, now that I have a next-gen system all to myself.

[Rugdog]

I will probably never Buy a PS3. Just do to the simple fact that when it launched Ken Kutaragi ( I think that's his name, the president of sony playstation) basically said. "OH, people will buy it Because it is Playstation.".. giving off the attitude that they were/are better than everybody else and "Fak you guys for thinking differently".

That's not good marketing in my opinion. You should have focused on your games, not the fact that you're technologically superior. I liked the PS2 and 1 way more because it had plenty of Awesome games that weren't available on the other guys. Also Got Burned with the PSP. NOT ENOUGH support while I had it...and Now they changed it too..

OK so I MIGHT Buy a ps3... Eventually... But not for a while unless they straiten up, get some exclusives, and fix their online.

[Kvitne]

^ This. The only reason I got a PS2 was because there were so many games that I wanted to play on the console. Taking a look at the PS3... not so much. This is where Sony has failed.

["That Other Guy"]

The only reason I would buy a PS3 is for the exclusives. Ratchet and Clank, InFamous, and the Joker section of Batman: Arkham Asylum, to name a few.

Maybe if I had more money...

[C.Joker]

I bought a Playstation 3 because I don't like the Wii, and the Xbox 360 is a shitty system. This is coming from someone who was a diehard fan of the original Xbox, and wanted so much to be able to get behind the 360. I love Halo. It's the only first person shooter that I can really get into. I didn't want to give that game up. But when every single person I personally know that bought a 360 got a red ring of death at some point (between five to ten people), I realized that I just wasn't willing to spend my money on an unreliable system. One of those friends has owned three copies of the system, all of them eventually getting the red ring. Another who sent his system in got a new system with a disc tray that would get stuck and not open. Another friend, after sending the red-ringed system in, was sent a 360 that crashed at the start of any cutscene in any game. My Super Nintendo is still in top condition, and I bought that eighteen years ago. The 360 is the first video game system I've ever seen that has an expiration date. Sorry, but I'm not spending money on that.

So that's why I'm a PS3 person. Not because of any brand loyalty or even any love for the system itself, but because the only real alternative is a piece of garbage. I could care less about what kind of attitude Sony has about their system, because they can actually back it up with reliable hardware.

This post has been edited by C.Joker: 06 September 2009 - 02:31 AM

[Arc]

The PS3 has done a pretty crappy job at getting a better market share. It is growing, but if you look at the releases for all the system the 360 isn't getting that many exclusives. Pound for pound PS3 and 360 have a very comparable library save your Halo 3 and some DLC that will eventually stop being exclusive. The difference between the PS3 and 360's libraries are more people bought a 360 first. Thus it naturally does better, big surprise? To add to this you have the PS3 with its many processors and the 360 with like what, 2? Thus if a game is first built for the 360, it has to be rebuilt for the PS3 to optimize its hardware. The smaller market share fucks it, and thus some games turn out looking poorer on the PS3.

Games built with the PS3 in mind first tend to be better on the PS3? Why the processors and the code that goes behind the multiprocessor work load. Also given the scope of developing for the PS3 the 360 doesn't take as much of a hit because it is easier to go down in the number of processors than it is to go up.

[NiGHTS Noob]

Actually, the 360 has 3 processors, and the PS3 has I think 8, plus the 360 has boatloads more Ram, kind of like how the Dreamcast had more Vram than the PS2 so a lot of the games that were converted before they got used to the hardware looked really shitty.

Just saying, combining both of those factors and it's even more obvious as to why it's so difficult to port.