Monster-capacity PS3 in the pipeline?
Rumours claims 120GB or 160GB version coming
Sony may soon phase out sales of its 80GB PlayStation 3, in favour of either a 120GB or 160GB capacity package, also featuring the long-awaited DualShock 3 controller.
An alleged mole close to Sony has confirmed to Arstechnica that the 80GB model is to be phased out to make way for a higher-capacity replacement. The source claimed that either a 120GB or a 160GB PS3 are the likely candidates for the 80GB model's successor, to be sold at the same price.
If you’re thinking, 'Hold on, I was never offered an 80GB PS3 anyway', it’s because the model was only ever available in the US and a couple of other countries, but not Europe. But if the rumours are right then it’s possible that the UK may also take delivery of the larger-capacity PS3 package.
The source also hinted at the appearance of the DualShock 3 controller, which features a dual-rumble facility. So far, only Japan has taken delivery of the controller, but it's expected to come to the US and Europe this year.
Sony has already confirmed that it’s phasing out sales of the 20GB and 60GB PS3 in Japan. It hasn’t stated the official reason behind its decision, but many gamers have since speculated that it’s because the company wants to concentrate on selling the 40GB model over there.
Re: @Steve Barnes, re: PS3 sans HDD
Erm, I think that's what Sony HAVE done. Most people dont consider 40gb much, so if you want to put loads of music or videos on your HDD, buy a giant 250 / 320GB drive and put it in with ease, if not, stick with the 40gb drive (which is small by almost anyone's standards) and you can save games, install games, wallpapers etc. And Sony would struggle to sell a PS3 that REQUIRED a hard drive to function without a Hard Drive included legally, as it is not fit for the use when it's bought that way.
@Steve Barnes, re: PS3 sans HDD
If Sony sold a cheaper PS3 without a HDD in, but still forced us to put one in there to do anything that would be fine by me. Then the people that just want a 20Gb data store for holding firmware updates, save games and a couple of disc caches for PS3 titles or whatever could do so, and those that want a massive 250Gb store of every divx file they own can have it their way.
When I bought a PS2 I had to pay extra for a memory card, and those don't do much without one. The thing is, as much as Sony's scattergun attempts to find a PS3 that matches what most people want have brought about more different models than I can care to count right now, any individual market has only had one or two to pick from at any time. Right now, it's damned hard to find anything other than the cut-down 40Gb model in the UK, for instance.
So many playstation 3 versions
So it looks to me like they have the following models
PS3 home basic
PS3 home premium
... is that about right?
Even Paris would be confused by that lot!
@ Andy Bright
Quote : 'If you like your PS2 games that much, save yourself some money and keep your PS2.'
We've already worked that out for ourselves thank you. I think that is part of Sony's problem, (well, that and the Wii and 360 devouring its market share).
People are holding onto their old kit for the very reason that they DO like their old games, (who wants to have built up a library of hundreds of pounds worth of games only to find that they're then expected to pack them away, never to be played again?). This is an especially important thing to think about when you consider it is a good 18 months since the release of the PS3, and only now are there a handful of half-decent games available for the system.
Why do you think Sony is peppering the market trying to find a model of the PS3 that people will actually buy in any great numbers? This is obviously barring the more easily influenced (brainwashed?) of us, who'd not only feel obliged to buy a turd if it had a Sony logo on it, but also claim that it was then sleeker, featured better content and ran faster (!) than all the other turds out there.
My guess is that somewhere down the line, although backwards compatibility is 'no longer going to be a feature of the PS3', the online Playstation store will suddenly come up with some form emulator, and start selling the PS2 games you USED to own (but then sold), ensuring many of their customers pay twice for the same product. (Don't believe me? See also PSP emulation of PS1 games).
Bascially, I'll continue to vote with my wallet whilst Sony continue to insist their European customers bend over and think of Ken Kutaragi.
Incidentally, for those who can't quite work it out for themselves, the reason why 'Sony-bashing seems to be so popular at the moment' is because since the release of the original Playstation, Sony undoubtedly built up a huge and loyal customer base, (who bought PS2s en masse, despite it not being the best of the last gen machines).
It would appear that this loyal customer base is now becoming quite angry and disenfranchised, (especially those of us who have the misfortune to live in Europe), as they basically see Sony's recent actions as a kick in the teeth as a reward for their continued custom.
To coin a phrase, this whining from people who don't seem to recognise they are being stiffed is irritating to say the least.
Re: Hardware PS2 compatibility
Two reasons why the PS3 backwards compatibility is important:
- upscaling. PS2 games look much better when played on a PS3
- one less box under my TV. It's already too crowded in there!